10093
Post by: Sidstyler
I don't often browse YMDC, so I'm not sure if this has come up before in the past or not, but there seems to be a little debate going on at a certain infamous blog about the new Tyranids and the Rage rule. A tactica was recently published there which suggested that the Rage rule could be ignored by simply turning your raging models around so their backs are facing the enemy: they're no longer "visible" to your unit and so you're free to act normally. Same if a unit was dropped in behind the unit with the Rage rule, it can't be seen so you don't have to move towards it.
I was just interested in getting Dakka's opinion on this. Technically it's legal, but it just seems wrong to me, and makes the whole Rage rule kind of pointless.
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
Sidstyler wrote:I don't often browse YMDC, so I'm not sure if this has come up before in the past or not, but there seems to be a little debate going on at a certain infamous blog about the new Tyranids and the Rage rule. A tactica was recently published there which suggested that the Rage rule could be ignored by simply turning your raging models around so their backs are facing the enemy: they're no longer "visible" to your unit and so you're free to act normally. Same if a unit was dropped in behind the unit with the Rage rule, it can't be seen so you don't have to move towards it.
I was just interested in getting Dakka's opinion on this. Technically it's legal, but it just seems wrong to me, and makes the whole Rage rule kind of pointless.
RAW - yes.
RAI - no. (and before someone comes in with the line "did you write the codex?", I can also use common sense and say that units are not supposed to assault with their hindquarters turned towards the enemy.)
To put it simply, I won't play someone that is this petty. INAT won't support someone playing this petty.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
Indeed, I hate following the RAW in circumstances like this because it's just so...absurd. Like the fact that demons technically aren't "demons". And then there are models like the zoanthrope who can't see because they don't have eyes to draw LOS from. Etc.
It's also kind of odd to me because the guy that brought this up will often rule in favor of common sense no matter what the RAW says. Not sure what makes this case so different.
How would you guys play this? How would you react if you encountered this at a tournament?
14816
Post by: alexwars1
I would bitch slap the guy trying to pull this. Seriously. That is just a really petty tactic.
105
Post by: Sarigar
Can you quote why it's legal by RAW? As far as I can tell, facing for infantry has no bearing in the rules.
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
Sarigar wrote:Can you quote why it's legal by RAW? As far as I can tell, facing for infantry has no bearing in the rules.
LOS is drawn from eyes of the model. It's 5 a.m. here, so I'll let someone else pull out the BGB to quote pages for you.
8261
Post by: Pika_power
Glancing through the BRB. I can't find the stuff about pivoting freely whenever you want.
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
Pika_power wrote:Glancing through the BRB. I can't find the stuff about pivoting freely whenever you want.
Nor does it address facings at all for infantry, beyond LOS for the eyes, and gun barrels for measuring distance.
RAW Technicality - Units facing so that they cannot draw LOS from their eyes to the enemy, cannot shoot said enemy (even if the only reason they cannot draw TLOS is because they enemy unit is behind them). No such rules apply to assault.
While moving though, no restriction exists on how the model ends up facing...
6846
Post by: solkan
The Chaos Dreadnought called and would like its argument about "visible" not meaning "potentially visible" to be returned at the soonest convenient time.
8261
Post by: Pika_power
solkan wrote:The Chaos Dreadnought called and would like its argument about "visible" not meaning "potentially visible" to be returned at the soonest convenient time.
Did it get the message from Page 16? I think the message went something along the lines of "Sometimes, all that may be visible of a model is a weapon, an antenna, a banner [...]".
683
Post by: Cheex
I was just thinking that, Solkan.
In a rules sense, what does "visible" mean? Does it mean "can draw line of sight to"?
Certainly makes things a bit ridiculous when using things that have the Rage rule. Chaos Dreadnoughts, Mogul Kamir, etc would all be quite happy to just turn around and pretend that the enemy is not there...
8261
Post by: Pika_power
Yes it does. See the page 16 quote. It sets a precedent.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
The rulebook states that when moving infantry models their facing during the movement phase is not all that important, and that in the shooting phase you can pivot them to face the enemy they're shooting at. Vehicle movement is a little more strict, you can pivot any number of times you want during your move (provided you don't move farther than you possibly can), but you can only pivot freely if you're not moving. Walkers get to pivot in the shooting phase to face their enemy, though.
In a rules sense, what does "visible" mean? Does it mean "can draw line of sight to"?
That's part of the problem I think, the rulebook doesn't specifically state what an infantry model's arc of sight is. Can they only look straight ahead, are we to assume they can't move at all and are literally just standing there frozen in the pose they were assembled in, or can they see 180 degrees, 360, etc.?
If there's a unit nearby standing in plain sight that they would be able to see, but their eyes aren't pointing at it, can they really see it?
8261
Post by: Pika_power
I already covered what "Visible" meant. The book specifies that it works via TLoS.
You can rotate your models in the shooting phase, so in effect, the models have 360 degrees of sight. However this is not the case for the current argument. In the movement phase, the model sees what it sees. You bend down behind the model and decide what it can see from its PoV. If there is no enemy in sight, they can move. If the enemy is behind them, they may move however they like.
Oh, and please don't try the "Models can see through their own squad, ergo they can see through the back of their head!" line. That rule only applies to firing units, as stated in the rule book.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
If that's seriously how it's supposed to be played then Rage effectively does nothing, all you do is turn your backs to the enemy in that case and there you go. Your "mindless lunatics who behave without rational thought" suddenly got their wits back.
Anyway, in the rules for walkers it states that "unlike infantry", walkers have a facing. So that would mean infantry don't have a facing, which means they can basically see all around them. The only time their "facing" ever comes into play is when they're shooting and you have to draw LOS from their heads to the target, but in the movement phase it doesn't matter.
8261
Post by: Pika_power
Sidstyler wrote:If that's seriously how it's supposed to be played then Rage effectively does nothing, all you do is turn your backs to the enemy in that case and there you go. Your "mindless lunatics who behave without rational thought" suddenly got their wits back.
Anyway, in the rules for walkers it states that "unlike infantry", walkers have a facing. So that would mean infantry don't have a facing, which means they can basically see all around them. The only time their "facing" ever comes into play is when they're shooting and you have to draw LOS from their heads to the target, but in the movement phase it doesn't matter.
1. Correct. RAW makes little sense, RAI works more realistically. However RAW can back itself up, while RAI cannot. Thus Rage is significantly weakened.
2. Facing has nothing to do with it; you're making leaps all over the place. Infantry have no facing, but they have eyes. The eyes are what we are using as a pseudo-facing, but they have nothing to do with actual facings. Usually it makes no difference, because they can rotate freely with no downside in the shooting phase. However it comes into play in the movement phase, where it does make a difference and where there isn't a free rotation or free vision rule. This is what Stelek wishes to abuse, and it's what he can abuse, by RAW.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
And yet, demons are demons despite not being demons. Why forbid one brand of nonsense and defend the other so stubbornly, I just don't get it. 
8261
Post by: Pika_power
Sidstyler wrote:And yet, demons are demons despite not being demons. Why forbid one brand of nonsense and defend the other so stubbornly, I just don't get it.
Demons are the most often sited case, and it's one where Stelek has chosen to play RAI. Even doing that opens a new can of worms.
The phrase "demons are not demons" is due to the outdated DH codex. Back when the 3.5 ed Chaos codex was the one with demons, there were a few brands of demons, such as Nurglings, Demonettes, Bloodthirsters, etc. These could be summoned by the Chaos Marines and demon hunters had special abilities to deal with these demons (the models affected by the grey knights were defined in the DH codex). Then the Chaos codex got a rebuild without any of those demons reappearing. Suddenly the DH codex was referencing nothing and had rules killing a list of demons no longer in existence. Then the Demon codex gets released, and a few of the units are named the same as the original units were the 3.5 Chaos codex, and as such, in the DH codex list of demons that can be affected. So you get DH who, by RAW, can hurt Nurglings and other old-school demons, but can't do anything to new demons such as the Soul Grinder. To make matters worse, there was a rule in the DH codex which meant that any demons (as defined by the DH codex) in the opponent's army entered from the sides and kept respawning there, because DH fight in demon infested areas. Keep in mind that these demons were originally just a side part of a Chaos Marine army. This is clearly a trainwreck if played via RAW, so people try and RAI their way out of it, but with the infestation rule, that just makes it a bigger mess. The DH codex requires lengthy discussion with the opponent if one wishes to use it against a demon army, and even then, you'll probably just decide to rule that the DH can't do anything special to demons, because without the infestation to balance it, and considering it's a whole army, it would be overpowered.
TL;DR DH is a mess, don't try and use the special DH rules with it and don't bring it up in a rules discussion, because I hate typing that convoluted history out. :p
7183
Post by: Danny Internets
RAW, models in your own unit are ignored for line of sight purposes (p.16).
All models are part of a unit, therefore the ignored models include that of the firer. Ergo, a model's line of sight can be drawn through the back of its own skull and infantry all have 360 degrees in which they can see.
Conversely, if you argue that this is incorrect and a model can only see from its own eyes then be prepared to the accept the consequences:
(1) Models with helmets that block their eyes can never draw line of sight to anything (e.g., all forms of Space Marines, Tau, Eldar, etc.).
(2) Models without eyes cannot see anything (e.g., Zoanthropes, Hive Guard, etc.)
8261
Post by: Pika_power
Danny Internets wrote:RAW, models in your own unit are ignored for line of sight purposes (p.16).
All models are part of a unit, therefore the ignored models include that of the firer. Ergo, a model's line of sight can be drawn through the back of its own skull and infantry all have 360 degrees in which they can see.
Conversely, if you argue that this is incorrect and a model can only see from its own eyes then be prepared to the accept the consequences:
(1) Models with helmets that block their eyes can never draw line of sight to anything (e.g., all forms of Space Marines, Tau, Eldar, etc.).
(2) Models without eyes cannot see anything (e.g., Zoanthropes, Hive Guard, etc.)
You're correct, but this only applies for firing models, if you read the paragraph. Since the rage movement check is in the movement phase, they are not firing during the checking of rage visibility/ LoS (which are the same, as I explained earlier). I replied to you on YTTH in more depth, but the comment is still pending moderation. How do I get past that?
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
I didn't know replies were still moderated. 
7183
Post by: Danny Internets
Not sure how to get past moderation there (might be marked as spam by the filter if you have multiple links), but where else in the rules is line of sight or visibility defined? I don't believe it is present in any other section. I think the only option is to use the firing line of sight rules unless you interpret the Rage passage (and all similar passages) to refer to the player's visibility rather than the models', which I think is silly personally because then you run into all sorts of stupid situations (such as raging towards models on an adjacent table).
8261
Post by: Pika_power
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/pika_power/Screenshot2010-01-05at14903AM.png
There's a screenshot of it and it explains my points.
Don't get me wrong, I'll be irritated if someone uses this tactic on me. I expect it to be FAQ'd quickly, but I have to endorse it by RAW.
EDIT: You can take the little grey box as rules that affect the movement, as it doesn't reference firing. I explained my position in more depth in that screenshot, adding a couple more points.
7183
Post by: Danny Internets
I understand the point that line of sight is in the context of firing, but you still haven't provided a rules-based alternative to defining what models are visible as per the Rage rule. Visibility only ever appears to be defined in terms of line of sight, which is in the Shooting Phase section of the rules.
8261
Post by: Pika_power
I've got nothing against it being in the shooting section, but if it has references to the firing squad, I'd call shenanigans, especially if it goes on to justify why it happens with a fluff reason related to shooting.
Just looking at it, you can use the grey box on the bottom left corner of page 16 and the top right paragraph of the same page.
In any case, I'm certain that the Own Unit section cannon be used to justify a 360 degree vision for the movement phase.
7183
Post by: Danny Internets
Third time now: if you have a problem with the rules for line of sight being used to determine what is "visible" then what section of the rules do you propose should be referenced in its place?
8261
Post by: Pika_power
Rules for LoS? Feel free to use those. Rules for LoS specific to firing squads? Please refrain. Unfortunately that includes the majority of LoS rules.
Propose to be referenced in its place? I am not Games Workshop, that is not my job. As you've pointed out, you can't use the LoS rules due to being in the shooting section/due to it being littered with "Firing models" references. This means that there are no rules to reference it with.
The fact of the matter is whatever you do, you cannot classify moving models as "Firing models", so they will never be able to use the see-through allies rule. That's all I need to prove to thoroughly throw a spanner in the works of your argument. To use anything else is to go into RAI territory.
Of course, RAI would be superior in this case, but we're arguing RAW.
7183
Post by: Danny Internets
Frankly, the argument that it incorrect to use the rules because they are contained in the Shooting Phase section is to place very specific restrictions on cross-context applications of rules and is itself an interpretation. As such, you're arguing "RAW" no more than I am.
There are a nearly infinite number of situations in the rulebook where rules from one section are referenced by another. For instance, coherency is only defined in the Movement Phase section of the rules, yet it is referenced throughout the rulebook without being redefined. When moving into assault, for example, the rules say that you must stay in coherency. By your logic, maintaining the models must stay within 2" of one another during this action would not be using the rules as they are written because this isn't happening in the Movement Phase. I believe everyone who plays this game would find that completely ridiculous.
Line of sight is also used throughout the rulebook (and codexes) in situations where there are no models shooting. Would using the rules for line of sight, which are in the Shooting Phase part of the rules, violate "RAW"? Well, if you want to argue that then "rules as written" ceases to have much meaning at all since there are precious few situations where it is upheld.
105
Post by: Sarigar
Ok, so after taking this all in, it seems to be a debate for the sake of debate. I don't foresee anyone actually trying to pull this stunt. "Your model is looking straight ahead, therefore can not possibly see anything to their right left or behind them at any point."
12265
Post by: Gwar!
It's very simple:
R.a.W = Yes.
R.a.I = Yes (because that is what the authors wrote, and they didn't unintentionally crap out a rulebook, did they?)
3352
Post by: Jaric
Just a quick followup.
The original blog that brought this up also mentioned that units with Rage can move an additional d6...
So he was saying a Carnifex for instance can move:
6+d6(rage)+d6(run).
I read the BGB entry on rage like 6 times, and no where does it say this is in addtion to a run rule.
Any help?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Jaric wrote:Just a quick followup.
The original blog that brought this up also mentioned that units with Rage can move an additional d6...
So he was saying a Carnifex for instance can move:
6+d6(rage)+d6(run).
I read the BGB entry on rage like 6 times, and no where does it say this is in addtion to a run rule.
Any help?
Whoever wrote the blog is an idiot and is thinking of "Holy Rage" from the Witch Hunters codex
3352
Post by: Jaric
Thank you sir. That makes me feel better (was worried I was missing something in the BGB about Rage).
Are we sure that Nids have norm Rage and not Holy Rage wording in their codex?
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
This argument fails because some models have no eyes.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:This argument fails because some models have no eyes.
No, it doesn't. Models without eyes cannot draw LOS, if you play by the rules.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
I didn't say it was wrong, I said it fails  At one point a friend had discussed putting all of his models eyes on long stalks.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I didn't say it was wrong, I said it fails At one point a friend had discussed putting all of his models eyes on long stalks.
Wow...that's hilarious.
"Yes, I know you can't see the body of any of my infantry models behind the wall, but their eyes are on these long stalks 2" above the wall, so I can see you and shoot you."
7183
Post by: Danny Internets
Gwar! wrote:Jaric wrote:Just a quick followup.
The original blog that brought this up also mentioned that units with Rage can move an additional d6...
So he was saying a Carnifex for instance can move:
6+d6(rage)+d6(run).
I read the BGB entry on rage like 6 times, and no where does it say this is in addtion to a run rule.
Any help?
Whoever wrote the blog is an idiot and is thinking of "Holy Rage" from the Witch Hunters codex
Speaking of idiots, if you guys had actually read the post perhaps you would have noted the first sentence which says: "This was (as with everything else) written back when it was believed 'rage' would equal the Witchhunters rage, and not just the USR in the rulebook. Since it's not to be...well, it's a shame I wrote a nice article for nothing."
12265
Post by: Gwar!
I feel sorry for the person with the Snail Themed Chaos Army
8261
Post by: Pika_power
Danny Internets wrote:Frankly, the argument that it incorrect to use the rules because they are contained in the Shooting Phase section is to place very specific restrictions on cross-context applications of rules and is itself an interpretation. As such, you're arguing "RAW" no more than I am.
There are a nearly infinite number of situations in the rulebook where rules from one section are referenced by another. For instance, coherency is only defined in the Movement Phase section of the rules, yet it is referenced throughout the rulebook without being redefined. When moving into assault, for example, the rules say that you must stay in coherency. By your logic, maintaining the models must stay within 2" of one another during this action would not be using the rules as they are written because this isn't happening in the Movement Phase. I believe everyone who plays this game would find that completely ridiculous.
Line of sight is also used throughout the rulebook (and codexes) in situations where there are no models shooting. Would using the rules for line of sight, which are in the Shooting Phase part of the rules, violate "RAW"? Well, if you want to argue that then "rules as written" ceases to have much meaning at all since there are precious few situations where it is upheld.
Even if you use the rest of page 16, the Own Unit section is out of bounds, because it clearly only applies to firing units, because of a) "Firing models can always draw line of sight [...]" and b) I am aware that fluff usually has no bearing on the rules, but in this case it does, because the rules say A happens because of B, where A is the unit firing through itself and B is the justification of them taking up firing positions in reality. If you are checking rage LoS, they would not "be taking up firing positions to maximise their own squad's firepower" because they are not firing. Thus in this case, B is false, so the foundation on which A lies upon does not support it.
So as I've said before, I have no interest in destroying the LoS rules, but the Own Unit section is stated to be only for firing units in so many ways.
20260
Post by: darwinn69
It's interesting to see this argument spill out over here. One problem with RAW argument though. Can anyone show me in the rulebook what the LOS arc is for an infantry model? Is it 45 degrees? 90? 180? 270?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
darwinn69 wrote:It's interesting to see this argument spill out over here. One problem with RAW argument though. Can anyone show me in the rulebook what the LOS arc is for an infantry model? Is it 45 degrees? 90? 180? 270?
There isn't one. You just measure a straight line from they eyes.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Danny Internets wrote:Frankly, the argument that it incorrect to use the rules because they are contained in the Shooting Phase section is to place very specific restrictions on cross-context applications of rules and is itself an interpretation. As such, you're arguing "RAW" no more than I am.
There are a nearly infinite number of situations in the rulebook where rules from one section are referenced by another. For instance, coherency is only defined in the Movement Phase section of the rules, yet it is referenced throughout the rulebook without being redefined. When moving into assault, for example, the rules say that you must stay in coherency. By your logic, maintaining the models must stay within 2" of one another during this action would not be using the rules as they are written because this isn't happening in the Movement Phase. I believe everyone who plays this game would find that completely ridiculous.
Line of sight is also used throughout the rulebook (and codexes) in situations where there are no models shooting. Would using the rules for line of sight, which are in the Shooting Phase part of the rules, violate "RAW"? Well, if you want to argue that then "rules as written" ceases to have much meaning at all since there are precious few situations where it is upheld.
Very well put. However, I'm shocked you wasted time arguing on that blog.
Do infantry get free pivoting then? Or can Devs not turn around and fire?
Where does lateral vision end?
How far can a space marine turn his head? Does this increase his field of fire and lateral vision?
My Necrons can turn their heads 360 degrees, just like the Terminator chick. Is this legal?
Remind me to buy my gaming group a beer and thank them....for being them.
6872
Post by: sourclams
Gwar! wrote:darwinn69 wrote:It's interesting to see this argument spill out over here. One problem with RAW argument though. Can anyone show me in the rulebook what the LOS arc is for an infantry model? Is it 45 degrees? 90? 180? 270?
There isn't one. You just measure a straight line from they eyes.
So how do you recommend models with no eyes fire by RAW?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
sourclams wrote:Gwar! wrote:darwinn69 wrote:It's interesting to see this argument spill out over here. One problem with RAW argument though. Can anyone show me in the rulebook what the LOS arc is for an infantry model? Is it 45 degrees? 90? 180? 270?
There isn't one. You just measure a straight line from they eyes.
So how do you recommend models with no eyes fire by RAW?
They don't.
6872
Post by: sourclams
Then this is an idiot's argument.
At the risk of touching on 'you can't possibly know the game designers' intent because you're not a game designer BAWWWW!!!' the game designers obviously would not create rules/models with the ability to shoot while neglecting to address either in model or game rules their inability to do so.
Either we accept that the only Space Marine models capable of firing their guns are Scouts and helmetless Sergeants and the game comes to an irrevocably crashing halt by RAW, or there is something else within the mechanics that this argument neglects.
99
Post by: insaniak
sourclams wrote:Either we accept that the only Space Marine models capable of firing their guns are Scouts and helmetless Sergeants and the game comes to an irrevocably crashing halt by RAW, or there is something else within the mechanics that this argument neglects.
Or, rather, there is supposed to be something else within the mechanics that makes the LOS rules work. Because as they're written, they don't.
It's a safe bet to assume that few players are going to enforce RAW LOS, because it is indeed rather silly. But the problem is that the guys who wrote the rulebook in this and the 2 previous editions neglected to really elaborate on just how it's supposed to work.
There is nothing in the rules that covers the arc of sight for infantry models. We're simply told to turn them to face their target and draw LOS from their eyes. Nothing tells us what to do when the model has no eyes, or in situations where LOS is required for something other than shooting. We're left to come up with our own rules covering these situations.
I would suspect that the Games Devs make certain assumptions about LOS that they just didn't think to include in the rules. I would also suspect that the Games Devs play their own games with infantry having a 360 degree LOS, and with LOS being drawn from the model's head, rather than specifically from the eyes... and if they assume that's the most intuitive way to play the game, they quite possibly just overlooked the fact that it's not actually what the rulebook says to do, or they thought that people would figure it out for themselves.
14680
Post by: croggy
i don't see whats so hard infantry don't have a facing so they rage in which ever direction is closest(unless los is blocked by terrains or other such objects
99
Post by: insaniak
croggy wrote:i don't see whats so hard infantry don't have a facing so they rage in which ever direction is closest(unless los is blocked by terrains or other such objects
The point of the thread so far is that infantry do have a facing. It's just not clearly spelt out in the rules, so players have to try to figure out for themselves how it's supposed to work.
14680
Post by: croggy
YES BUT THEY DON'T
where does it say that infantry have a facing
if they did then you would have to face them a certain way in movem,ent phased before shooting in the shooting phase and yet you don't
12265
Post by: Gwar!
croggy wrote:YES BUT THEY DON'T
where does it say that infantry have a facing
if they did then you would have to face them a certain way in movem,ent phased before shooting in the shooting phase and yet you don't
I suggest you read the rulebook before further "contributing" to this thread. Specifically the rules on page 11 about turning and facing. Or do what insaniak says
99
Post by: insaniak
I would suggest going back and having another read of the thread. The problem has already been explained.
14680
Post by: croggy
yes but the rage rule also say closest visable
not LOS or visible to the model
you can't simply walk back wards or turn around to avoid it otherwise even if you did find your self raging towards a unit in your movement phase you could just turn your self around afterwards and then all of a sudden the rage is gone
no where in the rage rule does it mention LOS
12265
Post by: Gwar!
croggy wrote:yes but the rage rule also say closest visable
not LOS or visible to the model
you can't simply walk back wards or turn around to avoid it otherwise even if you did find your self raging towards a unit in your movement phase you could just turn your self around afterwards and then all of a sudden the rage is gone
no where in the rage rule does it mention LOS
Errrm, so how do you determine visible then? Visible = In LOS, FYI. Also, capital letters at the start of sentences, full stops and other punctuation tend to make a post more readable as well as making your post look like it's worth reading.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
I modeled an eye on my latest wraithlord. Talk about modeling for advantage! How cheesy is a wraithlord that can shoot?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
willydstyle wrote:I modeled an eye on my latest wraithlord. Talk about modeling for advantage! How cheesy is a wraithlord that can shoot?
I would seriously consider asking a judge to potentially possibly throw you out for being a suspected cheater. 
8660
Post by: Maxus
The first question to ask: are there any units out there that could have the Rage USR, and how are they treated? I don't have the full answer to that, I don't think the Rage USR has been used for a unit yet. I don't remember anyone yelling about this when the BRB came out for 5e
Second question to ask: are there any 4e or earlier codex units being used in 5e that have something similar to the Rage USR and how does that work? Well Chaos Dreadnoughts and Tankbustas do. Chaos Dreadnoughts have the Blood Rage which they have to "move as far as possible towards the nearest enemy" it gains fleet, must run towards the nearest enemy and assault them if possible. Tanksbustas have Glory Hogs "must always attempt to shoot at and/or assault and enemy vehicle if there is one in line of sight, regardless of range" if they cannot see a vehicle, they act normally.
Chaos Dreadnoughts cannot get around their Blood Rage, its closest enemy, not even "visually" close so even turning around helps avoid this. Tankbustas get around it by making sure that they do not have LoS to what they do not want to target, while the opponent tries to get the something in the way the Tankbustas might have a problem with.
In the movement phase can I face my models around after moving them? Yes. Can I change my "visual" arc (LoS) so that I can essentially ignore the Instinctive Behavior Feeders rule that from my understanding are coming from German Translations, and aren't out world wide until the 16th of January? Yes
Should GW think about clearly defining a term they use such as "visual"? Probably. Should GW think about how rules are written in conjunction with the other rules? Probably
If this is how IB-Feeders works, should there be an errata so that if there isn't any creature in visual range, they revert to a Chaos Dreadnought type rage? Or have designed it that you have to change your facing towards the nearest enemy then fall under the Rage USR? Probably.
If you are playing against a nid player who keeps facing his nids backside to you to purposely avoid IB-Feeders , should you just pack up your models and leave or play someone else? Problably, you are going to have more problems with this player than is really worth it.
As an Aside from re-reading the Rage USR, it looks like you check in each phase if an enemy is in LoS and if it is, you need to act appropriately towards the closest enemy in each phase.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Maxus wrote:The first question to ask: are there any units out there that could have the Rage USR, and how are they treated? I don't have the full answer to that, I don't think the Rage USR has been used for a unit yet. I don't remember anyone yelling about this when the BRB came out for 5e
Rough Riders with Mogul Kamir spring to mind instantly. I'll have to dig my books out to check for others, though IIRC Rage is a new USR for 5th edition so almost nothing would have it.
-Grabs his 5th ed codexes and will report back shortly-
Yup, only Mogul Kamir has Rage. No other 5th ed book has it mentioned.
8660
Post by: Maxus
Gwar! wrote:Maxus wrote:The first question to ask: are there any units out there that could have the Rage USR, and how are they treated? I don't have the full answer to that, I don't think the Rage USR has been used for a unit yet. I don't remember anyone yelling about this when the BRB came out for 5e
Rough Riders with Mogul Kamir spring to mind instantly. I'll have to dig my books out to check for others, though IIRC Rage is a new USR for 5th edition so almost nothing would have it.
-Grabs his 5th ed codexes and will report back shortly-
Yup, only Mogul Kamir has Rage. No other 5th ed book has it mentioned.
Great! Now, how is Mogul Kamir being used? Is he galloping backwards down the field so he can ignore the Rage USR? Had this ever come up when the Imperial Guard codex came out? Any "I'm tired of seeing the ass end of Mogul Kamir" threads?
99
Post by: insaniak
Maxus wrote:Chaos Dreadnoughts cannot get around their Blood Rage, its closest enemy, not even "visually" close so even turning around helps avoid this.
Yup, Blood Rage is no problem... but this exact same argument has been going on over Fire Frenzy since 3rd edition.
If this is how IB-Feeders works, should there be an errata so that if there isn't any creature in visual range, they revert to a Chaos Dreadnought type rage? Or have designed it that you have to change your facing towards the nearest enemy then fall under the Rage USR? Probably.
As I mentioned earlier, I rather suspect that the studio already plays it as a 360 degree vision arc. I would be surprised if they ruled otherwise, if it ever makes it into an FAQ.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Maxus wrote:Great! Now, how is Mogul Kamir being used?
He isn't.
8248
Post by: imweasel
I read and participate on the blog ran by he whose name shall not be spoken or written.
I now agree with that person and gwar.
My reason?
Why did they mention 'visible' 4 freaking times in the rage rule.
They sure were stressing it for some reason...
99
Post by: insaniak
imweasel wrote:Why did they mention 'visible' 4 freaking times in the rage rule.
So that it wouldn't apply if the enemy were on, say, the other side of a wall, building, hill, whatever and so aren't visible?
8660
Post by: Maxus
insaniak wrote:Maxus wrote:
If this is how IB-Feeders works, should there be an errata so that if there isn't any creature in visual range, they revert to a Chaos Dreadnought type rage? Or have designed it that you have to change your facing towards the nearest enemy then fall under the Rage USR? Probably.
As I mentioned earlier, I rather suspect that the studio already plays it as a 360 degree vision arc. I would be surprised if they ruled otherwise, if it ever makes it into an FAQ.
Wouldn't it be great if they actually told us how they play in the studio with their rules? I'll just file this under don't be an asshat with this, don't play asshats that do this.
15853
Post by: Night Lords
I wouldnt worry about it too much. If it's a friendly game, and someone is ruining the game, it's not hard to just find someone else to play. If it's a tournament, the odds of 2 different dummies (a player and a TO) going along with this is very slim. When the whole argument relies on line of sight from eyes, you know it's a weak one.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Wouldn't it be great if they actually bloody wrote the rules "the way they play in the studio"?
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
Night Lords wrote:When the whole argument relies on line of sight from eyes, you know it's a weak one.
Yeah, who needs the rules. I frequently draw LOS from my models toes, because using eyes like the rulebook says to do in the LOS description would just be stupid.
Dumb argument? Sure.
Weak argument? Hardly.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Gorkamorka wrote:Night Lords wrote:When the whole argument relies on line of sight from eyes, you know it's a weak one.
Yeah, who needs the rules. I frequently draw LOS from my models toes, because using eyes like the rulebook says to do in the LOS description would just be stupid.
Dumb argument? Sure.
Weak argument? Hardly.
I draw my line of sight from 6 feet above my models, because rules are for Squares Daddy-o!
8248
Post by: imweasel
insaniak wrote:imweasel wrote:Why did they mention 'visible' 4 freaking times in the rage rule.
So that it wouldn't apply if the enemy were on, say, the other side of a wall, building, hill, whatever and so aren't visible?
Why limit it to that?
14938
Post by: Orkestra
Why carry it to unreasonable extremes?
1963
Post by: Aduro
Gwar! wrote:Wouldn't it be great if they actually bloody wrote the rules "the way they play in the studio"?
The problem with this is a simple one. They know how it's intended to be played, and things might seem obvious to them and thus not get put down in writing. This is why you should get people not involved with writing the rules to play test them, as they don't have the preconceived notions about how it's supposed to work, and should thus find these issues and ask, making the writers put them into the book.
edit: Oh, and what's the deal with this "he who's blog shall not be named" malarkey? Is he really that big a deal or what's the issue?
6469
Post by: wilsmire
Sarigar wrote:Can you quote why it's legal by RAW? As far as I can tell, facing for infantry has no bearing in the rules.
That is what I thought
8248
Post by: imweasel
Orkestra wrote:Why carry it to unreasonable extremes?
You mean like follow the rules?
99
Post by: insaniak
imweasel wrote:insaniak wrote:imweasel wrote:Why did they mention 'visible' 4 freaking times in the rage rule.
So that it wouldn't apply if the enemy were on, say, the other side of a wall, building, hill, whatever and so aren't visible?
Why limit it to that?
Because following it through to trying to apply a vision arc for infantry very quickly runs into a gigantic rules black spot.
The rules tell us that models should be facing their targets in order to draw LOS from the model's eyes... but we're simply not given enough information to make that actually work in any sort of definable way. Does the model have to be looking directly at their target? Can they turn their eyes through a certain arc? Their heads? What if the model is looking up in the air, or down at an Auspex? Or, as gets dragged out every time this issue comes up, has no eyes at all?
Regardless of what the rules say, LOS from the model's eyes just doesn't work, because there are no rules there to cover it. And in the absence of workable rules, the most common convention (at least so far as I've seen both at the table and from online discussion) is to assume that infantry have a 360 degree arc of sight. It's not RAW, but it's simple, and it works. And it completely removes the problem of determining which direction your Dreadnought or Raging whatever is looking in to determine what's visible or not. All that matters is whether there is anything in between them and the potential target.
14938
Post by: Orkestra
imweasel wrote:Orkestra wrote:Why carry it to unreasonable extremes?
You mean like follow the rules?
As has been said many times in this thread, if you carry one thing to extremes, carry everything to extremes. Which includes helmeted models being unable to draw LoS to anything.
But wait, why stop there?
8261
Post by: Pika_power
You draw LoS from eyes.
You check LoS at the start of the movement phase for rage.
Here it gets a tad confusing, but bear with me. Usually model facing does not matter, because LoS is only used in shooting, and you can rotate your models freely in the shooting phase (p. 11). You cannot rotate your models freely during the "rage check" portion of the movement phase. Only once it is established whether you have rage or not can you move/rotate. This means that if the models are not visible (i.e. Out of LoS), you don't rage. Thus if you face away from the enemy at the end of your previous shooting phase or movement phase, you will still be facing away during your next movement phase, so the enemy will not be in view, so you do not rage.
No where does it imply that models have a 360 vision field. You can manipulate the "Own Unit" rules on page 16 to say that you can see out the back of your head and such (which solves the problems of space marines not being able to shoot), but that only applies to firing models.
As for the eyeless models: that's just bad rules writing, and no one plays that way, because it falls into the "terminator armour doesn't exist" territory. This tactic of reverse charging tyrannids, on the other hand, is what you'd call 'cheesy' but I class it as the same as interspersing a couple of units in order to give each other cover saves, or if I'm feeling generous, spreading Orks out to avoid pie plates. It's playing by the rules without bending them.
99
Post by: insaniak
Pika_power wrote: This means that if the models are not visible (i.e. Out of LoS), you don't rage.
So how do you determine whether or not the models are visible? At what angle does the model need to be facing away from them in order to no longer see them?
There is simply no way to accurately play this way. You'll be endlessly fighting over whether or not the enemy is in the model's arc of vision.
And there's no need to run your Tyranids backwards. That will still run into problems if the enemy moves around them. Just assemble them looking down at their own feet.
11973
Post by: Slackermagee
I think the problem we've all run into here is using line of sight at all. The rage rules state that the unit must run towards the 'closest visible enemy' not the closest enemy in line of sight. So to find the closest visible enemy...
I believe it says somewhere... maybe... perhaps... in the BRB that the unit of plastic models on the table should actually be envisioned as fluidly occupying the space on the table (a justification for the majority cover rules and shooting I believe) instead of standing rigidly at attention. I believe they also justify this view by the "you aren't the winds of fate controlling your troops every movement and thought" thing.
A fluid state for a unit would have them moving about looking every which way to keep their bearings. This would invariably let them see just about everything within 360 degrees of any model within the unit.
Does that help any or am I going on the completely wrong track with this?
Also: who knew that the logic of physical chemistry would pop out here of all places?
14792
Post by: kartofelkopf
Pika_Power
Where in the rules do you get LOS rules that do not refer to:
a) firing unit [or 'firing models']
or
b) target unit ?
The only ones I see for determining LOS are in the firing section, and, for 'visible' to have any meaning as applied to a unit, LOS rules from the firing section must be used.
I'd argue that that means -all- the LOS rules from the shooting phase would apply (ignoring your own unit, not having to 'see' antennae, banners, etc...).
Trying to cherry-pick the 'model's eye view' interpretation while ignoring everything else seems like a willful twisting of RAW (and, honestly, it's really a RAI approach, not RAW at all--- RAW, nobody can 'see' in the movement phase at all, since determining who is visible is not explicitly laid out, save for the shooting phase).
Besides, it's in pursuit of a nebulous 'advantage' brought on by a faulty tactics discussion, from a blog by a guy who doesn't travel for national tourneys, and about a codex that hasn't been published.
11973
Post by: Slackermagee
kartofelkopf wrote:Pika_Power
... from a blog by a guy who doesn't travel for national tourneys ...
Harsh man, harsh.
I think the argument at this point is about LOS/visibility in general. Certain parties would like to continue using their battlesuits/firewarriors.
I agree with the cherry-picking of LOS rules though.
8261
Post by: Pika_power
kartofelkopf wrote:Pika_Power
Where in the rules do you get LOS rules that do not refer to:
a) firing unit [or 'firing models']
or
b) target unit ?
The only ones I see for determining LOS are in the firing section, and, for 'visible' to have any meaning as applied to a unit, LOS rules from the firing section must be used.
I'd argue that that means -all- the LOS rules from the shooting phase would apply (ignoring your own unit, not having to 'see' antennae, banners, etc...).
Trying to cherry-pick the 'model's eye view' interpretation while ignoring everything else seems like a willful twisting of RAW (and, honestly, it's really a RAI approach, not RAW at all--- RAW, nobody can 'see' in the movement phase at all, since determining who is visible is not explicitly laid out, save for the shooting phase).
Besides, it's in pursuit of a nebulous 'advantage' brought on by a faulty tactics discussion, from a blog by a guy who doesn't travel for national tourneys, and about a codex that hasn't been published.
I'm focusing on the Own Unit rules to try and disprove that models can see through their own heads. While doing so, we've discovered that the entire LoS rules (save for a grey box in the corner of page 16) only apply to firing models. But even if we RAI it and say that we use the LOS rules, once we bring RAI into it, we can argue that the Own Unit rules don't work in movement, because when moving, a squad does not take up firing positions to maximise their firepower.
Of course, it's impossible to RAI it so that you can see through the back of your head. I doubt that was intended.
14792
Post by: kartofelkopf
Even the grey box specifically states that this applies to shooting attacks, and uses the term 'target unit' and 'target' in its explanation, both of which have specific meanings only in the shooting phase.
As for 'taking up firing positions etc....', that really comes down to a fluff explanation for why models aren't impeded by their own unit. What's to say that models don't continue to take up advantageous positioning while on the move? I know my scouts try not to stand in front of each other whilst moving, so as not to get a shotgun blast to the back when the enemy pops up.
8261
Post by: Pika_power
kartofelkopf wrote:Even the grey box specifically states that this applies to shooting attacks, and uses the term 'target unit' and 'target' in its explanation, both of which have specific meanings only in the shooting phase.
As for 'taking up firing positions etc....', that really comes down to a fluff explanation for why models aren't impeded by their own unit. What's to say that models don't continue to take up advantageous positioning while on the move? I know my scouts try not to stand in front of each other whilst moving, so as not to get a shotgun blast to the back when the enemy pops up.
Permissive ruleset. Does it tell you your models take up firing positions in the movement phase? No? Then they do not get the advantage. (Why am I even bothering with this? You're trying to argue that I should ignore the mentions of "Firing models" because the entire LoS rules are a mess.)
First, tell me if Stelek's most recent update clears it up at all.
14792
Post by: kartofelkopf
First- lol.
Second- the firing positions thing is still fluff. Fluff is not RAW- even if it's in the same paragraph. In the firing phase, do I need to physically model my figures into dynamic firing positions? Do yours automatically do so? Does it matter? (hint, all three answers are No).
Third- Stelek doesn't go to tourneys. Period. There's not a TO in the world likely to resolve this issue that way. He even admits that, RAI, it's unlikely to be resolved that way.
I still think, RAW, using -all- of the LOS rules, any model may see in 360* (" models may always draw line of sight through members of their own unit." Am I a member of my own unit? Yes? Then I may draw LOS through myself)
If you want to use the RAW silly-stick, apply it all the way. Cherry picking the 'model's eye view' statement out of context is willfully ignoring the rest of the section.
8261
Post by: Pika_power
kartofelkopf wrote:First- lol.
Second- the firing positions thing is still fluff. Fluff is not RAW- even if it's in the same paragraph. In the firing phase, do I need to physically model my figures into dynamic firing positions? Do yours automatically do so? Does it matter? (hint, all three answers are No).
Third- Stelek doesn't go to tourneys. Period. There's not a TO in the world likely to resolve this issue that way. He even admits that, RAI, it's unlikely to be resolved that way.
I still think, RAW, using -all- of the LOS rules, any model may see in 360* (" models may always draw line of sight through members of their own unit." Am I a member of my own unit? Yes? Then I may draw LOS through myself)
If you want to use the RAW silly-stick, apply it all the way. Cherry picking the 'model's eye view' statement out of context is willfully ignoring the rest of the section.
Firstly, ROFLMFAOPIMP. I used a longer aronym. Do I win?
Perfect logic. Now in what conditions may you use -all- the LoS rules? If your unit is firing. Can your unit fire in the movement phase? No.
Even if I cherrypick nothing (thus playing 100% RAW), it doesn't change. Checking LoS in the movement phase becomes impossible, so I am unable to determine if any enemies are visible. The game freezes. RAW results in a game freeze here, so we have to go into RAI. With RAI, ridiculous notions such as "I can see through the back of my head using a rule loophole" stop being viable and start being ridiculous, because obviously the more realistic TLoS isn't supposed to let you do that.
So if we play RAW, the game freezes. If we play RAI, the notion of seeing out of the back of your head is ridiculous (especially when the justification is that you pull a pose).
Coming to your second point (I covered the third point second and the first point first. Sue me. :p) where I am back to happily cherrypicking as to prevent a freeze, you do not need to model your figures, because the key line is "As in reality". I am not using fluff to justify the position, GW is, effectively making what would happen in reality into RAW for this point. "A, because of B" is their case, where A is what happens in game and B is what would happen in reality. Thus if B changes (in reality, your squad does not take up firing positions because they're not firing in the movement phase) A does not occur, meaning no wacky head tricks.
There. A stalemate for RAW, a strong 'argument' ( lol) for RAI and cherrypicked RAW.
14792
Post by: kartofelkopf
So, in reality, your frothing, mindless, RAG(E)ing monstrous creature will timidly look at his feet or turn his back on an enemy so as to avoid getting himself all worked up.
I guess the hug therapy is really helping him deal with his issues.
RAI, seeing out the back of your head doesn't happen at all. The model, per your earlier statement, is actually a moving, intelligent, rational creature, who might just turn his head to get a better shot, or crouch down to let his mate fire. All that is irrelevant to a rules discussion, though. RAW, the model can see through his head and any other bits of his unit. RAI/RAP, the model can see 360* without the need to reposition every single model in a 30-strong ork unit when you want to shoot at the drop-pod marines that landed next to you.
The idea that a model's eyes dictate its ability to see in a RAW sense leads to silliness like not being able to fire SM with helmets, etc... and seem especially likely to lead to modeling for advantage.
The game doesn't freeze with RAW-- Stelek makes a good logical chain in linking vision to LOS (well, a RAW purist may argue things freeze, but Gaming With Anal Retentives can lead to silly arguments anyways). The problem is he cherry picks the LOS eyes section without applying anything else.
To really get nit-picky, if there's no intervening terrain or models, a 'model's eye view' is never used, as the units are "plainly in view of each other."
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
kartofelkopf wrote:
I still think, RAW, using -all- of the LOS rules, any model may see in 360* (" models may always draw line of sight through members of their own unit." Am I a member of my own unit? Yes? Then I may draw LOS through myself)
The idea that a model's eyes dictate its ability to see in a RAW sense leads to silliness like not being able to fire SM with helmets, etc... and seem especially likely to lead to modeling for advantage.
If you want to use the RAW silly-stick, apply it all the way. Cherry picking the 'model's eye view' statement out of context is willfully ignoring the rest of the section.
So "Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit" applies to units that aren't firing by strict RAW? And models with no eyes have invisible internal eyes for the purposes of shooting LOS, RAWwise?
14792
Post by: kartofelkopf
All of the LOS rules mention either
a) target unit (or target)
b) firing unit (or firing model)
c) shooting
The definition of LOS that mentions eyes at all specifies "firing model" so, either we need to use all the rules that apply to firing models and LOS, or the game freezes as Pika points out.
"And models with no eyes have invisible internal eyes for the purposes of shooting LOS?"
There's a reason no one follows absolute RAW blindly.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
kartofelkopf wrote:
There's a reason no one follows absolute RAW blindly.
Is the 'visible' for rage in this discussion even defined as LOS, or defined at all ruleswise?
"I can see those marines behind that building, so they're the closest visible unit and you must rage towards them."
I love RAW. 
11988
Post by: Dracos
Pika_power wrote:Checking LoS in the movement phase becomes impossible, so I am unable to determine if any enemies are visible. The game freezes. RAW results in a game freeze here, so we have to go into RAI.
This I agree with.
RAW tells you to determine something and provides no way to determine it. Therefore, the RAW does not function here. No further discussion is needed here IMO - you guys have already shown the RAW does not work here.
Discussing RAI here I think will result in nothing but disagreement.
Since RAW does no function here, you have to file this under "discuss with opponents/ TO".
P.S: I'm going to RAP this as 360 degree visibility on infantry. My marines look around them, and do not keep their heads frozen in place. Similarly, I'd expect that hungry Nid MC to be actively looking for his next meal, not staring at his feet.
14792
Post by: kartofelkopf
Hmm.... you might want to read the entire thread and perhaps the blog being referenced by Pika.
(yesthetruthhurts if you weren't sure)
He does pretty decent army lists, but some of his tactical advice seems a bit unsound at times. And he's a bit... erm.... abrasive? Ah, "straightforward" is the term I'm looking for.
Anyways, RAW, in the movement phase, visible enemy units would be any models he has on the table. So, even if the model is behind an LOS-blocking wall, you still move towards them, as there is no mechanic for determining a model's 'vision' in the movement phase, and must use your own vision as a substitute.
Probably not what they had in mind...
11988
Post by: Dracos
Who are you talking to? Since I was the previous poster, it seems as though your post was directed at me, yet the content makes so sense in that context.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kartofelkopf wrote:Anyways, RAW, in the movement phase, visible enemy units would be any models he has on the table. So, even if the model is behind an LOS-blocking wall, you still move towards them, as there is no mechanic for determining a model's 'vision' in the movement phase, and must use your own vision as a substitute.
But that is not RAW at all. There is no way to tell what is visible during the movement phase and what is not by RAW. You are inserting a method of your choosing, which is RAP not RAW. Automatically Appended Next Post: Just to clarify on that last point, it does not say visible to you, the player. So, inserting yourself as the point of reference for visibility is just as (from RAW point of view) valid as from a satellite passing by that has a good enough camera to see models from space.
14792
Post by: kartofelkopf
Sorry, that was meant for Gorka.
And, I think you'll find that it is RAW. The rage rule doesn't call for the unit/model to have vision to the enemy model/unit.
"Just to clarify on that last point, it does not say visible to you, the player."
There's no mechanic in the movement phase that refers to visible, so, absent a game mechanic, a plain-word understanding of the rule dictates that I must move my Rage unit towards the nearest unit.
RAW, Rage just makes you move towards the nearest enemy. RAI, visibility for the unit is determined using LOS rules from the shooting section (and, yes, there's bound to be continued disagreement there)
RAP-- absolutely agree with you. 360* visibility for infantry.
11988
Post by: Dracos
Right you have to use the plain word meaning.
But visibility is a subjective term, you need a frame of reference. What is visible to from one frame of reference may not be from another.
You have arbitrarily inserted your own frame of reference, which is not RAW, its RAP.
14792
Post by: kartofelkopf
Visibility is relatively subjective, but we do have some limiting factors. We're playing a game, so the rules probably have something to do with the game. Absent a game mechanic, the visibility is determined in a non-mechanic manner. As the only remaining non-mechanic controlled entities participating in this game are the players, one must assume the players are the ones determining visibility. The rule specifies enemy models, so that eliminates my opponent from participating, ergo, I am left to determine visibility.
(incidentally, check my profile... I categorically disapprove of a 'RAW' approach to 40k.)
11988
Post by: Dracos
I'm sorry but to add in these "limiting factors" is not RAW, because they are not written rules.
I'm only arguing that the method you are choosing is not RAW. Please show where the limiting factors for determining visibility are written, or admit it is not RAW.
Assuming one of the players (which one? can that player move around?) gets to determine visibility is no more raw than just saying its 360 degrees. Its not RAW because its not written in the rulebook.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
Wouldn't it be great if they actually told us how they play in the studio with their rules?
That would be fantastic. Too bad GW doesn't give a feth and doesn't take their work seriously. Either that or they're just afraid it'll hurt sales if they clarify anything.
God, this is the stupidest argument I think I've ever seen on the internet, and I'm sad that I even participated in it. Honest to god, this is a joke. "Competitive" 40k is a joke, you can't play this game "competitively" because it's so horribly written! If you can, as a legitimate tactic, have all your models walk backwards to get around a rule that was clearly not meant to be circumvented in such a slowed fashion...god damn, the idea that I could actually run into a guy doing this one day makes my balls hurt.
This is the kind of game I got into? Seriously?
8261
Post by: Pika_power
Ahem. We have a precedent for visible. We see "visible" used as a term in the shooting section, page 16. "Sometimes, all that may be visible of a model is a weapon [...]". This is GW using visible to mean "In LoS". Unless you have a reference to back up your claim of "Visible means the model is able to be discerned by my eye" (which is completely ridiculous, might I add, as I have yet to see a model that I cannot see) we will use the interpretation as on page 16.
Okay, we've managed to figure out that the game locks up if you play by RAW, and once we get into RAI territory it is no longer a rules debate and instead becomes an effort to compromise between two gamers on a game-to-game basis. Our work here is done and I recommend a lock, unless someone wants to discuss potential ways of playing this.
In any case, it will now be impossible to rules-lawyer the reversing-forward tactic into success, because rule abuse does not work when RAI comes up. The world is now a happier place.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
I dunno, maybe it should be locked. I don't see how there's much more that could be discussed and indeed it seems like everyone already knows how they're going to play it anyway.
14792
Post by: kartofelkopf
"Please show where the limiting factors for determining visibility are written"
You're missing the whole point. RAW is a silly argument here, and RAI is being twisted into some strange interpretation where ravening, monstrous creatures stare timidly at their feet while shaking their rears at the enemy.
RAP has already been addressed-- a lock sounds great to me.
8261
Post by: Pika_power
kartofelkopf wrote:"Please show where the limiting factors for determining visibility are written"
You're missing the whole point. RAW is a silly argument here, and RAI is being twisted into some strange interpretation where ravening, monstrous creatures stare timidly at their feet while shaking their rears at the enemy.
RAP has already been addressed-- a lock sounds great to me.
I addressed the point about visibility and used the rulebook to define it as "able to draw LoS". If visibility meant "visible to the player" as was being argued, we would have nothing in the movement phase requiring the LoS to be checked, so we would not have the game freeze. It was a viable attempt, but it didn't work.
RAW isn't just silly; it locks up the game. Your definition of RAI is spot on though. 
Okay, I'm fine with the lock too. RAW doesn't work, so this has no place in a rules forum.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Seems like it's time for an INAT fix here.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
I wish we didn't need the INAT.
8261
Post by: Pika_power
Oh yes, I just type this up for a comment on YTTH, so I might as well post it here while I wait for the moderator approval to go through.
"In the movement phase, units subject to rage must move as fast as possible towards the closest visible enemy" (p. 76)
Okay, time to define visible. Nothing in the index, nothing anywhere that specifically defines it. Let's look for a definition in context. Found one on page 16.
"Sometimes, all that may be visible of a model is a weapon [...]" (p. 16)
From this we deduce that visible means 'Within LoS'. Let's see what that does if we plug 'within LoS' into our first quote.
"In the movement phase, units subject to rage must move as fast as possible towards the closest enemy within LoS" (p. 76 edited)
Now we need to find out what 'Within LoS' means. Let's go and visit the index again. Found it.
"Line of sight, 16" (p. 303, index)
Off to page 16 to discover how we can apply the LoS rules in the Movement Phase.
"The Shooting Phase" (p. 15, title)
Oh dear. This doesn't look good. Oh well, maybe it can apply to movement too?
"A firing unit [...]" (p. 16, top left paragraph)
Okay, this one only applies to firing units, but perhaps the next one?
"Line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy [...]" (p. 16, Top right paragraph)
It appears we can use this one. It seems universal.
"This means getting down to the level of your warriors, taking in the view from behind the firing models [...] (p.16, top right paragraph a bit further down)
Or not.
"Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model [...]" (p. 16, second top right paragraph)
Nothing useful here either.
"There is one important exception to the rules for line of sight. Firing models [...]" (p. 16, Own Unit)
Nope.
"Warhammer 40,000 uses what we call "true line of sight" for shooting attacks. This means that you take the positions of models and terrain and simply see if your warriors have a view to their targets." (p. 16, grey box, Line of Sight)
So they use it for shooting attacks and finding view to targets. I don't think we can apply this box to the movement phase either, and that was our last resource.
There is nothing else to look at. It is quite clear that visible means 'within line of sight" (and the idea that visible means "A model my eye can see" is just plain silly) and it is just as clear that none of the LoS rules work in the movement phase under RAW. However we have to apply the LoS rules. This isn't just a rule that can be abused, it's a rule that freezes the game. You're told to do something impossible. As such, this will have to be discussed at the start of each game between opponents or defined by TOs, and I consider the average TO to be able to correct flawed rules, unlike GW. This means that this tactic is all but doomed for tournament play, and is impossible against a dissenting opponent.
Yeah, time for an INAT fix, although I personally don't use the INAT, as it often changes the rules when there is no need and they work fine under RAW.
99
Post by: insaniak
Yup, I think this has gone about as far as it's going to...
|
|
