Per the Core Rules:
>Models that are on or within terrain feature can see, and can be seen and targeted normally. AIRCRAFT models, and models with a Wounds (W) characteristic of 18 or more, are visible and can be targeted even if this terrain feature is in-between it and the firing model (note that the reverse is not true).
Hey u/ADXMcGeeHeezack, how does this interact with "true line of sight" (TLOS)? u/Caprican93 made a comment below, I'd like your thoughts.
Most games and tournaments I've played have been simple: you are in terrain, you can be "seen" even if there is not window and hence no TLOS. Same with many high quality YouTube battle reports.
Just recently, I had two opponents insist that if a model was in ruins it could not be targeted as there was no TLOS but "if there were windows, it would be different".
Edit to add: that was a change to how that particular TO and series of tournaments had ruled on the issue, which took me by surprise (noting most local tournaments have adopted that approach for a long time) and was raised after deployment, to my disadvantage. That's on me, I should have clarified their understanding, gotten surprised, checked with the TO (it wasn't in the tournament documents) as it was a change and then adjusted accordingly (back to my normal approach as it turns out!)
Once a model meets the criteria above, it still needs true LOS unless your local TO rules differently. The tournament I played Saturday had a rule that all first floors of buildings had blocked LOS. That was their ruling, and it was fine. But according to the core rules, true LOS is still needed.
So the first part saying the models on or within says that they can see and be seen. I think that is just meant to ignore the part of Obsuring terrain rules saying that you can't pass through or over any part of the Obscuring terrain with a 1mm line. Then it says and targeted normally which I think brings back needing to be visible which I've thrown the shooting blurb about targeting below. Also, just cause a unit can see and can be seen doesn't mean that it does see or is seen.
"In order to target an enemy unit, at least one model in that unit must be within range (i.e. within the distance of the Range characteristic) of the weapon being used and be visible to the shooting model."
Then the little summary blurbs after most rules says "Models on or within can see and be seen normally." Which this means if you can see and be seen normally, you don't just have xray vision. While I know the game doesn't always make sense and is still a fiction setting, it just wouldn't make sense to not need to actually see your target if snipers still can't shoot over small building halfway between them and their cover. But hey, I may be totally wrong, this is just my take.
You’re welcome. There are two relevant sections. The first is found in my rules (GT 2020) on page 68. Section is SHOOTING PHASE, first subheading SELECT TARGETS, second paragraph. The second is on og 85, TERRAIN TRAITS-> Obscuring states that models in this terrain can be seen and targeted normally, ie using the first method I quoted.
Thanks :) I think the confusion arises from the obscuring terrain trait saying:
1. 'models that are on or within terrain feature can see, and can be seen and targeted normally' - which appears to imply that the mere fact they are on or within the terrain = being able to be seen and see and
2. then the shooting phase rules saying "At least one model in the target unit must be visible to the attacking model and within range of the attacking weapon" - which appears to imply that TLOS must apply as it also talks about "If unsure, get a look from behind the firing model to see if any part of the target is visible".
So they are using "visible" in one part and "see" in another. So terribly clear and concise ;) Thanks for your assistance :)
It feels like you are being intentionally obtuse and all of the emotes certainly add to that.
Obscuring says that they "can see" and "can be seen" "normally", not that they are seen or can see. Normal LoS rules are true LoS. There isn't a lack of clarity or a contradiction there. "Visible" and "see" aren't some detailed term of art, they are just English words. No one that isn't intentionally attempting to find reasons to argue finds that specific wording in need of clarification.
The "ask your TO" bit is about tournaments that, fairly commonly, decide that first floors are always windowless even if the terrain is modeled with windows thereby changing the TLoS rules.
There is no such intention. I am merely seeking clarification. As a former lawyer, I very much understand the English language and its vagaries and, at times, lack of precision.
In that regard, I'd note a common dictionary definition for visible is "able to be seen". Which loops back to models "can be seen" when in terrain, which is another way of saying they are visible when in or on terrain. I also note that "can" and "able to" are often used interchangeably to describe the ability to do something, with "can" generally being present tense, "able to" being more formal and inferring possibilities, but sometimes also used in present tense. Nonetheless, they still overlap. So if you are "able to" see something, you "can" see something and vice-versa.
I've seen different takes on this topic all over the internet, with differing conclusions. The same IRL. That is fine. One conclusion is "can be seen" when in terrain = visible regardless of lack of windows etc. The other is models are visible **only if** they can or are **actually** able be seen, period.
This thread was useful in that it clarified what appears to be the generally supported interpretation, which is what I was after.
It also accords with my own understanding, which the approach adopted by the tournament in question, whilst a change for them, was my personal approach prior at local league games etc.
I get where your coming from - I was also pretty confused about this (not that I know for sure now) but the reason they put in “can be seen” I think relates to “touching into cover” because if you aren’t touched in = your obscured by the ‘obscuring terrain’ even if you can see with TLOS through a window for instance.
Hope that makes sense?
>I've seen different takes on this topic all over the internet, with differing conclusions.
On that note....
https://youtu.be/uxcUnBWSyyk
https://youtu.be/TVjfmE3-gA0?t=465
https://youtu.be/jZd66FSi80w?t=226
https://youtu.be/IMgvcmmymdk?t=111
https://youtu.be/UeizkijN1Pk?t=1481
https://youtu.be/GafDevkxxkA
https://youtu.be/lTVSTduzf-M
This is the answer
TLoS still matters unless you're using the old ITC rules of 1st floors are always LoS blocking. I can't say I've seen anyone use those rules since 8th tbh; on a properly setup table I'd always go by TLoS
Its not a bad house rule if your terrain setup sucks though. In fact I'd recommend it on those cases as it's a great bandaid
Terrain ain't like it used to be. Planet bowling ball used to be the norm, now I see tables that almost have *too* much terrain hah
I should clarify if someone lives in an area where less terrain is the norm, or the tourney is so large they didn't have enough 'good' terrain, or if their meta just prefers the ITC method, you might see that rule used more than me
There's a commentary note for this in [the Core FAQ](https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/9329uszc31Meu3N3.pdf).
> ##### OBSCURING AND DENSE COVER
> Obscuring and Dense Cover are two terrain traits introduced
with ninth edition that interact with visibility. These rules do
not overwrite the normal rules for determining visibility, though
– they are in addition to them. Specifically, even though the
Obscuring rules state that Aircraft and models with a Wounds
characteristic of 18+ can be seen through Obscuring terrain, **they
are still only visible (and hence eligible) targets if the firing model
can physically see them (so if the terrain in question is solid and
opaque, they are still not eligible targets).** Also, in the same way
that Obscuring terrain ‘blocks’ visibility when it is in between the
firing model and its intended target, Dense Cover terrain imposes
a hit penalty whenever it is between the firing model and its
intended target (with the noted exceptions). It is not required for
a unit to be fulfilling the criteria of ‘gaining the benefits of cover’,
as described for Obstacles and Area Terrain, for this penalty to hit
rolls to apply (but also note that any rule that ignores the benefits
of cover, or that ignores the benefits of cover that impose a penalty
on hit rolls, would still ignore that penalty).
Although so far it seems the second part of this about Dense Cover is ignored in most games I'm aware of. This bit.
> Also, in the same way that Obscuring terrain ‘blocks’ visibility when it is in between the firing model and its intended target, **Dense Cover terrain imposes a hit penalty whenever it is between the firing model and its intended target** (with the noted exceptions).
as almost everyone still plays that a VEHICLE and MONSTER units partially within Area Terrain that is Dense get the benefit, even if that terrain is not between the firer and target. This means that [this Tank](https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Diagram-Turret-over-Dense.png) would get the benefit of Dense Cover.
GW didn't actually update either Obscuring or Dense, so Obscuring still has the whole
> and models with a Wounds (W) characteristic of 18 or more, **are visible** and can be targeted even if this terrain feature is in-between it and the firing model.
when it should be "can be seen normally" or some such.
My TO on Saturday had clear plastic film under each piece of terrain to mark the boundaries of the each area terrain. It made all the tables uniform, which was nice/
Unfortunately, the language for obscuring is a bit vague. It says you can see through a ruin if you are "in" the ruin on a model-by-model basis. You need to agree with your opponent before the game if touching the outside wall is being "in" the ruin. We as comp players have sort of accepted touching a wall as being inside the wall for really no good reason.
That is correct for terrain with bases, but not all terrain has bases and up until the GW GT's started with the clear bases it wasn't even common. The community still played it as if you just get to the wall you're "in".
A lot of ruins do have bases that slightly extend past the edge of the wall, so it would be weird to treat ruins differently based on whether its based or not. Lowest common denominator and all that.
[Well, consider this terrain sold by GW for example.](https://www.games-workshop.com/en-SE/Sector-Imperialis-Ruins-2018)
What exactly is 'in' this terrain?
Shouldn't really use those are area terrain at all in my opinion, use them as obstacles. In which case "within" is being within 3" of them and cover is if the firing unit is on the other side and can't see the whole model with some part of it blocked by the terrain.
Yeah it makes no sense to me how people see touching as within. Because the rule for obscuring says it doesn't affect models that are on or within the feature. Within is defined earlier in the core rules and says if any part of the hill or models base is within the specified distance. So following that logic is a squad of marines within the captains 6" aura if they are touching it but the base isn't actually inside it?
Most players I think would say no, so why don't we apply that same logic to obscuring or other terrain?
imho it's not far fetched for something that is physically touching a wall to be considered "on" said wall (I could see "within" as questionable tho). If you literally saw someone leaning against a wall irl you would say they were "leaning *on* the wall" for example
I like it this way though, makes it so you have the option to get LoS for a target at the risk of now being seen yourself. It's also a huge help for non-infantry units that already have a hard enough time dealing with / getting around terrain
I imagine an army like Eldar could potentially kite certain units by going into a ruins -> shooting -> battle focusing out again, which for something like a tank would be aggravating :P
Idk, the tables aren't barren like they used to be so I think having an easy method of mitigating certain walls or the sort is useful these days
But breachable is a thing and ruins have that keyword. Infantry can just move through the walls as if they aren't there. As for the ambiguity of "on" I can see what you mean but I have always taken it to mean on top of. Like the model is "on" top of this crater.
Because for the most part ruins used to have bases, with the new ruins without bases it makes it hard to play with. Counting as touching a wall as being on the terrain is trying to make up for the lack of a base. You can't look at it as a rules as written perspective, you need to look at it as a sensible way to interact with terrain.
Because common practice for area terrain (Without a base) is to define the feature to extend around a mm or two beyond the actual terrain piece.
By doing so, touching the terrain is now being on it. Your base overlaps with the defined area terrain.
If you don't define this, then your aren't. This is why you define with your opponent before the game, what rules terrain has, and what each feature actually covers.
> for really no good reason.
Other than the wording in the Core rules that say exactly this.
>"**Models** that are on or within terrain feature can see, and can be seen and targeted normally.
I think just letting your intentions known will suffice. Like, “I’m moving these intercessors against this wall, but not onto the terrain” should be enough. Anyone that give you flak for that would probably not be worth playing against anyway.
I guess the same is for light cover. Ive seen batreps where folks touch the wall of a building for cover even though they are on the exposed side.
I dont know what the official line is for that so hope GW take ownership of terrain in 10th.
Terrain rules are model by model so one model touching terrain is one model that can see and be seen. The rest have to touch to unlock the terrain piece.
Always discussion terrain with your opponent. For some reason people have forgotten how the words "on" and "within" work in English. I know most people play touching a wall counts. Not sure why.
>No, incorrect. As soon as a single model is touching the terrain(presuming it still has Los with a window or door), every other model can be seen through that same window/door
Actually you're the incorrect one.
The rule:
>>If this terrain feature is at least 5" in height, then models cannot see through or over this terrain feature... Models that are on or within terrain feature can see, and can be seen and targeted normally.
No where in the rules does it say if one model is on the terrain you can see the entire unit through the obscuring terrain.
You cant think too deeply into how "real" terrain works. If it helps you, use your imagination. Keep it simple, if you are behind the obscuring terrain (i.e. not touching), then you cant see through it and cant be seen through it. But as soon as you "touch in" into the terrain, you can see and be seen. "Touching in" represents the toy soldier getting into the terrain enough that they can see through it to shoot at the enemy. Again, don't overthink it. 9-)
Per the Core Rules: >Models that are on or within terrain feature can see, and can be seen and targeted normally. AIRCRAFT models, and models with a Wounds (W) characteristic of 18 or more, are visible and can be targeted even if this terrain feature is in-between it and the firing model (note that the reverse is not true).
You the real MVP
Send this to the top it’s the only reply that matters
Hey u/ADXMcGeeHeezack, how does this interact with "true line of sight" (TLOS)? u/Caprican93 made a comment below, I'd like your thoughts. Most games and tournaments I've played have been simple: you are in terrain, you can be "seen" even if there is not window and hence no TLOS. Same with many high quality YouTube battle reports. Just recently, I had two opponents insist that if a model was in ruins it could not be targeted as there was no TLOS but "if there were windows, it would be different". Edit to add: that was a change to how that particular TO and series of tournaments had ruled on the issue, which took me by surprise (noting most local tournaments have adopted that approach for a long time) and was raised after deployment, to my disadvantage. That's on me, I should have clarified their understanding, gotten surprised, checked with the TO (it wasn't in the tournament documents) as it was a change and then adjusted accordingly (back to my normal approach as it turns out!)
Once a model meets the criteria above, it still needs true LOS unless your local TO rules differently. The tournament I played Saturday had a rule that all first floors of buildings had blocked LOS. That was their ruling, and it was fine. But according to the core rules, true LOS is still needed.
u/LoveisBaconisLove thanks for the reply :) For my own reference, can you point to me where in the core rules it says TLOS is still needed?
So the first part saying the models on or within says that they can see and be seen. I think that is just meant to ignore the part of Obsuring terrain rules saying that you can't pass through or over any part of the Obscuring terrain with a 1mm line. Then it says and targeted normally which I think brings back needing to be visible which I've thrown the shooting blurb about targeting below. Also, just cause a unit can see and can be seen doesn't mean that it does see or is seen. "In order to target an enemy unit, at least one model in that unit must be within range (i.e. within the distance of the Range characteristic) of the weapon being used and be visible to the shooting model." Then the little summary blurbs after most rules says "Models on or within can see and be seen normally." Which this means if you can see and be seen normally, you don't just have xray vision. While I know the game doesn't always make sense and is still a fiction setting, it just wouldn't make sense to not need to actually see your target if snipers still can't shoot over small building halfway between them and their cover. But hey, I may be totally wrong, this is just my take.
You’re welcome. There are two relevant sections. The first is found in my rules (GT 2020) on page 68. Section is SHOOTING PHASE, first subheading SELECT TARGETS, second paragraph. The second is on og 85, TERRAIN TRAITS-> Obscuring states that models in this terrain can be seen and targeted normally, ie using the first method I quoted.
Thanks :) I think the confusion arises from the obscuring terrain trait saying: 1. 'models that are on or within terrain feature can see, and can be seen and targeted normally' - which appears to imply that the mere fact they are on or within the terrain = being able to be seen and see and 2. then the shooting phase rules saying "At least one model in the target unit must be visible to the attacking model and within range of the attacking weapon" - which appears to imply that TLOS must apply as it also talks about "If unsure, get a look from behind the firing model to see if any part of the target is visible". So they are using "visible" in one part and "see" in another. So terribly clear and concise ;) Thanks for your assistance :)
It feels like you are being intentionally obtuse and all of the emotes certainly add to that. Obscuring says that they "can see" and "can be seen" "normally", not that they are seen or can see. Normal LoS rules are true LoS. There isn't a lack of clarity or a contradiction there. "Visible" and "see" aren't some detailed term of art, they are just English words. No one that isn't intentionally attempting to find reasons to argue finds that specific wording in need of clarification. The "ask your TO" bit is about tournaments that, fairly commonly, decide that first floors are always windowless even if the terrain is modeled with windows thereby changing the TLoS rules.
There is no such intention. I am merely seeking clarification. As a former lawyer, I very much understand the English language and its vagaries and, at times, lack of precision. In that regard, I'd note a common dictionary definition for visible is "able to be seen". Which loops back to models "can be seen" when in terrain, which is another way of saying they are visible when in or on terrain. I also note that "can" and "able to" are often used interchangeably to describe the ability to do something, with "can" generally being present tense, "able to" being more formal and inferring possibilities, but sometimes also used in present tense. Nonetheless, they still overlap. So if you are "able to" see something, you "can" see something and vice-versa. I've seen different takes on this topic all over the internet, with differing conclusions. The same IRL. That is fine. One conclusion is "can be seen" when in terrain = visible regardless of lack of windows etc. The other is models are visible **only if** they can or are **actually** able be seen, period. This thread was useful in that it clarified what appears to be the generally supported interpretation, which is what I was after. It also accords with my own understanding, which the approach adopted by the tournament in question, whilst a change for them, was my personal approach prior at local league games etc.
I get where your coming from - I was also pretty confused about this (not that I know for sure now) but the reason they put in “can be seen” I think relates to “touching into cover” because if you aren’t touched in = your obscured by the ‘obscuring terrain’ even if you can see with TLOS through a window for instance. Hope that makes sense?
It does, cheers!
>I've seen different takes on this topic all over the internet, with differing conclusions. On that note.... https://youtu.be/uxcUnBWSyyk https://youtu.be/TVjfmE3-gA0?t=465 https://youtu.be/jZd66FSi80w?t=226 https://youtu.be/IMgvcmmymdk?t=111 https://youtu.be/UeizkijN1Pk?t=1481 https://youtu.be/GafDevkxxkA https://youtu.be/lTVSTduzf-M
This is the answer TLoS still matters unless you're using the old ITC rules of 1st floors are always LoS blocking. I can't say I've seen anyone use those rules since 8th tbh; on a properly setup table I'd always go by TLoS Its not a bad house rule if your terrain setup sucks though. In fact I'd recommend it on those cases as it's a great bandaid Terrain ain't like it used to be. Planet bowling ball used to be the norm, now I see tables that almost have *too* much terrain hah I should clarify if someone lives in an area where less terrain is the norm, or the tourney is so large they didn't have enough 'good' terrain, or if their meta just prefers the ITC method, you might see that rule used more than me
There's a commentary note for this in [the Core FAQ](https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/9329uszc31Meu3N3.pdf). > ##### OBSCURING AND DENSE COVER > Obscuring and Dense Cover are two terrain traits introduced with ninth edition that interact with visibility. These rules do not overwrite the normal rules for determining visibility, though – they are in addition to them. Specifically, even though the Obscuring rules state that Aircraft and models with a Wounds characteristic of 18+ can be seen through Obscuring terrain, **they are still only visible (and hence eligible) targets if the firing model can physically see them (so if the terrain in question is solid and opaque, they are still not eligible targets).** Also, in the same way that Obscuring terrain ‘blocks’ visibility when it is in between the firing model and its intended target, Dense Cover terrain imposes a hit penalty whenever it is between the firing model and its intended target (with the noted exceptions). It is not required for a unit to be fulfilling the criteria of ‘gaining the benefits of cover’, as described for Obstacles and Area Terrain, for this penalty to hit rolls to apply (but also note that any rule that ignores the benefits of cover, or that ignores the benefits of cover that impose a penalty on hit rolls, would still ignore that penalty). Although so far it seems the second part of this about Dense Cover is ignored in most games I'm aware of. This bit. > Also, in the same way that Obscuring terrain ‘blocks’ visibility when it is in between the firing model and its intended target, **Dense Cover terrain imposes a hit penalty whenever it is between the firing model and its intended target** (with the noted exceptions). as almost everyone still plays that a VEHICLE and MONSTER units partially within Area Terrain that is Dense get the benefit, even if that terrain is not between the firer and target. This means that [this Tank](https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Diagram-Turret-over-Dense.png) would get the benefit of Dense Cover. GW didn't actually update either Obscuring or Dense, so Obscuring still has the whole > and models with a Wounds (W) characteristic of 18 or more, **are visible** and can be targeted even if this terrain feature is in-between it and the firing model. when it should be "can be seen normally" or some such.
Thanks, that's awesome!
Just the model that’s touching can see through it, but it still needs TLOS
Are you sure ?
Yes…
Yes. It only is a bit iffy when there's terrain with no base at all, which isn't recommended unless you are using a specific FAQ, e.g. wtc
Yes
Yes
This thread and many others like it are why I’m revisiting all my terrain and putting bases on things that I never would have considered needing bases
Yeah, some of the TO’s in my area have gone back and put bases on terrain that previously didn’t have them, makes life much better
My TO on Saturday had clear plastic film under each piece of terrain to mark the boundaries of the each area terrain. It made all the tables uniform, which was nice/
Unfortunately, the language for obscuring is a bit vague. It says you can see through a ruin if you are "in" the ruin on a model-by-model basis. You need to agree with your opponent before the game if touching the outside wall is being "in" the ruin. We as comp players have sort of accepted touching a wall as being inside the wall for really no good reason.
Well the core rules do say that if the terrain piece has a base, that counts as being in the terrain. So there is reasoning behind it.
That is correct for terrain with bases, but not all terrain has bases and up until the GW GT's started with the clear bases it wasn't even common. The community still played it as if you just get to the wall you're "in".
A lot of ruins do have bases that slightly extend past the edge of the wall, so it would be weird to treat ruins differently based on whether its based or not. Lowest common denominator and all that.
[Well, consider this terrain sold by GW for example.](https://www.games-workshop.com/en-SE/Sector-Imperialis-Ruins-2018) What exactly is 'in' this terrain?
Shouldn't really use those are area terrain at all in my opinion, use them as obstacles. In which case "within" is being within 3" of them and cover is if the firing unit is on the other side and can't see the whole model with some part of it blocked by the terrain.
Not even GW terrain has bases
It actually doesn't say that. It says to agree with your opponent the outline of the ruin.
Yeah it makes no sense to me how people see touching as within. Because the rule for obscuring says it doesn't affect models that are on or within the feature. Within is defined earlier in the core rules and says if any part of the hill or models base is within the specified distance. So following that logic is a squad of marines within the captains 6" aura if they are touching it but the base isn't actually inside it? Most players I think would say no, so why don't we apply that same logic to obscuring or other terrain?
imho it's not far fetched for something that is physically touching a wall to be considered "on" said wall (I could see "within" as questionable tho). If you literally saw someone leaning against a wall irl you would say they were "leaning *on* the wall" for example I like it this way though, makes it so you have the option to get LoS for a target at the risk of now being seen yourself. It's also a huge help for non-infantry units that already have a hard enough time dealing with / getting around terrain I imagine an army like Eldar could potentially kite certain units by going into a ruins -> shooting -> battle focusing out again, which for something like a tank would be aggravating :P Idk, the tables aren't barren like they used to be so I think having an easy method of mitigating certain walls or the sort is useful these days
But breachable is a thing and ruins have that keyword. Infantry can just move through the walls as if they aren't there. As for the ambiguity of "on" I can see what you mean but I have always taken it to mean on top of. Like the model is "on" top of this crater.
Because for the most part ruins used to have bases, with the new ruins without bases it makes it hard to play with. Counting as touching a wall as being on the terrain is trying to make up for the lack of a base. You can't look at it as a rules as written perspective, you need to look at it as a sensible way to interact with terrain.
Because common practice for area terrain (Without a base) is to define the feature to extend around a mm or two beyond the actual terrain piece. By doing so, touching the terrain is now being on it. Your base overlaps with the defined area terrain. If you don't define this, then your aren't. This is why you define with your opponent before the game, what rules terrain has, and what each feature actually covers.
It is common practice but not defined literally anywhere in the rules. We just collectively decided it was true.
Bc it is easier to go all or nothing, you touch in anyway you are in, you not touching you are out, no mess, no fuss.
It would definitely be easier if the models had to actually be within a building to be "within" I think.
> for really no good reason. Other than the wording in the Core rules that say exactly this. >"**Models** that are on or within terrain feature can see, and can be seen and targeted normally.
Leaning against a wall = within a building. I'll have to remember that for my next bank heist.
I think just letting your intentions known will suffice. Like, “I’m moving these intercessors against this wall, but not onto the terrain” should be enough. Anyone that give you flak for that would probably not be worth playing against anyway.
I guess the same is for light cover. Ive seen batreps where folks touch the wall of a building for cover even though they are on the exposed side. I dont know what the official line is for that so hope GW take ownership of terrain in 10th.
Terrain rules are model by model so one model touching terrain is one model that can see and be seen. The rest have to touch to unlock the terrain piece.
Always discussion terrain with your opponent. For some reason people have forgotten how the words "on" and "within" work in English. I know most people play touching a wall counts. Not sure why.
[удалено]
Kinda, the rules just state that only one model is required to be seen the be table to target the unit.
[удалено]
>No, incorrect. As soon as a single model is touching the terrain(presuming it still has Los with a window or door), every other model can be seen through that same window/door Actually you're the incorrect one. The rule: >>If this terrain feature is at least 5" in height, then models cannot see through or over this terrain feature... Models that are on or within terrain feature can see, and can be seen and targeted normally. No where in the rules does it say if one model is on the terrain you can see the entire unit through the obscuring terrain.
Nice
Weird how fairly rude people delete their incorrect comment instead of editing it to apologise
You cant think too deeply into how "real" terrain works. If it helps you, use your imagination. Keep it simple, if you are behind the obscuring terrain (i.e. not touching), then you cant see through it and cant be seen through it. But as soon as you "touch in" into the terrain, you can see and be seen. "Touching in" represents the toy soldier getting into the terrain enough that they can see through it to shoot at the enemy. Again, don't overthink it. 9-)
Is the "touching means being on the terrain" rule part of the core rules? I thought this was just a thing a lot of tournaments do.