LOS and Going to Ground

[thecactusman17]

I'm going to present this situation as neutrally as possible. After you read it, you will likely realize that neither side was "neutral" about this when it came up on what we expected to be the last turn during a key moment of the game.

Player A is holding an objective behind upper chest-high cover. His models must stay more or less in place or he loses the objective and the game goes from tie to loss against.

Player B approaches the unit in question from an angle that makes it so that he can see through to the single model in coherency to the objective, but no other models. He opens fire.

Player A Goes to Ground, taking the option of laying his models on their side as allowed by the Rule Book.

Player B opens fire with a second squad behind the first which has the same LOS issue--he can only see into the same sliver of terrain for the one key model. But with the models on their side, the unit cannot directly see the model. Player A argues that since Player B cannot see the model, he does not have Line Of Sight

Does placing the model on the ground change LOS for the unit for rules purposes?

I am asking if anyone has information from the rulebook regarding this. In the Going To Ground/Pinned rules, there is no statement either way regarding what this may do to LOS. But it does explicitly allow placing models on their side as an alternative to placing a marker.

[Melissia]

Player B [...] opens fire.

Player A Goes to Ground

I think the order you said this answers your question. What matters is the range and LoS when you nominate the target to fire, not the range and LoS after they've gone to ground. Going to ground is a reaction to shooting, not something that prevents shooting altogether.

[Bean]

That's true for the first squad to fire, Melissia, but not for subsequent squads firing on the same target.

If I understood the OP correctly, Player B fired at Squad A with one unit (we'll call it Squad B1). Squad A went to ground and Squad B1's shots were resolved against it normally (though, obviously, with the additional cover bonus of having gone to ground.

Then, Player B tried to fire at Squad A with a second unit (we'll call it Squad B2). Player A noted that, in their now-tipped-down state, the models in Squad A were no longer visible to the models in Squad B2 (even though they were visible before being tipped down.)

The question, then, is whether this second squad--squad B2--is denied shots because Squad A's going to ground modified their physical profiles on the tabletop such that they were not visible to Squad B2 when it became Squad B2's turn to fire.

The answer, as far as I'm aware, is that Player A is correct. The rulebook does actually allow you to "lay the models down" when their unit goes to ground. The rulebook does also state that an attacking model must be able to see a model in its target unit in order to fire on that unit. The rulebook does not, as far as I'm aware, make contain any caveats about treating "lain down" models as though they were actually standing for the purposes of line of sight.

Though it seems odd, cactusman, I'm pretty sure player A was right on this one. If a model is on its side, you have to be able to see it in its on-its-side position to shoot at it.

[DarkLink]

T
The answer, as far as I'm aware, is that Player A is correct. The rulebook does actually allow you to "lay the models down" when their unit goes to ground. The rulebook does also state that an attacking model must be able to see a model in its target unit in order to fire on that unit. The rulebook does not, as far as I'm aware, make contain any caveats about treating "lain down" models as though they were actually standing for the purposes of line of sight.


Right. Following TLOS, if you can't see it, you can't shoot it. Unless you've got a barrage weapon, but I digress.

If the rulebook allows you to lay down models after going to ground, and laying them down prevents the opposing player from drawing LOS to them, then they can't shoot them.

[Culven]

Since the rulebook allows the models to be laid down, I would say that LOS would be affected. I also want to remind everyone that just because the only visible model is the one keeping the unit in range of the objective, that doesn't mean that it is the only model that could be removed as a casualty. So, in the presented scenario, it is actually irrelevant.

[BuFFo]

Does placing the model on the ground change LOS for the unit for rules purposes?

It is called TRUE LINE OF SIGHT for a reason! :eek:

Special rule exceptions aside, if you cannot see your target, you cannot fire at your target. :p :p

[Denzark]

OK how about this: I don't believe the book mandates that you MUST lay the models down. However I hate placing my models in any position other than baseto ground. If I declared going to ground, but didnt place on one side, would you be happy allowing me to say you had no LOS?

If not, why would you insist on going to ground to be the only action a miniature must physically do - you don't expect hand to hand to take place by smashing the minatures into each other like when you take your action man (GI Joe for the americans) and bounce him up and down on barbie doing your own porn film?

Believe the GW counter set had going to ground counters?

[Vindur]

Another question this raises is how do blast weapons work now that the bases are vertical

[DarkLink]

OK how about this: I don't believe the book mandates that you MUST lay the models down. However I hate placing my models in any position other than baseto ground. If I declared going to ground, but didnt place on one side, would you be happy allowing me to say you had no LOS?

If not, why would you insist on going to ground to be the only action a miniature must physically do - you don't expect hand to hand to take place by smashing the minatures into each other like when you take your action man (GI Joe for the americans) and bounce him up and down on barbie doing your own porn film?

Believe the GW counter set had going to ground counters?

You are right. You aren't required to lay models down. But then their heads will still be visible. TLOS is simple. Really simple. If you can see it, you can shoot it. If you can't see it, you can't shoot it. So if you don't lay your models down behind the wall, everyone can still see them. If you do lay them down behind the wall, no one can see them. Simple as that.

Now, if your opponent agrees to count them as laying down, that's fine. Thats a choice that you and your opponent get to make. No need to delve into rules issues when you can just agree with your opponent.

[MC Tic Tac]

Page 24:

Going to ground:

AFTER the enenmy has ROLLED to hit and WOUND against any of your units, but before you take any saves or remove any models....... etc...



Seems pretty clear the enemy shoots and rolls to wound and then the target unit goes to ground so the LOS hasn't changed at the point of fireing.

May well effect any units who shoot after the first, but the first unit shooting get's thier hits in at least.

[thecactusman17]

Thanks to everyone so far for their input. I would like to make note that the option to tip models over is an alternative to placing "a suitable marker." Which would seem to indicate to me that originally the idea of doing this for anything more than visual representation was not considered.

[Nabterayl]

Maybe, though it's not exactly ridiculous that a unit behind a chest-high wall that has gone to ground cannot be seen anymore. So I wouldn't be too quick to put this in the "unintended consequences" category.

[Lerra]

Vindur raises a good point about the location of the base. If the model is on its side, the base is vertical and could be either in front or behind the model. How does that work with templates and range? Do you still need to measure to the base?

When models go to ground, does it matter where the base ends up (front or back the model, etc)?

[Nabterayl]

Well, if you wanted to be hyper-literal about it, the base is the base is the base no matter what it looks like from the top down, and however you tip your models over is however you tip your models over. I'm sure the game could be played this way, and it's not all that weird - after all, units that "go to ground" should be harder to hit with templates of all kinds, and should scatter somewhat. Not the way I'd prefer to play, but I don't think anything here breaks the rules.

[Gir]

I believe the laying down of the model is simply to represent going to ground. LOS stays the same as before. All G2G represents is the unit ducking down to get more in cover, and weapons can still blast through this cover. G2G to stop line of sight is just being a dick, and the easiest way to prevent it is to use markers.

[Dorsai]

Well, having served in the military and done the whole Incoming! drills with artillery simulators (got out before this current round of fun in the Mid East.) I can honestly say that when a unit lays down in the dirt, it drastically effects how a rifle or similar weapon can draw a bead on them. Grenades, mortars, artillery and such will still get them the same, if not worse. So I would have to argue that when the second unit shot at them, if it could see any part of a model then they could shoot, but the unit under fire should get a decent cover save. Like 2+ or 3+.

[DarkLink]

And from my rather extensive paintballing experience (it's how my friends and I spent our high school years:D), I agree. When rounds are coming your way, you can squeeze yourself down remarkably well, and even a tiny bit of cover can give you a lot of protection.

Of course, paintballs can't go through bushes...

[Bean]

OK how about this: I don't believe the book mandates that you MUST lay the models down. However I hate placing my models in any position other than baseto ground. If I declared going to ground, but didnt place on one side, would you be happy allowing me to say you had no LOS?

If not, why would you insist on going to ground to be the only action a miniature must physically do - you don't expect hand to hand to take place by smashing the minatures into each other like when you take your action man (GI Joe for the americans) and bounce him up and down on barbie doing your own porn film?

Believe the GW counter set had going to ground counters?

I would insist on the models being tipped over--at least long enough for me to verify that my models actually do not have line of sight to them when they are tipped over.

I would not insist on going to ground being the only action a model must physically do. You can get the nominal benefit of going to ground--the part about the cover saves--without tipping them over, if you like. The rules just also happen to offer you the option of physically altering the positions of your gone-to-ground models in a manner which might be advantageous. If you want to gain an advantage from physically altering the positions of your models, you must actually physically alter their positions.

Failing to tip them down but still claiming that they cannot be seen because "they wouldn't be visible if they were tipped down" is pretty much identical to failing to move them in the movement phase, but claiming that they are six inches away from where they actually are because "they would be there if I'd moved them." To get the benefit of a particular physical positioning of a model, that model must actually be in that actual physical position.

I don't think that's unreasonable at all.





Another question this raises is how do blast weapons work now that the bases are vertical


It doesn't really matter what orientation the bases have relative to the ground or the blast template--if part of the base is positioned under the blast template, the model is hit. If not, then the model is not hit. Being tipped down will have the effect of modifying the top-down profile of a model's base, which may make that model less likely to be hit by blast weapons.

Again, I don't think this is an unreasonable effect for the Going to Ground rule to have, whether it was an intentional feature or not.

Note, too, that a blast weapon only hits a model if the model's base is under the template. The rest of the model doesn't count.

[thecactusman17]

I can think of a couple things though that might occur. Not the least of which is trying to reposition your models. Even if you had a "edge on the ground at all times" rule, you could effectively space out your models by maybe an extra inch or so with a well-planned G2G tip.

I respect your opinion, and that of the others here. I would like as many people to weigh in on this as possible. In fact, I encourage people to see what their opponent's responses are at their LGS.

Let's try this as an example (the top is bases stood as normal, the bottom is bases tipped over):
O- O
O- O
O- O
O- O
--V--

| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
--V--

In this case, the V is a flamer template. Notice how with the bases on their side, the template would go further before intersecting any bases when on the same path? And remember, those bases are elongated on the side up due to font size--realistically, the template may bypass one or two pairs entirely on the same path.

So essentially, this seems to show that tipping over the bases allows the opponent a free move action in response to shooting. Though in fairness it's somewhat limited in range and use.

Here's a question: If this Going To Ground move could potentially bring a model into coherency with an objective, would you allow it?

[Nabterayl]

I can think of a couple things though that might occur. Not the least of which is trying to reposition your models. Even if you had a "edge on the ground at all times" rule, you could effectively space out your models by maybe an extra inch or so with a well-planned G2G tip.

The corollary to that, of course, is that you might tip your unit out of coherency.

[Bean]

For what it's worth, Cactusman, I think that the "tipping the models down" rule is a terrible one--for precisely the reason you bring up: that the original position of the model is lost and that there aren't really any functional restrictions on how far it can effectively move when being tipped down.

Still, the rule is there and it's not really disputable. As long as what you do to your model can accurately be described as "laying it down" you're pretty much entirely within your rights to do it. Variances between gaming groups are really nothing more than house rules. The actual rules on this one are quite clear.

[thecactusman17]

Actually, coherency makes the problem worse. Becaue your models start the next turn out of coherency, you are required in the rulebook to move them back into coherency... at the start of your next movement phase!

Thus giving you a WHOLE EXTRA TURN of movement after going to ground.

[DarkLink]

Actually, coherency makes the problem worse. Becaue your models start the next turn out of coherency, you are required in the rulebook to move them back into coherency... at the start of your next movement phase!

Thus giving you a WHOLE EXTRA TURN of movement after going to ground.

Thats hilarious:D. You could intentionally tip them over so they're out of coherency, then claim their bases are more than 2" apart so they get to stand back up and move freely to get back into coherency.

I don't know if you could actually get someone to go along with that, but that made me laugh.

[Nabterayl]

Read the coherency rules and the pinning rules together. You're required to move into coherency at the start of your next Movement phase if you could otherwise move. If you've gone to ground and you find yourself out of coherency next Movement phase (e.g., through casualties) you don't get a free pass to stand up and move into coherency. You still don't move, and you're required to move into coherency next time you can move.

[DarkLink]

Read the coherency rules and the pinning rules together. You're required to move into coherency at the start of your next Movement phase if you could otherwise move. If you've gone to ground and you find yourself out of coherency next Movement phase (e.g., through casualties) you don't get a free pass to stand up and move into coherency. You still don't move, and you're required to move into coherency next time you can move.

I didn't think it would actually work, the though just made me laugh.

[thecactusman17]

I too suspected that something like this might occur. but even so, we're talking about .5-1 inch of movement dependant on base size and modeling.. I've seen some games come down to less.

Me and some friends had the idea of placing a single Necron Scarab on a Mumak base to mess with people. I'm just imagining the howls this would cause under these conditions :P

[Nod]

I think it's pretty straightforward that it's a visual indicator that they've gone to ground, not a gameplay benefit.

[Soam]

I think it's pretty straightforward that it's a visual indicator that they've gone to ground, not a gameplay benefit.

Yeah... Think about tipping over a heavy weapon squad.. Actually adds to the LOS...

[LoverzCry]

Another question this raises is how do blast weapons work now that the bases are vertical

I would personally use the body of the model on this, though the rules state that you always use the bas of the model for this. *shrugs* Part of that is just personal opinion, but I'm not sure how far that'd go in a tournament ; P

[Tynskel]

You guys do know that you don't have to 'tip the models over'-- a suitable marker works. p.24--- the rule is flexible in that you have to clearly announce to the opponent what is going on.

[Soam]

You guys do know that you don't have to 'tip the models over'-- a suitable marker works. p.24--- the rule is flexible in that you have to clearly announce to the opponent what is going on.

I believe this was discussed and accepted earlier in the post. The real question is can you use the model on its side as an advantage over the +1 to cover save. I.E. changing what has LOS to the unit and blast marker coverage. RaW I have no idea, BRB states you can do this, but does not clarify its effects on the now sideways models. Personally, if anyone tried to play this way I would pick up and leave.

[LoverzCry]

I agree Soam, that'd be total bollocks. But, I would say that they would gain the effects on LOS the turn afterwards, were they still in the same position. I know 40k isn't supposed to be realistic, but still, you'd assume a soldier who just ate dirt and dove, would be less of a target than one who was just chilling out in the open. I am also aware that this is what the +1 to cover save grants, but if you consider that if they're going to ground, then the other shots at them that turn are being taken as they're diving and are just shooting at the same time as the other squad. Then, the turn after, they either have no true target, or have one that is relatively less, making up my own word, shootable.

I know it might not be what the rules say exactly, but that's how I see it would be played if my opponent went to ground : / Never actually had to go to ground myself though. *shrugs* Always seemed like a weak decision : ) SPACE MARINES TO NOT MINGLE WITH THE DIRT! THEY DO POWER ARMOUR SQUATS TOWARDS THE ENEMY! *up-down-up-down---* ; P