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.

I saw this interesting statement in a battle report here on dakkadakka.

Do you know WHY I always announce my intention for shooting during movement? How many times did I say "I think I have a clear shot from here to there...what do you think?" Its to avoid any issues that might arise when it comes around to shooting. You should practice the same

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/370116.page

A few questions arise. If the opponent in the above situation says, "No it's not a clear shot," I wonder if the player in question keeps adjusting his movement and saying, "I think I have a clear shot from here to there...what do you think?" until the opponent agrees. Certainly if someone tried this on me I would say, "Make your move and we'll sort out Line Of Sight in the shooting phase." Flames of War is, as far as I know, the only mainstream system that allows for declaration of intentions in the movement phase.

This to me looks like it would just more of be what type of game you are playing as the only issue. If this is just a friendly game of hey lets play and see how our armies work, then I see no problem from it since most people play those games to learn what their units can and can't do. If someone was doing this in a tournament then no I would agree that it is completely up to their own decision on whether the movement would be adequate for LoS issues. The only reason I could see this going off in a tourney is if you had a ref on an argument on % covered by a piece of terrain, but it would still be after you moved

If you can see the target then you can shoot it ... just take a laser pointer and see if you can shine it at every one in the enemy unit. If you illuminate all of them you can see them and no cover save; If some are blocked cover save; If none can be seen then you're an idiot for thinking that they could.

I would say that testing for LOS out side the shooting phase is tantamount to cheating.

Well I certainly agree with ice and tri. In a friendly game I can see this being allowed, but in a tournament game (the specific circumstance here) it's clearly illegal.

The discussion was for cover saves, and I do not think it is unreasonable to ask an opponents opinion on cover before shooting begins (so during the movement phase).

I do this quite often when terrain is in the way - Can we agree the whole unit is in range to shoot even though I cannot place all the models? or Are you okay assuming I am 1" from you and I will just move this model 'pretty close' so we can move on?

Tri wrote: I would say that testing for LOS out side the shooting phase is tantamount to cheating.

What makes you say that exactly?

There is no statement of intent in the movement phase. You move and then accept the consequences in your shooting phase. To do otherwise is illegal. What if the opponent says, "doesn't look clear to me"--does the player then keep adjusting his movement, or does he start an argument about cover saves in the movement phase? Either way it stinks.

calypso2ts wrote:even though I cannot place all the models?

you lost me at this statement....why are you shooting with models that cannot even be placed?

Because they are dangling off the side of a building, down the side of a hill that is steep and I would rather not have all my Sisters smash one another up? They can legally be placed, that doesnt mean they can always be physically be placed.

How is asking about a situation with marginal cover do anything except prevent needless debates. "I think I positioned it perfectly, I can see 51% of your vehicle" "I think you can onyl see 49%."

In these gray areas it is never bad to COMMUNICATE with your opponent.

Edit: It is not clearly illegal, maybe you enjoy arguing minutia with people at tournaments, but I prefer to be clear cut. I always let my opponent call their own cover when there is a debate and it is good to know what they think cover it.

GangstaMuffin24 wrote:

Tri wrote: I would say that testing for LOS out side the shooting phase is tantamount to cheating.

What makes you say that exactly?

Say that you test it in the movement phase ... You can now place your models where they'll get the best LOS and wont get shot as much. Checking LOS is something that only happens in the shooting phase. Needing to do it in another phase is not aloud.

It is tantamount to cheating because it is not permitted but almost impossible not to judge roughly. For example I'll move a unit here because I know that they'll get to shoot X and Y can see them very well ... but i wont know if Y can see them at all till they shoot and we check. They may see nothing or all but we won't know till its his turn. It would however be wrong for me to take out my pointer and check if they can (in doing so making sure they cannot).

Does it say that somewhere in the rule book? I'm not disagreeing, I've just never heard or thought of this interpretation.

Personally, I usually move my models where I think they'll have the best shots and I only check LOS if I'm completely unsure.

GangstaMuffin24 wrote:Does it say that somewhere in the rule book? I'm not disagreeing, I've just never heard or thought of this interpretation.

Personally, I usually move my models where I think they'll have the best shots and I only check LOS if I'm completely unsure.

Yes, the rules direct you to check line of sight for shooting only in the shooting phase.

Wait, it's cheating now to "get[] down to the level of your warriors" and "take[] in the view from behind the firing models to 'see what they can see'"?

Should I just shut my eyes and move models to the best of my ability during the movement phase?

olympia wrote:

GangstaMuffin24 wrote:Does it say that somewhere in the rule book? I'm not disagreeing, I've just never heard or thought of this interpretation.

Personally, I usually move my models where I think they'll have the best shots and I only check LOS if I'm completely unsure.

Yes, the rules direct you to check line of sight for shooting only in the shooting phase.

Not sure how you can prevent someone from leaning down and looking at an eyeball level during movement... or knowing enough about LOS to know how to place a model to get LOS.

It is like saying people who can guess distances well are cheating for 'premeasuring' in their mind.

Nothing brings bad blood to a game faster than an opponent saying 'ah ha! I was waiting for you to declare movement over... if you were only 5mm to the left, you would have had unobstructed LOS, now I have cover COVER SAVES YOU HEAR ME! MUHAHAHHAHAHAHA!'

I see no issue with declaring your intention to move in such a way to gain cover or not be obstructed and allowing an opponent to 'keep the gaming moving' when it is clear they could set up in such a way to gain cover/clear LOS.

Asking your opponent about cover saves in your movement phase is what problematic--particularly if you then "correct" the movement. It's not that hard to grasp why.

olympia wrote:Asking your opponent about cover saves in your movement phase is what problematic--particularly if you then "correct" the movement. It's not that hard to grasp why.

I am glad you at least got off the idea of a blanket prohibition of looking at your opponents models. Doing this speeds up the game a ton, rather than me having to perfectly position each model, getting down to eye level for EVERY one we can just agree if you put them, about there we will assume no cover... "Hey this is close, I think I can maneuver them so there is not cover, what do you think, is it okay if I put them 'close enough'?"

Interesting discussion, never thought about it. In my area(even at tournament) this is common practice and no one ever complained about it.

calypso2ts wrote:

olympia wrote:Asking your opponent about cover saves in your movement phase is what problematic--particularly if you then "correct" the movement. It's not that hard to grasp why.

I am glad you at least got off the idea of a blanket prohibition of looking at your opponents models. Doing this speeds up the game a ton, rather than me having to perfectly position each model, getting down to eye level for EVERY one we can just agree if you put them, about there we will assume no cover... "Hey this is close, I think I can maneuver them so there is not cover, what do you think, is it okay if I put them 'close enough'?"

You're just not comprehending the issue we're talking about I'm afraid.

olympia wrote:Asking your opponent about cover saves in your movement phase is what problematic--particularly if you then "correct" the movement. It's not that hard to grasp why.

Aren't you supposed to discuss what type of terrain gives what kind of save before the game even begins?

GangstaMuffin24 wrote:

olympia wrote:Asking your opponent about cover saves in your movement phase is what problematic--particularly if you then "correct" the movement. It's not that hard to grasp why.

Aren't you supposed to discuss what type of terrain gives what kind of save before the game even begins?

Certainly. What is illegal, however, is to ask your opponent in the movement phase to confirm a unit's status for the next shooting phase. So if I move a dark eldar raider, for example, and ask my opponent, "Is this 50% obscured from your hydra?"my opponent should respond, "Go feth yourself. We'll see in the shooting phase." To do otherwise is a huge advantage.

The problem olympia is trying to adress is the following:

Oppononet moves his Leman Russ.
O: "Can you have a look? It has perfectly clear view of your boyz, right?"
You: "I don't think so, half is in cover from that forest"
Opponent moves his Leman Russ some more.
O: "Now?"
You: "Still not it."
Opponent moves Leman Russ even further.
O: "Now?"
You: "Yeah, clear shot now."

Jidmah wrote:The problem olympia is trying to adress is the following:

Oppononet moves his Leman Russ.
O: "Can you have a look? It has perfectly clear view of your boyz, right?"
You: "I don't think so, half is in cover from that forest"
Opponent moves his Leman Russ some more.
O: "Now?"
You: "Still not it."
Opponent moves Leman Russ even further.
O: "Now?"
You: "Yeah, clear shot now."

Thanks jidmah! Socratic dialog FTW.

Maybe you did a poor job explaining your rules question.

calypso2ts wrote:Maybe you did a poor job explaining your rules question.

Yes, evidently I had my target audience wrong.

It's not cheating to check your line-of-sight during movement, or to correct during movement after consultation with your opponent; neither of these are prohibited in the rules, and are therefore permissible. To go to making a competitive event more friendly too, where opponents can agree in advance on tricky situation, such as whether true line-of-sight exists or whether fifty percent of a unit is covered. However, being unfriendly is not prohibited, therefore it is permissible, and your opponent needn't play ball.

thunderingjove wrote:It's not cheating to check your line-of-sight during movement, or to correct during movement after consultation with your opponent; neither of these are prohibited in the rules, and are therefore permissible. To go to making a competitive event more friendly too, where opponents can agree in advance on tricky situation, such as whether true line-of-sight exists or whether fifty percent of a unit is covered. However, being unfriendly is not prohibited, therefore it is permissible, and your opponent needn't play ball.

Actually it is cheating. This truly is pernicious rules abuse because the person breaking the rules to get the advantage does so in the name of "speeding up gameplay" and "consultation."

olympia wrote:

thunderingjove wrote:It's not cheating to check your line-of-sight during movement, or to correct during movement after consultation with your opponent; neither of these are prohibited in the rules, and are therefore permissible. To go to making a competitive event more friendly too, where opponents can agree in advance on tricky situation, such as whether true line-of-sight exists or whether fifty percent of a unit is covered. However, being unfriendly is not prohibited, therefore it is permissible, and your opponent needn't play ball.

Actually it is cheating. This truly is pernicious rules abuse because the person breaking the rules to get the advantage does so in the name of "speeding up gameplay" and "consultation."

So if I bend down to look LOS with my models during the movement phase are you going to poke my eye out with a red measuring whippy stick? Is there a rule on how far down I can droop my head when moving models as not to be checking TLOS? Am I even allowed to look at the terrain on the table when moving or do I have to move with my eyes shut because technically looking at the table is checking LOS.

I don't see how you can prevent it.

It's easy enough to prevent nkelsh. When, in the movement phase, your opponent says, "Is my rhino 50% obscured from your hydra? If not I want to keep moving it until I get a 4+ obscured save" you respond, "We'll check line of sight for shooting in the shooting phase." That's all it takes to prevent this type of rules abuse.

olympia wrote:It's easy enough to prevent nkelsh. When, in the movement phase, your opponent says, "Is my rhino 50% obscured from your hydra? If not I want to keep moving it until I get a 4+ obscured save" you respond, "We'll check line of sight for shooting in the shooting phase." That's all it takes to prevent this type of rules abuse.

Then what prevents him from sitting there in the movement phase dicking around with his models for 20 minutes until he is sure every single model is where he needs it to be?

And if he can do it with eyeballs, why not a laser pointer? Positioning a model for LOS has to be done in the movement phase as vehicles can't pivot while shooting. It is perfectly reasonable if someone intends to shoot 'something for him to guarantee during his movement phase that it is within his weapon arc.

Basically if you are extreme with the "eff off, you have to wait till shooting phase" then he can be extreme by wasting all day with precise measurements and checking LOS all day long in the movement phase.

Two extremes make a anti-social behavior and a bad game. Which is why most people don't have an issue.

Firstly, the word is intention. Not intentionality.

Direction, not directionality.

Second by asking they are avoiding argument's about what they can see. If by moving 5" instead of 6" I get a shot then that's what I'll do.

nkelsch wrote:
Basically if you are extreme with the "eff off, you have to wait till shooting phase" then he can be extreme by wasting all day with precise measurements and checking LOS all day long in the movement phase.

Two extremes make a anti-social behavior and a bad game. Which is why most people don't have an issue.

Yes but when you do it once then they learn.