Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My question is does anyone know where in the rulebook it shows models shooting archs for like infantry and jetbikes? Im curious if a squat of reavers or eldar jetbikes have there back to a tank can they shoot it. As you cannot turn your characters in the shooting phase anymore.

Thanks for any input, in all the games ive played it came up for the first time this weekend.

Two things, the first is that it belongs in YMDC.

The second is that to answer your question, facings only apply to vehicle models. Thus, all non-vehicle models (including bikes, jetbikes, monstrous creatures, flying monstrous creatures, and whatever else you can think of) can shoot at any target in their line of sight, no matter which direction the model is facing.

As above, non-vehicle models have 360 degree visability. Or more specifically they can turn whenever they want.

This one is a bit tricky in 6th edition.

The basic rules for line of sight say that you draw it from a model's eyes (RB p8), but doesn't give you explicit permission to pivot a non-vehicle model whenever you want. It is implied in several places (e.g. p10, 'Turning and Facing', p49, 'Swooping Hunters', etc.), but never actually stated.

The best RAW argument for it that I have been able to find is that models ignore other models in the same unit for line of sight purposes. Since the shooting model is part of his own unit, he can ignore himself for LOS.

As I said: it's a bit tricky.

Ooh that makes sense so if you assault the rear of the unit will the be able to overwatch? An they wouldn't be in line of sight according to the book

From pages 8 and 10 its not directly stated but its seems to be implied on page 10 given the last sentence stating its 'better to' rather than must. Page 8's 'From the eyes' statement feels more narrative (given the direction 6th has taken) than literal. That said I'd play it same as 5th, non-vehicle models can pivot unaffected.

Thanks for the reposes, hopefully we will get a clear ruling in an errata from GW. Ill just play it as full pivot for now

 hazrd wrote:
Thanks for the reposes, hopefully we will get a clear ruling in an errata from GW. Ill just play it as full pivot for now

Given that they never bothered to clarify it through the entire lifespan of 5th edition (which was written with a much tighter ruleset overall than 6th) I wouldn't hold your breath,

\Whilst the direction a model is facing won't impact its ability to shoot or charge into combat later in the turn, it's always better to have it facing towards the enemy, just as it would on a real battlefield.

pg 10

You did not believe Hans on this one? Are you sore about my seer council shooting at something behind them

Its not that i didnt believe him, i just wanted to make sure it was correct. This makes reaver jetbikes and many other units more effective because i can line them up inbetween two units. Then if my ravagers get lucky and blow one up i can still shoot the 18 inch weapons directly behind them, even though rever jetbike guns done pivot. It doesnt matter to me how its played i just wanted to make sure it was right. I saw the measure from the eyes in the rulebook, and has to be in line of sight so i assumed it had to face correctly.

The mesure from the eyes thing caused so many headaches in 5th. There are a buch of units that don't have eyes.

 Gloomfang wrote:
The mesure from the eyes thing caused so many headaches in 5th. There are a buch of units that don't have eyes.

Yeah, they should have said eyes or where the players decide the visual organs would be.

 Gloomfang wrote:
The mesure from the eyes thing caused so many headaches in 5th. There are a buch of units that don't have eyes.

It did, but not for that reason. Nobody ever seriously thought that a model having no eyes was an issue for determining LOS.

The issue in 5th was simply for rules like Rage, where there was no clarification ever given as to how to determine what was in the model's view outside of the shooting phase.

 insaniak wrote:

 Gloomfang wrote:
The mesure from the eyes thing caused so many headaches in 5th. There are a buch of units that don't have eyes.

It did, but not for that reason. Nobody ever seriously thought that a model having no eyes was an issue for determining LOS.

The issue in 5th was simply for rules like Rage, where there was no clarification ever given as to how to determine what was in the model's view outside of the shooting phase.

Well that, and the Tesserect Labyrinth (sp?).