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.

@ Olympia

What are you smoking? You can look down and ask any questions you want to your opponent during any of your phases. Asking as such is a great way to prevent further conflict in the coming phase or turn, but is also voluntary. If you want to be a dink and a bad sports, or if you just don't feel like it, then you don't have to talk to your opponent...

The reason why you officially verify LOS in the shooting phase is to confirm that all your "planned" shots can be made. Again, at that point, you can look down along the eyes or gun barrels to confirm LOS, and then make your determination of your target. Whenever you declare your target is when the final LOS and verifications are made. If your intended target gets killed before you fire, then you look for a secondary, so on and so forth.

Why are you so adamant that is it cheating to look along your models eye or barrel at a different time than the confirmation portion of the shooting phase?

And here comes the shooting phase:
"I tried to move my tank so that it would be 50% obscured"
"Oh, let's check it now... look, only 35% obscured! Looks like you're out of luck"

It just speeds things up. "Ok, I want to move my tank so that it's obscured - if I move it here, are you going to call it obscured or do I have to park it over here behind this other hill?"
"That doesn't look like enough cover - better go with the hill"

Neither is more legal than the other - it's just agreeing with your opponent ahead of time to avoid arguments and speed things up. It's not "clearly illegal" - and if you don't like it, just tell your opponent the first time he does it.
"I'm not really sure if that terrain is going to be enough to obscure your tank - I usually check that kind of thing during the shooting phase, after movement has already been decided. That way I'm not helping you beat me! haha"

Compare this to otherwise being a jerk about it.

Xarian wrote: it's just agreeing with your opponent ahead of time to avoid arguments

Isn't this actually listed as the most important rule in the rulebook?

DarknessEternal wrote:

Xarian wrote: it's just agreeing with your opponent ahead of time to avoid arguments

Isn't this actually listed as the most important rule in the rulebook?

Excellent point, very appropriate for this conversation.

I see what Olympia is getting at. He doesn't want his opponent to help him win; he's asking that you win on your own judgement as to distance and coverage. However, he's turning a question of etiquette (to which to may say yes or no) to a question of hard rules (to which to you MUST say no too, or are otherwise cheating).

calypso2ts wrote: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?

^^This

Sorry, Olympia I'm with the other side here. The point of asking during the movement phase is to steamline gameplay. There a lot of situations involving terrain or intervening models or whatnot where you are pretty sure that you can get LOS (or hide from LOS). But rather than spending 5 minute nudging your models until it is perfect and looking from the model's view. It is often much easier to simply ask the opponent "okay, this is what I plan to do, can we agree this works?" I've done it in tournaments and my opponents have done it.

I mean you look at LOS as you move anyway, that's the whole point of the movement phase, to set up LOS for units. Why not confirm that it is right rather than haggling about it later when a unit clearly has enough movement to achieve what you were going for.

I agree with Xarion. In tournaments where the rounds are timed working together to come to a common agreement that both players agree "This is the case" can speed things up without the need to possibly shorten the game and deny things. When both players agree to this it does speed up play and avoid disagreements before any dice are picked up.

On the other side of the coin, if that doesnt sit well with you just politly inform them that you prefer not to do it that way and they they should perform their moves to their satisfaction and determine line of sight officially in the shooting phase.

olympia wrote:
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."

I am sorry is it cheating or is it a rules abuse? Diversified Nobs is a rules abuse, moving vehicles sideways and pivoting is a rules abuse. Moving your infantry 7" is cheating.

I offer the same consideration to my opponent, and since there is a gray area in cover debates, it is in the spirit and boundaries of the rules to ask them to clarify their position on cover.

I think people are getting the wrong idea ...

Yes it is OK to look at your unit a tweak it so it will get a good shoot.

No it is not OK to actually check that it is a good shot (by actually checking LOS).

A fine line maybe but its easy to see its being crossed when you're asked 'do they have a shot? how about now'. Its much the same as pre-measuring shooting.

I've never thought or played it this way, but Olympia is absolutely correct. There is nothing AFAIK that allows you to check LOS until the shooting phase. Since this is a permissive ruleset, you can't do anything without permission making it illegal to check LOS until the shooting phase.

This, however, is impractical as simply moving it will give you incidental information with regards to LOS. However, actually checking LOS would be illegal. This has interesting results when actually applied to the table top.

I disagree.. you can check LoS at any time

Phototoxin wrote:I disagree.. you can check LoS at any time

You can check LOS, but what cannot do is badger your opponent--"if I shoot from here are you going to claim a cover save? What about from here...or here?"

No, you CAN ask that. There is nothing in this game that governs the conversations you have with your opponent and their content. You keep saying it Olympia as it is true, but have yet to give ANY RULES backing.

You can, politely, refuse to answer the question.


You can also check LOS yourself at any time; you do this simply by looking at your models. While your opponent does not have to verify your decisions, NOTHING requires you to maintain a fully 2D view of the battlefield. Nothing.

Remember folks, 40k is a permissive rule set, and no rule in the book gives you permission to breath, or look at your models during the game except as detailed in the shooting phase.

"How can you possibly play the game without breathing?!?" and "How can I play without looking at my models?" are just liberal RAI nonsense.

olympia wrote: but what cannot do is badger your opponent--

Well, the most important rule says you can't badger your opponent for any reason. But you're welcome to ask and come to an agreement.

solkan wrote:Remember folks, 40k is a permissive rule set, and no rule in the book gives you permission to breath, or look at your models during the game except as detailed in the shooting phase.

"How can you possibly play the game without breathing?!?" and "How can I play without looking at my models?" are just liberal RAI nonsense.

That is just a dumb statment, breathing has nothing to do with the game.

Now if you compared it the premeasuring you would be on the right track.

I don't see anything illegal with this, as long as you both agree to it before the game starts, there's nothing to complain about.

If the other person doesn't want to allow this, it may slow the game down, but now he can't yell at you for "cheating"

If a unit had plenty of inches left for its movement, I would have no problem wit it. On the other hand, if I tell someone "no, you have no shot from that direction no matter how far you move" and then said person tries to move somewhere else instead of his original direction... obviously, this wouldn't be allowed

Tri wrote:I think people are getting the wrong idea ...

Yes it is OK to look at your unit a tweak it so it will get a good shoot.

No it is not OK to actually check that it is a good shot (by actually checking LOS).

A fine line maybe but its easy to see its being crossed when you're asked 'do they have a shot? how about now'. Its much the same as pre-measuring shooting.

So by this logic short people will not be able to play the game as they would be breaking the rules with their height and I can't move any modles that would need me to reach and bend at the waste, as this would result in a situation where I could be checking LoS...

ChrisCP wrote:

Tri wrote:I think people are getting the wrong idea ...

Yes it is OK to look at your unit a tweak it so it will get a good shoot.

No it is not OK to actually check that it is a good shot (by actually checking LOS).

A fine line maybe but its easy to see its being crossed when you're asked 'do they have a shot? how about now'. Its much the same as pre-measuring shooting.

So by this logic short people will not be able to play the game as they would be breaking the rules with their height and I can't move any modles that would need me to reach and bend at the waste, as this would result in a situation where I could be checking LoS...

Though he obviously gets a better judgement when placing, its only an issue when he starts asking or going round the board to check.

LOS checking is the first thing you do in the shooting phase, if you are checking it then you must have ended your movement phase and the unit must be looking to shoot. You are not meant to check, only estimate... same with ranges, you can of course estimate them while moving but you cannot go out of your way to actually check them.

That conclusion (you're now shooting) does not follow.

Nothing disallows you from looking at your models. I can do so in any way I wish, and if I gain TLOS knowledge then that is just tough. Same as when measuring a move I can end up gaining additional information.

nosferatu1001 wrote:That conclusion (you're now shooting) does not follow.

Nothing disallows you from looking at your models. I can do so in any way I wish, and if I gain TLOS knowledge then that is just tough. Same as when measuring a move I can end up gaining additional information.

Nos, but what about stating to your opponent in your movement phase, "I have moved far enough to deny you a cover save...haven't I? No? O.k, what about now? Now" and then moving a little bit more and asking again until you get the answer you want and perhaps keeping your vehicle from having to move that little bit extra which would bring it into terrain and force a DT test.

Did you miss the other posts on this?

You are perfectly, 100% allowed to talk to your opponent about anything you like. There is *nothing* that is "illegal" about that. NOthing. As I said before - your claim it is illegal means you MUST have a rule to cite, yet you have not done so. Obviously - you cannot do so, as the BRB does not attempt to proscribe the conversations you can have with your opponent.

So we are down to: this game is a social game. If you do not wish to ANSWER such questions, then *politely* state so. However, I can g'tee you that some moves will now take much longer to complete as I WILL go round and confirm the exact LOS to and from every model, as I am perfectly entitled to do, and if this takes too long - tough.

Or, you could treat this game as a social exercise, and answer. In a tournament this is actually a great idea, as not only does it save on time, but it massively saves on the potential for arguments and bad feeling later on. And, form experience, your "example" above rarely, if ever, happens - it is normally ONE time you need to ask, and thats it. You do yourself no favour by exaggerating for effect.

nosferatu1001 wrote:That conclusion (you're now shooting) does not follow.

Nothing disallows you from looking at your models. I can do so in any way I wish, and if I gain TLOS knowledge then that is just tough. Same as when measuring a move I can end up gaining additional information.

when other then the shooting phase do you check? ... sure you can 'in ... your ...head' judge if you get a cover save (easy enough to do this with ranges as well). What you cannot do is any actual checking like asking your opponent, using a laser marker, ect.

Nos seems to be suggesting that resolving cover saves and conducting movement occurs in the same "phase" as it were. Nos has reached the banal conclusion that anything is possible in the game if you and your opponent agree to it. That's not a useful contribution.

Sigh. Good to see you putting words in my mouth there. You also have no counter to the points I made, obviously. Just an attempt at hand waving them away. Useful contribution you have made in these last posts.

No, I have not "resolved" cover saves in the movement phase. Please explain how that sentence even makes any sense. Resolving a cover save would involve rolling them...unless you didnt mean resolve?

No, I have not reached the "banal" conclusion that TMIR is useful, as that is in breach of the tenets of YMDC (as you currently are as well, btw).

Please provide, for the 3rd time of asking, ANY RULES backing up your "it is illegal to ask questions" statement from earlier, or admit you have absolutely no rules backing for any position you have reached so far. Please note the tenets of YMDC which require you to back up your position with rules.

To summarise: I can gain TLOS information during the movement phase. That is not against the rules. I can ask my opponent questions. That is not against the rules.

Your position has no rules basis.

The comparison to measuring lacks though, as measuring is explicitly forbidden, while checking LoS is not.

There actually isn't 100% rule stopping you from measuring ether. "players are not allowed to measure any distance except the rules call for it" would be fine but it actually starts "In general, players are not allowed to measure any distance except the rules call for it" ... so specifically there are times when you can measure without rules.


As i said in my first post it is tantamount to cheating ... it breaks no rules but it is also backed by no rules ... normally you must be asked to do something before you can do it.

It also posses the question what happens when ...
" do i have LOS" A
B "Yes"
..later in the shooting phase ...
"I'm shooting that unit" A
B "...mmm no don't have LOS"
"But you said they did!" A
B "I was wrong"
... again nothing wrong here nothing says that you have to answer correctly ether ...

This all comes down to whom I'm playing against. There are numerous areas in a game that aren't really covered in the rules that requires some agreement between two players; a social contract of sorts. If I'm playing a guy who wants an inch, but takes a mile in every rules issue case, then I'm likely to decline the request.

The key is to be able to determine what your opponent's intentions are. Play in enough tourney type settings and you will be able to figure it out and then determine if you would answer your oppponent's question as originally posted in this thread.

Tri wrote:
Though he obviously gets a better judgement when placing, its only an issue when he starts asking or going round the board to check.

I am absolutely allowed to go around to the other side of the table during the movement phase, even for the ostensible purpose of checking your models position for LoS purposes.

Tri wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

Tri wrote:I think people are getting the wrong idea ...

Yes it is OK to look at your unit a tweak it so it will get a good shoot.

No it is not OK to actually check that it is a good shot (by actually checking LOS).

A fine line maybe but its easy to see its being crossed when you're asked 'do they have a shot? how about now'. Its much the same as pre-measuring shooting.

So by this logic short people will not be able to play the game as they would be breaking the rules with their height and I can't move any models that would need me to reach and bend at the waste, as this would result in a situation where I could be checking LoS...

Though he obviously gets a better judgement when placing, its only an issue when he starts asking or going round the board to check.

LOS checking is the first thing you do in the shooting phase, if you are checking it then you must have ended your movement phase and the unit must be looking to shoot. You are not meant to check, only estimate... same with ranges, you can of course estimate them while moving but you cannot go out of your way to actually check them.

I assume your not saying one isn't allowed to walk around the board? Right?

So, if I'm not allowed to look where I'm moving my models. How do I decide where to move? How do I play a game where I am unable to determine if moving into a position might pose a risk to my forces?

If one wishes to ask one's opponent if a move grants LoS the opponent simply may say "I don't know" or even "I'll tell you after you've finished that move." - Which is still helping one's opponent.
What players may or may not wish to discuss whilst playing isn't the point here. The point is one's allowed to look at the battel field in an fashion one wants and that "Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit. You may not go back and change the move already made by a previous unit." Pg 11
We know when a unit has finished moving, in chess what does one think of the opponent that asks, holding his knight on the square he might be moving to, "Well, that looks like check in three right?" Waiting for your response, just to judge your reaction, if to change the move.

That's fine ChrisCP, a person can walk around the table, laser point, eye-ball, or whatever the feth they want in the movement phase. A person can ask all sorts of questions. However, the insidious behavior I describe in the OP is making declarative statements about the shooting status of a unit in the movement phase (e.g., "I moved my leman russ here and it has an unobstructed view of your looted wagon") and thereby forcing your opponent to object at that time or face the consequences in the shooting phase. So it's not even a case of ignoring or refusing to answer questions.

Tri wrote:

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).

How do you stop someone checking for line of sight? They're just looking at the models on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tri wrote:Yes it is OK to look at your unit a tweak it so it will get a good shoot.

No it is not OK to actually check that it is a good shot (by actually checking LOS).

What's the difference between looking at the models and checking LOS?

ChrisCP ... shooting issues should be discussed in the shooting phase. You want to eyeball it go for it ... just don't ask me if I agree with what you say or use any checking (ie Laser) till you actually shoot at it. If you hadn't done a good enough job moving then tough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:

Tri wrote:Yes it is OK to look at your unit a tweak it so it will get a good shoot.

No it is not OK to actually check that it is a good shot (by actually checking LOS).

What's the difference between looking at the models and checking LOS?

You normally do not require a laser pointer or other LOS checking.

Tri wrote:Though he obviously gets a better judgement when placing, its only an issue when he starts asking or going round the board to check.

So you can only look at the table from your side? There is nothing to even hint at that in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tri wrote:You normally do not require a laser pointer or other LOS checking.

Laser pointers are neither here nor there since they are not required for verifying LOS. Do the rules even give permission for any method other than unassisted visual confirmation?

Ok Scott-S6 i guess its just that I've never come across some one that required to know he has clear LOS in the movement phase. I can judge well enough that i don't need to skip round the board checking. However I think that asking is this clear is not in spirit of the game.

It's perfectly okay to check LOS from either side during the movement phase.

I don't think there's anything wrong with asking your opponent. It's often easier to check from the other side and it saves a trip round the table.

Doubly important at a tournie where the tables are all pushed together and you have to walk to the end of the aisle to get around to the other side.

olympia wrote:That's fine ChrisCP, a person can walk around the table, laser point, eye-ball, or whatever the feth they want in the movement phase. A person can ask all sorts of questions. However, the insidious behavior I describe in the OP is making declarative statements about the shooting status of a unit in the movement phase (e.g., "I moved my leman russ here and it has an unobstructed view of your looted wagon") and thereby forcing your opponent to object at that time or face the consequences in the shooting phase. So it's not even a case of ignoring or refusing to answer questions.

"Does it? I don't know."
...
"Have you finished it's move?"
...
"Well I guess it might be then but we'll check together in the shooting phase."

Still not even one person from the "can't do it" side addressing the most important rule yet.

DarknessEternal wrote:Still not even one person from the "can't do it" side addressing the most important rule yet.

TMIR is genuinely irrelevant to rules discussions.

So, I read the battle report that you have gotten this quote from. A game with Dash at the Alamo GT. What he was trying to do by declaring his intention to shoot units was trying to help his opponent. This means he was attempting to avoid rules arguments later, and avoid nasty surprises when his opponent sees his Tac Marines cut down with splinter rifle rounds. He wasn't doing what people are suggesting, which is checking and removing and checking and removing till he is sure he has a clear shot.

Another situation he was trying to avoid was when his opponent moved his landspeeder 12" and was about to shoot with the scouts inside. Dash told him he couldn't shoot with embarked units if it has moved at that speed, so the man tried to move his speeder back 6" and position his scouts.

This was patently unacceptable as the movement phase had already passed.

The idea with declaring intention during the shooting phase is not to gain some undue advantage, but to avoid hurt feelings, and to avoid an opponent being surprised when he is either left out in the open to be shot, or that he has moved something too far to fire. It certainly isn't against the rules to ask questions. Dash does this to facilitate gameplay, and to hopefully have no hurt feelings at the end of the game.

This idea can be used on both sides, and it would be very agreeable, and would help streamline gameplay if all potential arguments were settled as early as possible. It's certainly not meant to be a way to cheat.

I apologize if this seems off topic, but I feel we needed a bit of context for the OP's quote.

Why post in YMDC if you're just going to argue with everyone who doesn't agree with you?

Tri wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:That conclusion (you're now shooting) does not follow.

Nothing disallows you from looking at your models. I can do so in any way I wish, and if I gain TLOS knowledge then that is just tough. Same as when measuring a move I can end up gaining additional information.

when other then the shooting phase do you check? ... sure you can 'in ... your ...head' judge if you get a cover save (easy enough to do this with ranges as well). What you cannot do is any actual checking like asking your opponent, using a laser marker, ect.

Why not?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Tri wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:That conclusion (you're now shooting) does not follow.

Nothing disallows you from looking at your models. I can do so in any way I wish, and if I gain TLOS knowledge then that is just tough. Same as when measuring a move I can end up gaining additional information.

when other then the shooting phase do you check? ... sure you can 'in ... your ...head' judge if you get a cover save (easy enough to do this with ranges as well). What you cannot do is any actual checking like asking your opponent, using a laser marker, ect.

Why not?

I think tri would concede that you can ask your opponent whatever the feth you want during a game. As Tri cleverly pointed out (in case you didn't get a chance to read the whole thread) a person is under no obligation to answer correctly either. The problem is when you are badgering your opponent to gain an advantage, or, as I outlined, making declarative statements about shooting status while you are moving (e.g., "I have moved here and clearly you will *not* be getting a cover save with your rhino in my shooting phase.")

Do people really behave like that?

If they do, it is a politeness issue not a rules query.

Scott-S6 wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Still not even one person from the "can't do it" side addressing the most important rule yet.

TMIR is genuinely irrelevant to rules discussions.

The whole point of this endeavor is to avoid arguments, which the TMIR specifically is there for. So it is of utmost relevance here.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Still not even one person from the "can't do it" side addressing the most important rule yet.

TMIR is genuinely irrelevant to rules discussions.

The whole point of this endeavor is to avoid arguments, which the TMIR specifically is there for. So it is of utmost relevance here.

most important rule, is bluntly a crock for rules debate. We have effectively followed it rolled off finished the game and now we are discussing the problem rule in question. Rules do matter if they didn't why have I spent £300+ on these rule books?

As to whether discussing LOS I'm bloody well calling a game if I'm asked to roll on such a thing ... no rule say that I need help in any way ... If we're checking on LOS that's some thing that we do when its called for.

olympia wrote: As Tri cleverly pointed out (in case you didn't get a chance to read the whole thread) a person is under no obligation to answer correctly either.

Either do not answer or answer correctly. I would have your head at a tournament if you said, 'Yeah, leave it there you get a cover save' and then said 'Ha, no cover save'

As above.

If you answer, and deliberately lie, you have broken the social contract of the game. That IS cheating, as you are being knowingly dishonest.

Lying in a tournament is a good way to be DQ'd

Olympia, was there an actual case of badger to which you refer or is it hypothetical?

Perhaps I am not getting it, but why are you asking these things in the movement phase. The only reason I see from asking your opponent in the movement phase instead of the shooting phase wether or not you have LOS/cover/etc is so you can argue it there and then and adjust if the answer is no.

My problem with this is that it is often used in to gain an advantage as it allows for repositioning or by using a declaration to get away with not actually doing what the declaration would be (saying I move all these models out of LoS, but that's a lot of work so we just assume they all 10 of them stand behind this 5" wall).

Personally in the cases I feel my opponent is trying to gain an advantage out of making declarations I will politely say move the unit/model and we will see what happens. I find it rather unsettling to read that people will ruin the game by then moving at slower speed "to learn that person a lesson", while all he does is not give you an advantage.

You will concede though that declaring and collaborating increases gameplay and decrease likelihood of argument, right?

Not really. The only difference is that instead of having the argument in the shooting phase you now have it in the movement phase.

While I agree that it decreases the chance of an argument thought as it just means you keep moving until you get the answer you want. Meaning you move your unit, declare what advantage you want to have and if your opponent does not agree adjust the movement until you get the best set-up you can get.

Also I find that there are hardly any situations where it is difficult for someone to judge whether or not the unit can do what you want it to do. The only time it becomes an issue is when you want to get the absolute most out of placement and by using the declaration not run any risks by doing so (example would be getting ~50% view of a tank, while keeping in cover, or having to move out of cover to see 90% of the tank).

Looking at the rules I can't see either side having a lot to corroborate their argument. The conversation topic is free, but so is declining to confirm the declaration. There is an argument that LoS is only checked in the shooting phase, but this would only relate to "looking over the barrel" and not "eye-balling" LoS. Therefore I do think that checking LoS and declaring (and conversely confirming) targets/cover can be seen as against the rules (as it is a permissive ruleset and nowhere except in the shooting phase are you asked to check LoS). So if something like this happens:

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.

I do think that you could argue that he can't spend time checking LoS during his movement phase. In reality some LoS checking will and should be okay to occur, however completing several steps that are part of the shooting phase (checking LoS and determining cover saves) in the movement phase by deliberately going out of your way to do these, I can see as being against the permissive rule set of 40k.

I have found the more vehicles you explode in a turn, the more likely my opponent is to argue for marginal cover.

Good lord. If I played against someone who I could ask a simple question about whether LoS or cover was applicable to a model for fear that they'd think I'm badgering them, I'd probably just decline to play.

Do you folks never just say, "Hey, I'm working on this assumption here; is that fair?" to your opponent?

In my opinion, the game should be won or lost based on the skill of a player, their ability to choose targets and employ a strategy, to eyeball distances and their dice rolls they make, not on an argument over cover or LoS.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As above.

If you answer, and deliberately lie, you have broken the social contract of the game. That IS cheating, as you are being knowingly dishonest.

Lying in a tournament is a good way to be DQ'd

No need to lie if your opponent badgers you with declarative statements in the moving phase. As tri explained, you might have just been mistaken in your response.

In my area it's commonplace to move and check line of sight too. Even at tournaments I've (and my opponents) have moved a model, checked line of sight, asked my opponent, moved again until I'm happy. I figure, if it's possible to place a model with clear line of sight that both people agree on, then I should do that.

If both players ask the others opinion on issues like LoS when moving then it's not problem, as you both benefit.

It seems to me that the whole point of playing a wargame is to manoeuvre your units into positions from which they can attack the enemy or be safe from enemy attack.

Why would people not want to do that?

Exactly Killkrazy...

Olympia - no, it was a lie.

Either respond correctly or dont respond Not a tricky concept there. Misleading your opponent is a good way to get chucked out of a tournament.

And, again - do you ever get "badgered", or do you go OTT at the first question? I only ask because, based on your responses here i would have to guess the latter.

Kilkrazy wrote:It seems to me that the whole point of playing a wargame is to manoeuvre your units into positions from which they can attack the enemy or be safe from enemy attack.

Why would people not want to do that?

People certainly can try to gain every advantage possible in a wargame, even if that means attempting to combine processes from the shooting phase (determining cover saves) with processes from the movement phase (moving and placing your models). Whether or not your opponent lets you get away with this is another question.

Tri wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Still not even one person from the "can't do it" side addressing the most important rule yet.

TMIR is genuinely irrelevant to rules discussions.

The whole point of this endeavor is to avoid arguments, which the TMIR specifically is there for. So it is of utmost relevance here.

most important rule, is bluntly a crock for rules debate. We have effectively followed it rolled off finished the game and now we are discussing the problem rule in question. Rules do matter if they didn't why have I spent £300+ on these rule books?

Quite so. TMIR can be useful when there's a disagreement and you need to get the game moving again. It has no place whatsoever in a discussion of what the rules actually say.

You may wish to read the 7th Tenet of YMDC - "Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

olympia wrote:People certainly can try to gain every advantage possible in a wargame, even if that means attempting to combine processes from the shooting phase (determining cover saves) with processes from the movement phase (moving and placing your models). Whether or not your opponent lets you get away with this is another question.

You can check what cover saves you're going to be granting as you move in the movement phase. Nothing preventing that at all.

The final determination will be done as the shooting occurs though.

olympia wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It seems to me that the whole point of playing a wargame is to manoeuvre your units into positions from which they can attack the enemy or be safe from enemy attack.

Why would people not want to do that?

People certainly can try to gain every advantage possible in a wargame, even if that means attempting to combine processes from the shooting phase (determining cover saves) with processes from the movement phase (moving and placing your models). Whether or not your opponent lets you get away with this is another question.

I don't understand why you are against it.

I don't see why it is something that "people must be prevented from getting away with".

You don't understand why someone might be against combining the movement phase with parts of the shooting phase? Why would you or anyone think this is acceptable? The mind boggles.

olympia wrote:You don't understand why someone might be against combining the movement phase with parts of the shooting phase? Why would you or anyone think this is acceptable? The mind boggles.

What combining is going on?

You move your models and as you do so you look at the table to determine if they are in LoS and what cover saves they might be granting.

No-one is suggesting that the final determination does not take place as the unit shoots.

Scott-S6 wrote:

No-one is suggesting that the final determination does not take place as the unit shoots.

That is exactly what many people in this thread are suggesting!

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."

This is what you have a problem with?

Yet, someone positioning the model and then walking around the table to check, walking back, adjusting it, walking back around the table to check, etc is perfectly legal.

Why do you have a problem with asking your opponent to assist? The final determination is still happening when the model shoots.

olympia wrote:You don't understand why someone might be against combining the movement phase with parts of the shooting phase? Why would you or anyone think this is acceptable? The mind boggles.

I don't understand why it is such a big deal to you. I don't see how it makes the game worse, or unfair. I see several ways in which the game is made better. If the game is better, and not worse, why would anyone be against it?

olympia wrote:However, the insidious behavior I describe in the OP is making declarative statements about the shooting status of a unit in the movement phase (e.g., "I moved my leman russ here and it has an unobstructed view of your looted wagon") and thereby forcing your opponent to object at that time or face the consequences in the shooting phase.

What consequences, exactly?

Exactly. Like I said: In my opinion, the game should be won or lost based on the skill of a player, their ability to choose targets and employ a strategy, to eyeball distances and their dice rolls they make, not on an argument over cover or LoS.

All this does is avoid stupid arguments over whether someone has cover or can see to shoot. The "oh, well if I'd known that, I wouldn't have done this," situation, if you will.

I get what both sides are getting at and I agree with both to some degree.

Scott asked "what consequences"?..

In a game, I am not going to help my opponent beat me. He can look at a models positioning, check LOS, etc etc and I have no problem with that. What I will not do, is correct his misplacement for him in the movement phase to give him an advantage in the shooting phase or take away an advantage in mine. It is not my job to hand-hold my opponents. He places his models and then when the appropriate phase comes around, we deal with what is actually in cover and what isn't. Regardless of what your intention as a player "was"..

for example..

"I want to move my tank where it can get an unobstructed view of your ork boyz"

It is up to myself as a player to decide if i have good model placement or not, regardless of what my "intention" was. It is not up to my opponent to guide my movement to perfect placement for the turn. If i place a model in a not-so-perfect location, then that is on me. I expect this from my opponent as well. If you only manage to place your tank with 10% cover, it is not my job to correct your placement when asked during the movement phase. During the shooting phase, I will gladly check for you. I don't agree with the OP's possibility of giving false info, however, and I would simply abstain from giving my opponent and advice at all. I agree that might detract from the social courtesy in some people's eyes but I for one don't just play to be social..I like the competitive side. If I just wanted to be social we could hit the bar and have some drinks for way cheaper than the hundreds of dollars my opponent and I have spent to play. This doesn't mean I am a jerk to play, I'm actually quite friendly and I joke alot. But you do your thing when playing and Ill do mine. Not everyone plays the game for the social aspect, nor the painting/modeling side, nor even the competitive side..keep this in mind.

So in a nutshell, i think many are reading the OP's objection wrong. He is not against people checking LOS, moving to the other side of the table, etc. He is objecting to opponents who expect the man on the other side of the table to help them win through permissives that may not exist and you won't know for sure until the shooting phase.

olympia wrote: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.

It's neither cheating, nor does your opponent have to cooperate. Heaven forbid that something is done in normal conversation, like normal people.

Prophaniti wrote:In a game, I am not going to help my opponent beat me. He can look at a models positioning, check LOS, etc etc and I have no problem with that. What I will not do, is correct his misplacement for him in the movement phase to give him an advantage in the shooting phase or take away an advantage in mine. It is not my job to hand-hold my opponents.

So if your opponent asks you - "can that lascannon see your tank?" to save a trip around the table your response is "not my problem"?

Scott-S6 wrote:

Prophaniti wrote:In a game, I am not going to help my opponent beat me. He can look at a models positioning, check LOS, etc etc and I have no problem with that. What I will not do, is correct his misplacement for him in the movement phase to give him an advantage in the shooting phase or take away an advantage in mine. It is not my job to hand-hold my opponents.

So if your opponent asks you - "can that lascannon see your tank?" to save a trip around the table your response is "not my problem"?

In a nut shell yes

Scott-S6 wrote:
So if your opponent asks you - "can that lascannon see your tank?" to save a trip around the table your response is "not my problem"?

No, that would be rude..my response would be "we shall see in the shooting phase".

I'm assuming for the purposes of this argument that we are not talking GTs where the tables are aisles 100ft long. My opponent is more than welcome to move around the table as he sees fit, but if he cannot make the decision as to whether he has LOS, I'm certainly not going to help him with his movement, but I'm fair in that I do not expect anything more from him during my turn either. The competitive play scene expects you to be able to play the game AND do so in a time frame. It is not my job as an opponent to speed your turn up for you and/or help you position your models for maximum effect.

Again, also remember that I am speaking from a purely competitive POV here. I am not talking about friendly pick-up games or what not. In a tourney, this is how I play. In a screw off pick up game, I could care less...Once you involve money, it all changes

Prophaniti wrote:It is not my job as an opponent to speed your turn up for you

That's an interesting comment given that a certain amount of cooperation is required for fast play.

I would obnoxiously crawl under the table every single time to get to the other side if my opponent did not want to give me a hand and lend me their eyes. I might even pretend to take an elevator down each time as well, or make mario sounds.

Tri wrote:I think people are getting the wrong idea ...

Yes it is OK to look at your unit a tweak it so it will get a good shoot.

No it is not OK to actually check that it is a good shot (by actually checking LOS).

A fine line maybe but its easy to see its being crossed when you're asked 'do they have a shot? how about now'. Its much the same as pre-measuring shooting.

Since I'm the subject of debate here, what actually happens is this.

1. I mark a unit's starting position with dice.

2. I move the unit where I want it to be, pivot to face what I'm going to fire at. If I think I have a *CLEAR* shot and that no cover save will be allowed, I say to my opponent "Looks like a clear shot from here. You agree?"

3. Generally, my opponent agrees. Because it is.

4. If my opponent DISAGREES....and we were in the shooting phase, we'd have an argument. I think I have 51%+ LOS. Generally, this is where I have 75%+ LOS. We'd have to call over a judge to bend over our models and make a determination.

5. If my opponent disagrees, I move back to my starting point, and go somewhere else. It isn't worth the argument with an opponent over whether something is getting cover or not.

So...one of two things could happen.

1. I move where I want, line up shots as I want without consulting my opponents. During shooting, if they disagree with my assessments of cover availability, I will brow-beat them, Laser pointer them, and call over judges to override their opinions because I *know* exactly what kind of LOS I have.

2. I get my opponent's opinion during movement and avoid situation #1.

#1 is going to result in a tense game. With hurt feelings. I don't move units and finish positioning them without knowing exactly what kind of LOS they have to the target that they're going to shoot at. I'm perfectly capable of walking all over an opponent, getting a judge to intercede, and then zeroing their sportsmanship for wasting 10 minutes of my turn to debate whether they had cover or not when I *KNEW* that they didn't have cover. I prefer not to play that way. So do pretty much all tournament players.

I'm not worried about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prophaniti wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:
So if your opponent asks you - "can that lascannon see your tank?" to save a trip around the table your response is "not my problem"?

No, that would be rude..my response would be "we shall see in the shooting phase".

Then an extra 3-5 minutes are going to be invested in me walking around the table - and if this is a tournament there are probably 4-5 tables lined up in a row, meaning I need to walk down to the other end of the building to get AROUND the row, and back on down to our table on your side. Then I'm going to get down and eyeball it myself to see. Then I'm going to walk back down to the other end of the building, back around the row of tables to get back to my side.

And in the meantime, you'll have earned a "zero" for sportsmanship for .....well, being a dick.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote: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."

This is what you have a problem with?

Yet, someone positioning the model and then walking around the table to check, walking back, adjusting it, walking back around the table to check, etc is perfectly legal.

Why do you have a problem with asking your opponent to assist? The final determination is still happening when the model shoots.

+1

Dashofpepper wrote: you'll have earned a "zero" for sportsmanship for .....well, being a dick.

Kind of sad behavior and language from a fellow poster...so much for civility..you kiss your mom with that mouth?

Dashofpepper wrote:

1. I mark a unit's starting position with dice.

2. I move the unit where I want it to be, pivot to face what I'm going to fire at. If I think I have a *CLEAR* shot and that no cover save will be allowed, I say to my opponent "Looks like a clear shot from here. You agree?"

the correct response from your opponent in a competitive environment is, "We'll see in the shooting phase!"

think about it like another turn based game: chess. you don't make 'practice moves' to see what combinations are available if you move your bishop to b5, and say 'hmm, think i can pin your knight at c6?' and if not, move it back.

you calculate your move, make it, and take your chances. you make the move you think will be optimal, but you don't get to find out if your move was optimal until the shooting phase.

by that token, i don't have a problem with an opponent checking los from where they think their models will be, before they move them, but i would object to an opponent making 'ghost moves' and moving them somewhere else if they don't like what the ghost move says.

Your final comment is actually against the rules.

You are *entirely* within your rights to move a model (or models in a unit) and the decide to move them to a different place, as long as you are still only moving that one unit.

I had always thought that all movement is *final* at the conclusion of said movement.

If you measure 6", and move your Predator 6", and ask your opponent if you have a clear shot and he disagrees.... aren't you SOL? I thought the rule was, "If you measure, it's final".

Correct me if I'm wrong though.

You're wrong, read the movement rules.

You can move and, if you you decide you dont like it, move it somewhere else.

What you cannot do is move it, move another unit, and then try to moev the original unit again.

Prophaniti wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote: you'll have earned a "zero" for sportsmanship for .....well, being a dick.

Kind of sad behavior and language from a fellow poster...so much for civility..you kiss your mom with that mouth?

If that kind of writing upsets you then I have this small padded room you can stay in. You'll be completely free from society and conversing with anybody else but yourself.

I haven no problem with this, because I understand the purpose, which is to avoid rules disputes in the shooting phase. People will be more reasonable and less biased when their models aren't being immediately threatened.

AFAIK, there's no rule that prevents you from consulting with your opponent, just as there is no rule that forces you to oblige him in this situation either. I would say that if an opponent of mine continually said "I don't know, we'll see", that would make our games less enjoyable and a bit more tense, not to mention leave room for potential disputes over the 50% cover.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You're wrong, read the movement rules.

You can move and, if you you decide you dont like it, move it somewhere else.

What you cannot do is move it, move another unit, and then try to moev the original unit again.

thanks for clarifying. i didnt know this

Griever wrote:

If that kind of writing upsets you then I have this small padded room you can stay in. You'll be completely free from society and conversing with anybody else but yourself.

I guess i was more shocked that someone with almost 7k posts here still hasn't read rule #1 of the posting rules for the Dakka forums...sad it was reduced to name calling in an otherwise civil debate back and forth..:(

Prophaniti wrote:
I guess i was more shocked that someone with almost 7k posts here still hasn't read rule #1 of the posting rules for the Dakka forums...sad it was reduced to name calling in an otherwise civil debate back and forth..:(

Maybe reread that post again, he did not call you a name. He said if someone makes him run back and forth around the table for every unit he qualifies that as 'being a dick' which means a 0 for sportsmanship.

Thanks for the clarification, Nos.

Griever wrote:If that kind of writing upsets you then I have this small padded room you can stay in. You'll be completely free from society and conversing with anybody else but yourself.

I haven no problem with this, because I understand the purpose, which is to avoid rules disputes in the shooting phase. People will be more reasonable and less biased when their models aren't being immediately threatened.

AFAIK, there's no rule that prevents you from consulting with your opponent, just as there is no rule that forces you to oblige him in this situation either. I would say that if an opponent of mine continually said "I don't know, we'll see", that would make our games less enjoyable and a bit more tense, not to mention leave room for potential disputes over the 50% cover.

I really disagree with this. If you opponent answers "we'll see in the shooting phase" and then goes on to makes a big deal out of every cover save, that's one thing. If he keeps answering "we'll see in the shooting phase" and then basically nods off most of your shooting, there is no reason to mark him down on sportsmanship. Even if this is not common procedure, you can't really blame them for not wanting to help you position your models perfectly(50.1% cover) every time. You can blame them not checking LoS when it would not make any difference to their own shooting, however. There is no reason not to help your opponent position his Leman Russ, if it is in plain sight of your anti-tank weapons anyway.
Bottom line: Use your common sense, if you have none, flip a coin.

I would obnoxiously crawl under the table every single time to get to the other side if my opponent did not want to give me a hand and lend me their eyes. I might even pretend to take an elevator down each time as well, or make mario sounds.

Probably best advice on the thread. Once you did the elevator twice to check LoS on their table side, only a really thick-headed people will continue their behavior. Making locomotive sounds while going around the tables would work, too.

While I doubt at this stage I'm going to sway any opinions I would just like to point out ...
Page 9 Game Turn And Player turn
"In a complete game turn, both players get a player turn, each on divided into Movement, Shooting and Assault phases (see Turn Sequence, bellow). Exactly what is going to happen in each phase is describe in the following sections of this book"
At no point is checking LOS called for before shooting ... yes you can eyeball it, same as with ranges, but nothing requires an agreement on LOS till the shooting phase.

Prophaniti wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote: you'll have earned a "zero" for sportsmanship for .....well, being a dick.

Kind of sad behavior and language from a fellow poster...so much for civility..you kiss your mom with that mouth?

As a poster below you pointed out, you may be having a problem with word association. I'd encourage you to re-read what I wrote - you don't seem to have understood what I wrote.

To the chess analogy: Its terrible. When you move a chess piece up, its next actions are set and undebateable. Your opponent isn't going to debate whether your Queen can actually move and attack to a legal position on the board.

There's a better chess anology. In chess, you can move a piece. You can move it, move it back, do anything you like to it until you take your finger off the piece - then its final. 40k is the same.

Prophaniti wrote:It is not my job to hand-hold my opponents.

it is not my job to correct your placement when asked during the movement phase

It is not my job as an opponent to speed your turn up for you and/or help you position your models for maximum effect.

These may all be technically true, but they don't really seem like great guidelines to having a pleasant and fun game.

units do not get to move multiple times during the movement phase.

there is no provision to move stop and then not move.

there is also no provision for your opponent to answer your questions about LOS for shooting during the movement phase.

there is nothing saying you cant talk to your opponent during the movement phase either.

i would be ok telling my opponent if they had LOS, but if they kept moving back and forth every unit and taking forever I would just start saying "finish moving" as my only response.

in a friendly game i suppose it makes sense. if its clear your moving a unit to get a clear shot at something, then whatever. if you want to clarify a LOS while moving im game. but doing it 2 or 3 times per unit per phase is kinda extreme. but a few times im not gonna get all out of shape on. the game is supposed to be fun, tournament or not, and a little issue like this (wich i see as simply trying to be a good sport by clarifying what you want to do) is not worth arguing about and ruining the game over.

I told my mate the resuts from this thread. he says whatever.he maintains that his tornament playing friend did this to him and so says it must be fine. I just thinks hes sad....

Jidmah wrote:
I really disagree with this. If you opponent answers "we'll see in the shooting phase" and then goes on to makes a big deal out of every cover save, that's one thing. If he keeps answering "we'll see in the shooting phase" and then basically nods off most of your shooting, there is no reason to mark him down on sportsmanship.

there's no reason in either case; if there's a cover to be had, or not is to be decided in the shooting phase. okay, that's fine. if he want's to argue cover when he has reason to believe there's cover, and wants to do it in the shooting phase, that's perfectly fine and his prerogative to do so. it's not unsporting to argue cover when you think you're entitled to it, or to refuse a discussion on it in a phase that's not germane, right?

to the chess thing: now the analogy isn't accurate to chess. in tournament chess, nobody moves a piece around and keeps their hand on it. it's very, very poor chess etiquette to try that in a tournament environment. but it's a fair cop anyway; i was mistaken about the movement rules and have eaten crow. no harm, no foul.

Dashofpepper wrote:
Since I'm the subject of debate here, what actually happens is this.

1. I mark a unit's starting position with dice.

2. I move the unit where I want it to be, pivot to face what I'm going to fire at. If I think I have a *CLEAR* shot and that no cover save will be allowed, I say to my opponent "Looks like a clear shot from here. You agree?"

3. Generally, my opponent agrees. Because it is.

4. If my opponent DISAGREES....and we were in the shooting phase, we'd have an argument. I think I have 51%+ LOS. Generally, this is where I have 75%+ LOS. We'd have to call over a judge to bend over our models and make a determination.

5. If my opponent disagrees, I move back to my starting point, and go somewhere else. It isn't worth the argument with an opponent over whether something is getting cover or not.

So...one of two things could happen.

1. I move where I want, line up shots as I want without consulting my opponents. During shooting, if they disagree with my assessments of cover availability, I will brow-beat them, Laser pointer them, and call over judges to override their opinions because I *know* exactly what kind of LOS I have.

2. I get my opponent's opinion during movement and avoid situation #1.

#1 is going to result in a tense game. With hurt feelings. I don't move units and finish positioning them without knowing exactly what kind of LOS they have to the target that they're going to shoot at. I'm perfectly capable of walking all over an opponent, getting a judge to intercede, and then zeroing their sportsmanship for wasting 10 minutes of my turn to debate whether they had cover or not when I *KNEW* that they didn't have cover. I prefer not to play that way. So do pretty much all tournament players.

I'm not worried about it.

So what you're saying is if you ask "I move my unit here, it has a clear shot during the shooting phase, right?" And you feel an opponent is being unsporting in saying "I'm really not sure we'll have to check when the rules call for it in the shooting phase."
Or if they do say "Nope I defiantly still have a cover save from your guys being positioned there"..."Oh okay, I'll just change my move then."
And that you are going to give someone a 0 for their sportsmanship when they are following the rules.. in a tournament.
What are you going to do when you move somehwere, ask your questions recive a response you're not happy with and start moving your models 'back to where they were', they call a judge, after all as you say "I move the unit where I want it to be, pivot to face what I'm going to fire at." and say the are quite unhappy that you're now moving units back and forth on the board after asking questions - demanding an answer - of the opponent and when one wasn't forthcoming it was time to change.

Chris, I don't think you're understanding.

LOS and 50% cover is quite easy to sort out. Move a unit into position. Pivot towards the unit you're going to shoot at. Get down and eyeball your LOS and see if you have a clear shot or not. In NINETY-NINE percent of cases, no discussion is required. It has cover, or it doesn't.

Occasionally, I'll even check the armour facing on something to see what facing I'm in if it is questionable.

In the OTHER one percent of cases - when I'm sure that I have a clear shot, but there exists the possibility that an opponent may claim cover, I'll ask them to take a look and weigh in to avoid a debate during the shooting phase.

Chris: In answer to your question - I let opponents have things and do things that they shouldn't get. I will *GIVE* someone cover, even if they don't have it - to save myself from having to argue about it. I'll just shoot at something else. If you're going to refuse to engage with me so that you can claim cover that you don't have - something I wouldn't have asked about if I thought there was ANY chance of dispute...so that during the shooting phase you can go "I GET COVER!! I GET COVER!!" then yes - I'm going to zilch your sportsmanship. Because you're cheating. I let people cheat here and there because I can work around it. But if you're going to cheat and force me to suffer consequences from it, I'm not going to be appreciative. I'm going to have to get a judge to come over and intercede in our game because you're trying to pull shenanigans. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to my opponents on cover, and when I'm sure that they have non - but if 10-20% of the vehicle is obscured, I'll ask them to weigh in just in case. And if they want to claim 50% cover and a 4+ cover save from having a small portion of their vehicle obscured....I'll even let them. That's why I ask. So that I don't need to argue and get judges involved during shooting.

Dashofpepper wrote:Chris, I don't think you're understanding.

LOS and 50% cover is quite easy to sort out. Move a unit into position. Pivot towards the unit you're going to shoot at. Get down and eyeball your LOS and see if you have a clear shot or not. In NINETY-NINE percent of cases, no discussion is required. It has cover, or it doesn't.

Occasionally, I'll even check the armour facing on something to see what facing I'm in if it is questionable.

In the OTHER one percent of cases - when I'm sure that I have a clear shot, but there exists the possibility that an opponent may claim cover, I'll ask them to take a look and weigh in to avoid a debate during the shooting phase.

Chris: In answer to your question - I let opponents have things and do things that they shouldn't get. I will *GIVE* someone cover, even if they don't have it - to save myself from having to argue about it. I'll just shoot at something else. If you're going to refuse to engage with me so that you can claim cover that you don't have - something I wouldn't have asked about if I thought there was ANY chance of dispute...so that during the shooting phase you can go "I GET COVER!! I GET COVER!!" then yes - I'm going to zilch your sportsmanship. Because you're cheating. I let people cheat here and there because I can work around it. But if you're going to cheat and force me to suffer consequences from it, I'm not going to be appreciative. I'm going to have to get a judge to come over and intercede in our game because you're trying to pull shenanigans. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to my opponents on cover, and when I'm sure that they have non - but if 10-20% of the vehicle is obscured, I'll ask them to weigh in just in case. And if they want to claim 50% cover and a 4+ cover save from having a small portion of their vehicle obscured....I'll even let them. That's why I ask. So that I don't need to argue and get judges involved during shooting.

Nah we're understanding each other, I think maybe we're just not one the same street.
Think of it like this from wehere we are now

- What if you were in the wrong.
If the opponent was honestly unsure over weather his guys have come and does not want to make this decision (are they in cover or no) until the shooting phase.
The player is more than with-in the bounds of the rules to wait until then. What's more, if it was the first or even second to last unit you were moving that phase, why would an opponent want to say "Yes that unit has cover saves" when this could mean you take their agreement and make decisions based off it, to move another unit into shooting positions to mitigate the cover. Or they could say "No it doesn't" now you have a position in which you feel 'assured' they are not going to claim a cover save and so would not need to dedicate forces to assure destrucation.

I find it interesting that you're throwing 'cheat' around. Are you saying if you "know" that they don't have cover, and they say they do, they're cheating?
" If you're going to refuse to engage with me so that you can claim cover that you don't have - something I wouldn't have asked about if I thought there was ANY chance of dispute...so that during the shooting phase you can go "I GET COVER!! I GET COVER!!" then yes - I'm going to zilch your sportsmanship. Because you're cheating. "
Maybe they feel they have cover and if you were assured of this they know full-well that it will affect your tactical decisions for the rest of the movement phase - This is actually following the rules. Another reason for this is one may choose to not fire with all models in a unit, this decision also effects when models are cover.

What I see is one player trying to gain a tactical advantage in the movement phase, by forcing someones agreement on something which is worked out on the basis of firing models in the shooting phase, before even having completed their units moves. The Player asking the questions is then annoyed because the opponent is being "difficult" when in actual fact they are following the rules. I don't think you're trying to say people should be penalised for following the rules right?

Tri wrote:While I doubt at this stage I'm going to sway any opinions I would just like to point out ...
Page 9 Game Turn And Player turn
"In a complete game turn, both players get a player turn, each on divided into Movement, Shooting and Assault phases (see Turn Sequence, bellow). Exactly what is going to happen in each phase is describe in the following sections of this book"
At no point is checking LOS called for before shooting ... yes you can eyeball it, same as with ranges, but nothing requires an agreement on LOS till the shooting phase.

That doesn't mean you can't do it.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Tri wrote:While I doubt at this stage I'm going to sway any opinions I would just like to point out ...
Page 9 Game Turn And Player turn
"In a complete game turn, both players get a player turn, each on divided into Movement, Shooting and Assault phases (see Turn Sequence, bellow). Exactly what is going to happen in each phase is describe in the following sections of this book"
At no point is checking LOS called for before shooting ... yes you can eyeball it, same as with ranges, but nothing requires an agreement on LOS till the shooting phase.

That doesn't mean you can't do it.

However, playing by the rules is preferable.

olympia wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Tri wrote:While I doubt at this stage I'm going to sway any opinions I would just like to point out ...
Page 9 Game Turn And Player turn
"In a complete game turn, both players get a player turn, each on divided into Movement, Shooting and Assault phases (see Turn Sequence, bellow). Exactly what is going to happen in each phase is describe in the following sections of this book"
At no point is checking LOS called for before shooting ... yes you can eyeball it, same as with ranges, but nothing requires an agreement on LOS till the shooting phase.

That doesn't mean you can't do it.

However, playing by the rules is preferable.

Once again, try playing without breathing. Doesn't say you're allowed to breathe after all...

Some of you do not appear to understand either the distinction between or the implications of "eye-ball" checking LOS in the movement phase, on the one hand, and determining cover saves _while_ conducting moves in the movement phase, on the other.

hemingway wrote:there's no reason in either case; if there's a cover to be had, or not is to be decided in the shooting phase. okay, that's fine. if he want's to argue cover when he has reason to believe there's cover, and wants to do it in the shooting phase, that's perfectly fine and his prerogative to do so. it's not unsporting to argue cover when you think you're entitled to it, or to refuse a discussion on it in a phase that's not germane, right?

You missed my entire point. You are acting unsporting if you force me to run, to quote dash, "to the other side of the building" if there is nothing to gain from it for you. You and olympia assume that people usually are unable to place their units in clear LoS of a target, which really can be done by 8-year olds. I wouldn't answer to someone trying to hit the perfect "In 50.1% cover and 50.1% LoS" spot either, but artificially stretching the game because of being uncooperative is not good sportsmanship.

However, playing by the rules is preferable.

Close to no rules tell the player what to do. Almost all of the rules concern what models can do, if you are claiming any checking LoS outside of shooting is against the rules, please quote the corresponding ones. Otherwise you should start practicing moving models without touching them, as there is no rule to allow that.

Interesting thread indeed.

When I move I normally declare if I believe something gets a save.

For example

I move my Crisis suits in to position and one has clear LoS to target and has LoS but over a barrier/wall etc. I would normally say "You'll get a cover save from that guy but not from this guy, do you agree?" 99% of the time they do as it's pretty obvious normally. I've never had any bad feelings or comments from any players for this and often makes it a lot quicker than arguing in the shooting phase which can get tiresome.

*Edit* - I wouldn't normally re-move a unit either. If I do it will be my decision and not because I've asked if I get clear LoS. I will MAKE sure I get LoS that is unarguable. If it goes to argument, roll a D6. 1,2,3 No Cover, 4,5,6 Cover or 5+ save instead.

I play FoW too and I find that system works A LOT better when declaring.

"I'm moving my Paras 6" into Concealed terrain, ok?"

:-D

Olympia - to add to the calls for you to *finally* provide the rules support, please do so. So far through 5 pages you have entirely failed to provide ANY rules to back up your contention that I'm not allowed to converse with my opponent.

So, please stop breathing while playing the game - after all, the game rules do not cover breathing. Also, if it is warm make sure you dont perspire - the game rules do not give you permission to do so.

Grim - slightly OT, but you dont grant cover on a model by model basis when firing weapons. In your example of 2 crisis suits, if 1 of them is giving cover that means that 50% of the firing models in the unit are granting cover, and therefore the entire unit gives cover saves for ALL its shooting.

Nos, I conceded two pages ago or so that you are welcome to play the game in any jazz-inspired fashion you want with the consent of your opponent.

olympia wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Tri wrote:While I doubt at this stage I'm going to sway any opinions I would just like to point out ...
Page 9 Game Turn And Player turn
"In a complete game turn, both players get a player turn, each on divided into Movement, Shooting and Assault phases (see Turn Sequence, bellow). Exactly what is going to happen in each phase is describe in the following sections of this book"
At no point is checking LOS called for before shooting ... yes you can eyeball it, same as with ranges, but nothing requires an agreement on LOS till the shooting phase.

That doesn't mean you can't do it.

However, playing by the rules is preferable.

I don't agree with the interpretation that the rules require the player to test LoS only in the Shooting phase.

So killkrazy, in what phase do you determine whether or not a unit has a cover save?

If I have a unit which wants to shoot at an enemy who is currently in cover, and I want to move it to a position where it will be able to see around the cover, then obviously I do it in the movement phase.

@ Olympia and others saying they would give no feedback, if the tables are all lined up next to each other would you expect your opponant to walk around all the tables to check on their own whats in LOS and whats out, or would you in that situation give feedback?

olympia wrote:Nos, I conceded two pages ago or so that you are welcome to play the game in any jazz-inspired fashion you want with the consent of your opponent.

And, as I pointed out in the response you ignored, you simply made that up.

PLease provide, for the 5th time of asking, a RULES QUOTE, with page paragraph and line, supporitng your position.

That you have consistently failed to do so only proves the weakness of your position.

If you cannot provide a rules quote then perhaps you should refrain from posting?

Why do people continue to feed the troll in this thread?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Olympia - to add to the calls for you to *finally* provide the rules support, please do so. So far through 5 pages you have entirely failed to provide ANY rules to back up your contention that I'm not allowed to converse with my opponent.

So, please stop breathing while playing the game - after all, the game rules do not cover breathing. Also, if it is warm make sure you dont perspire - the game rules do not give you permission to do so.

Grim - slightly OT, but you dont grant cover on a model by model basis when firing weapons. In your example of 2 crisis suits, if 1 of them is giving cover that means that 50% of the firing models in the unit are granting cover, and therefore the entire unit gives cover saves for ALL its shooting.

Christ, I'm glad you're on here Nos, you humble me every time with my inept reading of the rules!

Always forget the 50% rule. Won't again.

Kilkrazy wrote:If I have a unit which wants to shoot at an enemy who is currently in cover, and I want to move it to a position where it will be able to see around the cover, then obviously I do it in the movement phase.

Which is fine but we won't know if you did a good enough job till the shooting phase.

That doesn't mean you can't do it

... maybe its just me but when playing a game with a set order I feel compelled to do it in that set order. Going through the list of things that happen in the shooting phase but would be better done in the movement phase are we all OK with me moving my 6" and then running?

As for no rules for breathing ... there are many things that have nothing to do with the game we do not require rules ether way. It would be a very odd game if it required a special breathing techniques.

That's why I brought forth the moving example. No rules actually allow you to ever touch models during the game

Jidmah wrote:That's why I brought forth the moving example. No rules actually allow you to ever touch models during the game

? Going to break one YMDC tenent her but Page eleven "player may move any of his units" ...
Move (transitive verb) 1)b : to transfer (as a piece in chess) from one position to another
... one word many meanings; and in this case it clearly require that the model is moved ... since a set method of locomotion is not present we can assume that any means of moving the model is expectable until told otherwise

Any back to the debate should be pointed out ..."Its perfectly fine to measure a units move in one direction ..." No where does it say move the models it says you can measure in any direction. I can't say that I've not tweaked a move after I've placed them but technically every time you pick them up you using part of their movement till its all gone (so moving a model 6" and the tweaking him back .5" would be 6.5" not 5.5" but that's going to far)

Won't work, the rules on pg. 11 allow you to change the move you made by the unit you're currently moving as often as you like. When moving those 0.5 back, you're actually changing the whole movement, not to the previous move.

It is perfectly possible to move models without touching them.

Jidmah wrote:Won't work, the rules on pg. 11 allow you to change the move you made by the unit you're currently moving as often as you like. When moving those 0.5 back, you're actually changing the whole movement, not to the previous move.

Every time you pick up and move the models you are moving them ... though i don't fuss about tweaking its still technically additional movement but lets not get away from the point ...

Rule book page 11 wrote: It is perfectly fine to measure a unit's movement in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else(even the opposite was entirely!) or decide not to move at all

So we have rules to measure in every direction without penalty not moving in every direction. If we were comparing this to chess then holding your finger on the piece is the equivalent of the measuring and the move is actually finally position.

Jidmah wrote:It is perfectly possible to move models without touching them.

And as I said the rules do not limit you to any method of movement so feel free to sure any method you like.

Correct.

Rules also do not limit you to any time or method to check LoS, so feel free to laserpoint away during your movement phase.

Jidmah wrote:Correct.

Rules also do not limit you to any time or method to check LoS, so feel free to laserpoint away during your movement phase.

Actually they do as i showed earlier, there is an order of things we do. Checking LOS happens in the shooting phase ... anything that might possibly mirror LOS checking has no bearing on the actual check. If you want to eyeball your call but I'm not confirming anything till the shooting phase when it make actually counts

It's fine if they want to check LOS while they're moving.

I'm not going to help them determine whether or not I get a cover save.

"We'll see when you start shooting" is a perfectly reasonable answer to the question, and probably the one I'd give particularly at a GT. I'm not going to help someone get clear shots on my models. Part of the "skill" in this game is proper placement of models. Sure, you can ask if your opponent thinks they get a save or not. You can ask them to just let you win because you're such a nice guy. They don't have to acquiesce and they aren't a bad sport for not doing so.

Tri wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Correct.

Rules also do not limit you to any time or method to check LoS, so feel free to laserpoint away during your movement phase.

Actually they do as i showed earlier, there is an order of things we do. Checking LOS happens in the shooting phase ... anything that might possibly mirror LOS checking has no bearing on the actual check. If you want to eyeball your call but I'm not confirming anything till the shooting phase when it make actually counts

Splitting hairs, but true. If it prolongs the game because you were uncooperative for nothing though, you shouldn't be surprised to get marked down on sportsmanship.

Monster Rain: You are missing the point, too. Your opponent is usually not asking you to find the magic spot of awesomeness which is the only single spot on the board where he can shoot your unit. He is asking you speed up the game without having him to get his laser pointer, check from both table edges and then place his unit in the right spot. If he is trying to find that magic spot, you are perfectly fine to decline helping him, at best while letting him know why you did it.

You are all acting like this is rocket science and everyone has stolen the recipe for placing units in LoS to a target from your secret lair. Guess what? I saw an 8 year old in store a few weeks ago, playing with probably his fathers marines. He managed to place his landraider and marines in LoS with all their weapons to anything he wanted to shoot every time. While making sounds of car driving and brakes screeching. He must be the next Einstein.

Jidmah wrote:You are all acting like this is rocket science and everyone has stolen the recipe for placing units in LoS to a target from your secret lair. Guess what? I saw an 8 year old in store a few weeks ago, playing with probably his fathers marines. He managed to place his landraider and marines in LoS with all their weapons to anything he wanted to shoot every time. While making sounds of car driving and brakes screeching. He must be the next Einstein.

See and he never asked once; If an 8 year old can do it can't we all

There is a reason, that there are rules for what to do if cover is unclear; they're in the shooting section under cover saves. It in no way slows the game to deal with these issues then. After all its pick a target check LOS, check range, roll to hit, roll to wound, saves ... at which point we check if the unit is in cover if 50% are then they get the cover save if its unclear say 45% then check to see if each model can see 50% of the enemy unit. Laser pointer make it quite quick to check ether you can shine it on a model or you can't

Jidmah wrote:Monster Rain: You are missing the point, too. Your opponent is usually not asking you to find the magic spot of awesomeness which is the only single spot on the board where he can shoot your unit. He is asking you speed up the game without having him to get his laser pointer, check from both table edges and then place his unit in the right spot. If he is trying to find that magic spot, you are perfectly fine to decline helping him, at best while letting him know why you did it.

Odd how I manage to finish the overwhelming majority of my games under the time limit without this brilliant time-saving technique.

Jidmah wrote:You are all acting like this is rocket science and everyone has stolen the recipe for placing units in LoS to a target from your secret lair. Guess what? I saw an 8 year old in store a few weeks ago, playing with probably his fathers marines. He managed to place his landraider and marines in LoS with all their weapons to anything he wanted to shoot every time. While making sounds of car driving and brakes screeching. He must be the next Einstein.

I don't know why you're so confrontational about this. Part of the game is movement and placement of your models, and if it isn't rocket science why would my opponent require my help for determining LOS? Also, considering the context in which this conversation arose your comparison of GT games to an 8 year old playing with his father's miniatures is misguided at best. Though I will say that the fact that a child who didn't really care managed to place his vehicles in LOS to its targets without using the technique in question supports Olympia's position more than anyone else's.

Edit for a temporary inability to spell.

I honestly don't really care if someone did that to me in a game. After all, it is only just a game, and not helping them out is going to turn the game into a petty precisionfest.

And that's scientifically unfun.

Tri wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:If I have a unit which wants to shoot at an enemy who is currently in cover, and I want to move it to a position where it will be able to see around the cover, then obviously I do it in the movement phase.

Which is fine but we won't know if you did a good enough job till the shooting phase.

That doesn't mean you can't do it

... maybe its just me but when playing a game with a set order I feel compelled to do it in that set order. Going through the list of things that happen in the shooting phase but would be better done in the movement phase are we all OK with me moving my 6" and then running?

As for no rules for breathing ... there are many things that have nothing to do with the game we do not require rules ether way. It would be a very odd game if it required a special breathing techniques.

I'm not sure how either my or the other side's models are going to move in between the end of the movement phase and the beginning of the Shooting phase, however if it is that important not to be sure about the LoS, I supposed we shall just have to check twice.

Yeah, it's fine to run during the Move phase, if the other player agrees. You just need to be careful about possible interference, and not "run" something which might thereby get out of the way of something you want to move.

Monster Rain wrote:It's fine if they want to check LOS while they're moving.

I'm not going to help them determine whether or not I get a cover save.

"We'll see when you start shooting" is a perfectly reasonable answer to the question, and probably the one I'd give particularly at a GT. I'm not going to help someone get clear shots on my models. Part of the "skill" in this game is proper placement of models. Sure, you can ask if your opponent thinks they get a save or not. You can ask them to just let you win because you're such a nice guy. They don't have to acquiesce and they aren't a bad sport for not doing so.

Monster Rain: The situations in which this arise for me are all identical.

You have a vehicle in your deployment zone. I move one of my ravagers into position to fire at it.

If 40%+ of your vehicle is in cover, I'm going to presume you have cover and not say anything to you.
If 0-10% of your vehicle is in cover, I'm going to presume that you don't have cover and not say anything to you.
If 20-30% of your vehicle is in cover (like ONE tread, or if you have 1-2 infantrymen in front of your vehicle) I'm going to tell you that I presume that I have a clear shot and ask if you agree.

You must understand that the circumstances in which I ask for agreement on a clear shot are very narrow. If your vehicle has 20-30% in cover - not a whit more by ANY estimation...and I ask you if you're in agreement that I have a clear shot, one of three things is going to happen.
1. You're going to say yes, you agree with me. We move on.
2. You're going to say no, you disagree - you get cover. Now, despite KNOWING that I have a clear shot - it isn't worth an argument to me. So I'll simply target something else, move elsewhere etc.
3. You're going to say "We'll see in the shooting phase."

If you say #3 to me in the situation that I've outlined - you've just TOLD me that you plan on trying to pull shenanigans. Because if you weren't, the answer would have been obvious, and you would have agreed with me. So, when we get to shooting, and you attempt to pull shenanigans - like I said: I'm going to call over a judge. He's going to see that you have much less than half your vehicle obscured. He's going to rule on my side. I'm going to nuke your sportsmanship for being a bad sport.

While a bunch of folks here are extrapolating potential situations in which "legitimate" cover saves may be claimed, that is NEVER the case when I play. I *always* give the benefit of the doubt. If there is *NO* doubt to give the benefit of, and I'm in for a clear shot....and you start an argument about cover - then you *are* a bad sport.

This entire thread is about a very specific subset of actions in very specific conditions. The OP is trying to make it generally applicable to everything, and tie it back into me as "cheating" for which I have no respect.

Another way I could phrase the question to opponents is, "I have a clear shot at your vehicle. There's not a cow's chance in a lion's pen that you have cover. Are you going to try cheating?"

ChrisCP: I used the word cheat because that *is* the applicable term here. I'm just not hostile about it in the game. And if someone WANTS to claim cover...when any judge or spectator would be able to rule in my favor....I will *STILL* let them do it.

"My ravager wants to shoot at your land raider. There's a bush in front of it. I think I've got a clear shot - you agree?"
My opponent says, "No...that should give me cover."
I say, "Uh...well, ok then." And then I move/pivot/position to shoot elsewhere.

If your answer to "Does that bush give your landraider cover" is "We'll find out in the shooting phase" well...there's only one conclusion to be drawn.

Dashofpepper wrote:If you say #3 to me in the situation that I've outlined - you've just TOLD me that you plan on trying to pull shenanigans.

That leap of logic is entirely your own fault and has little to do with my response to your question.

If it comes to pass that in the shooting phase you have what I determine to be a clear shot I won't try to get a cover save for it. I see little benefit to helping an opponent line up clear shots on my models. Your little "scenario" didn't leave room for the fact that it's possible that I'd be the one who is correct in our dispute, and your threat of nuking someone's sportsmanship is speaking volumes.

Monster Rain wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:If you say #3 to me in the situation that I've outlined - you've just TOLD me that you plan on trying to pull shenanigans.

That leap of logic is entirely your own fault and has little to do with my response to your question.

If it comes to pass that in the shooting phase you have what I determine to be a clear shot I won't try to get a cover save for it. I see little benefit to helping an opponent line up clear shots on my models.

Indeed. It's the person who is trying to combine the movement phase with parts of the shooting phase that is pulling the bs.

olympia wrote:Indeed. It's the person who is trying to combine the movement phase with parts of the shooting phase that is pulling the bs.

And using the Sportsmanship score as leverage to get your way seems more in the way of a temper tantrum/petulance than I'm comfortable with.

I guess since I just, you know, play the game I don't have to have contingency plans ready for when the judge gets called over when I try shady things. If I don't rate a cover save, I'm not going to try to get one just to "pull shenanigans." By all means, call the Judge if I claim cover.

Monster Rain wrote:
And using the Sportsmanship score as leverage to get your way seems more in the way of a temper tantrum/petulance than I'm comfortable with.\

Unfortunately, once you include sportsmanship in tournament scoring this is what you are going to get.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:It's fine if they want to check LOS while they're moving.

I'm not going to help them determine whether or not I get a cover save.

"We'll see when you start shooting" is a perfectly reasonable answer to the question, and probably the one I'd give particularly at a GT. I'm not going to help someone get clear shots on my models. Part of the "skill" in this game is proper placement of models. Sure, you can ask if your opponent thinks they get a save or not. You can ask them to just let you win because you're such a nice guy. They don't have to acquiesce and they aren't a bad sport for not doing so.

Monster Rain: The situations in which this arise for me are all identical.

You have a vehicle in your deployment zone. I move one of my ravagers into position to fire at it.

If 40%+ of your vehicle is in cover, I'm going to presume you have cover and not say anything to you.
If 0-10% of your vehicle is in cover, I'm going to presume that you don't have cover and not say anything to you.
If 20-30% of your vehicle is in cover (like ONE tread, or if you have 1-2 infantrymen in front of your vehicle) I'm going to tell you that I presume that I have a clear shot and ask if you agree.

You must understand that the circumstances in which I ask for agreement on a clear shot are very narrow. If your vehicle has 20-30% in cover - not a whit more by ANY estimation...and I ask you if you're in agreement that I have a clear shot, one of three things is going to happen.
1. You're going to say yes, you agree with me. We move on.
2. You're going to say no, you disagree - you get cover. Now, despite KNOWING that I have a clear shot - it isn't worth an argument to me. So I'll simply target something else, move elsewhere etc.
3. You're going to say "We'll see in the shooting phase."

If you say #3 to me in the situation that I've outlined - you've just TOLD me that you plan on trying to pull shenanigans. Because if you weren't, the answer would have been obvious, and you would have agreed with me. So, when we get to shooting, and you attempt to pull shenanigans - like I said: I'm going to call over a judge. He's going to see that you have much less than half your vehicle obscured. He's going to rule on my side. I'm going to nuke your sportsmanship for being a bad sport.

While a bunch of folks here are extrapolating potential situations in which "legitimate" cover saves may be claimed, that is NEVER the case when I play. I *always* give the benefit of the doubt. If there is *NO* doubt to give the benefit of, and I'm in for a clear shot....and you start an argument about cover - then you *are* a bad sport.

This entire thread is about a very specific subset of actions in very specific conditions. The OP is trying to make it generally applicable to everything, and tie it back into me as "cheating" for which I have no respect.

Another way I could phrase the question to opponents is, "I have a clear shot at your vehicle. There's not a cow's chance in a lion's pen that you have cover. Are you going to try cheating?"

ChrisCP: I used the word cheat because that *is* the applicable term here. I'm just not hostile about it in the game. And if someone WANTS to claim cover...when any judge or spectator would be able to rule in my favor....I will *STILL* let them do it.

"My ravager wants to shoot at your land raider. There's a bush in front of it. I think I've got a clear shot - you agree?"
My opponent says, "No...that should give me cover."
I say, "Uh...well, ok then." And then I move/pivot/position to shoot elsewhere.

If your answer to "Does that bush give your landraider cover" is "We'll find out in the shooting phase" well...there's only one conclusion to be drawn.

I've been a lurker on Dakka for al long long time. And in private, i've disagreed with you alot. Bit this last bit hits the nail on the head. In 20+ years of playing this your above statement is 100% correct. Most players only ever ask the los/cover question during the movement phase when they KNOW there could be potental for a disagreement. And attempt to retify before it becomes an issue. Playing the "it's the movement phase we'll check in the shooting phase" is a sure sign they're up to something. EVERYTIME!

Dashofpepper wrote:If you say #3 to me in the situation that I've outlined - you've just TOLD me that you plan on trying to pull shenanigans.

That doesn't have to be even remotely true. It's telling your opponent that where he places his models is his own prerogative and should you move your ravager there to shoot at my tank, well, maybe i want that ravager there shooting at that tank than somewhere else, shooting at another model. Maybe I want to double bluff you into moving your model somewhere else. Maybe I know I don't have cover, but that's not germane to the movement phase, which is where discussions about cover belong. If I don't have cover and you place your ravager to shoot at my tank, why wouldn't I agree as an honest, sporting player, that I don't have cover--in the shooting phase? I have nothing to gain and potentially lots to lose by letting you combine cover discussions with movement. Assuming that your opponent has dishonest intentions by not helping you place your models is kind of terrible =(

olympia wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
And using the Sportsmanship score as leverage to get your way seems more in the way of a temper tantrum/petulance than I'm comfortable with.\

Unfortunately, once you include sportsmanship in tournament scoring this is what you are going to get.

I'm starting to come around on this.

Alvar wrote:I've been a lurker on Dakka for al long long time. And in private, i've disagreed with you alot. Bit this last bit hits the nail on the head. In 20+ years of playing this your above statement is 100% correct. Most players only ever ask the los/cover question during the movement phase when they KNOW there could be potental for a disagreement. And attempt to retify before it becomes an issue. Playing the "it's the movement phase we'll check in the shooting phase" is a sure sign they're up to something. EVERYTIME!

I am up to something. I'm up to trying to win a game at a GT within the scope of the rules. This doesn't necessarily equate to dishonesty. Perhaps I think you should win, if you win, without my help.

Also, see below.

hemingway wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:If you say #3 to me in the situation that I've outlined - you've just TOLD me that you plan on trying to pull shenanigans.

That doesn't have to be even remotely true. It's telling your opponent that where he places his models is his own prerogative and should you move your ravager there to shoot at my tank, well, maybe i want that ravager there shooting at that tank than somewhere else, shooting at another model. Maybe I want to double bluff you into moving your model somewhere else. Maybe I know I don't have cover, but that's not germane to the movement phase, which is where discussions about cover belong. If I don't have cover and you place your ravager to shoot at my tank, why wouldn't I agree as an honest, sporting player, that I don't have cover--in the shooting phase? I have nothing to gain and potentially lots to lose by letting you combine cover discussions with movement.

Exactly. When the shooting phase arrives and you shoot, rest assured that I am not such a pathetic waste of human life that I'm going to attempt to cheat my way to victory at Space Manz 40k.

It's the same courtesy I extend my own opponents.

hemingway wrote:Assuming that your opponent has dishonest intentions by not helping you place your models is kind of terrible =(

He who mistrusts most should be trusted least.

Good grief.

Foo wrote:Good grief.

Oh, it's not so bad.

Generally, I probably would go along with this anyway just to avoid friction. I really don't get too worked up during games unless someone is really being an ass.

My main point is that someone isn't obligated to comply with this method of play, and they aren't a terrible person if they decline.

Cover isn't determined in the shooting phase. Cover *saves* are taken in the shooting phase.

Cover is gained in almost every instance (except for certain psychic powers) in the movement phase. What I see here is that if you move a model flat out...its illegal to know that is has a 4+ cover save. We should start hiding how far we move from each other and spring it by surprise!

As you're getting ready to assault my vehicle and say, "How far did your vehicle move?" I'm going to say "You'll find out in the assault phase!"

Dashofpepper wrote:Another way I could phrase the question to opponents is, "I have a clear shot at your vehicle. There's not a cow's chance in a lion's pen that you have cover. Are you going to try cheating?"

ChrisCP: I used the word cheat because that *is* the applicable term here. I'm just not hostile about it in the game. And if someone WANTS to claim cover...when any judge or spectator would be able to rule in my favor....I will *STILL* let them do it.

"My ravager wants to shoot at your land raider. There's a bush in front of it. I think I've got a clear shot - you agree?"
My opponent says, "No...that should give me cover."
I say, "Uh...well, ok then." And then I move/pivot/position to shoot elsewhere.

If your answer to "Does that bush give your landraider cover" is "We'll find out in the shooting phase" well...there's only one conclusion to be drawn.

Cover isn't determined in the shooting phase. Cover *saves* are taken in the shooting phase.

Cover is gained in almost every instance (except for certain psychic powers) in the movement phase. What I see here is that if you move a model flat out...its illegal to know that is has a 4+ cover save. We should start hiding how far we move from each other and spring it by surprise!

As you're getting ready to assault my vehicle and say, "How far did your vehicle move?" I'm going to say "You'll find out in the assault phase!"

Dash, you're just being false now.
"THE MOVEMENT PHASE . . . . . .11
Movement distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Unit coherency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Terrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
THE SHOOTING PHASE . . . . . . .15
Disallowed shooting . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Run! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Check line of sight & pick a target . .16
Check range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Roll to hit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Roll to wound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Take saving throws . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
...." Pg II

"When are models in Cover?
When any part of the target model’s body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover" Pg 21
"If half or more of the models in the target unit are in cover, then the entire unit is deemed to be in cover and all of its models may take cover saves." Pg 22
"In case A, the majority of the firing Space Marine squad (i.e. three models out of five) have a clear shot to the majority of the" Pg 23
"At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (i.e. its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to claim to be in cover." Pg 62

Each case showing that the correct time to determine - with the other player - what has a cover save, is at the time of firinging.

The fact that you wish to 'know', be certain, or force the other player to agree that Unit X doesn't have a cover save - before you even finish moving your unit - show how advantageous this breaking of the rules is. But trying to demand that your opponent agree on cover save before the applicable phase, Dash you are the one who's breaking the rules. You are trying to obtain an agreement for you benifit outside of the time that the rules call for it - for the purposes of moving your models in the most benifical way for you and detrimental to the opponent... And you're saying it's wrong for your opponent to not aid you in this, even though that is in keeping with the rules.

So some of you are contending that cover saves cannot be taken outside the shooting phase then? Since we won't know if they're in cover unless it's the shooting phase?

DarknessEternal wrote:So some of you are contending that cover saves cannot be taken outside the shooting phase then? Since we won't know if they're in cover unless it's the shooting phase?

that sounds like a loaded question! the issue is with resolving whether a unit is in cover during the movement phase.

hemingway wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:So some of you are contending that cover saves cannot be taken outside the shooting phase then? Since we won't know if they're in cover unless it's the shooting phase?

that sounds like a loaded question! the issue is with resolving whether a unit is in cover during the movement phase.

According to your side, there's no way to tell in the movement phase.

No, according to his "side" it isn't the other player's responsibility to help the determination of what has cover and what isn't.

DarknessEternal wrote:

hemingway wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:So some of you are contending that cover saves cannot be taken outside the shooting phase then? Since we won't know if they're in cover unless it's the shooting phase?

that sounds like a loaded question! the issue is with resolving whether a unit is in cover during the movement phase.

According to your side, there's no way to tell in the movement phase.

Darkness, if for some reason something is taking wounds from a non-close combat attack during the movement phase, one will be directed by the rules to determine if the target is in cover as part of the process of taking wounds again it's actually being called upon by the rules to check if one has a cover save... by walking some troops into a position and asking an opponent to agree that they have/don't give a save - even if one's saying that units movement is finished for for the turn 'no backsies' - one is still forcing one opponent into an oral agreement of the state of the game before the rules call for it. Naturally as the aggressor you want to know that unit doesn't have a cover save, as then you can use your second squad to move elsewhere and shoot something else rather than use it to mitigate the 4+, but the defending player is protected by the rules from this sort of action, there's no indication that players need to 'know' what's in cover before the shooting phase (or the activation of some esoteric ability, which would be a situation in which - the rules call for it.)

This is similar to the measuring KFF issue. It would be nice as an ork player to 'know' that my units are with-in 6" at all times, and be able to measure this arbitrarily, but the only time I am compelled to measure the bubble is when the unit has to determine if it's in cover.

olympia wrote: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.

Normally, I'd take this to mean they are trying to make clear exactly what they are trying to do and avoid any issues to make the game a more pleasant experience. If an opponent asks me something like this I'll answer honestly and let them adjust, as they are making clear their intent and at that point it's not so much a matter of skill or generalship as simple mechanics which shouldn't be a huge issue.

Most of these anti arguments just seem like they're putting "I shouldn't have to help you" above having a smooth, friendly game.

It just seems petty to me. I don't think I've ever lost or won a game based on an argument about something getting a cover save. When in doubt, we usually just give cover to anything 40% or more.

Are the people I play with exceedingly generous? Are we fools for not lobbying for that 10%? Am I just not particular enough to give a frig about determining cover and LoS during movement?

Foo wrote:Most of these anti arguments just seem like they're putting "I shouldn't have to help you" above having a smooth, friendly game.

It just seems petty to me. I don't think I've ever lost or won a game based on an argument about something getting a cover save. When in doubt, we usually just give cover to anything 40% or more.

Are the people I play with exceedingly generous? Are we fools for not lobbying for that 10%? Am I just not particular enough to give a frig about determining cover and LoS during movement?

Actually 'most of these' argument are soundly based on following the rules and the understanding that the turn follows a sequence for a varity of reasons.

You say, " I don't think I've ever lost or won a game based on an argument about something getting a cover save" - Are you sure, these not a single game where if you had a cover save it might have saved that transport, or you would have been able to ignore their AP etc etc, weather or not units have cover is one of the major influences on the course of the game.

Not generous, just that they don't understand the impact of what their doing.
In a situation where tactically removing a unit from the board can assure a win ( C&C, killpoints, objectives...) Sometimes a single squads firepower is enough, some times two.
But if a squad has cover, then your AP doesn't matter they are reducing your wounds dealt by about half.
Your are not meant to 'know' if the squad is 'in cover' at this point. Because, if after moving your first unit if you are assured that "nope they aren't taking cover saves" you need only one squad to shoot freeing your other units from any worry that the enemy might pose a threat because their destruction was already assured.

If an opponent say "I guess they might" and you reAllly feel they don't then youactually must wait until the shooting phase to determine this as an agreement between the players. If you wish to browbeat someone who doesn't want to play fast and lose with the rules, because they understand that gaming changing tactial information can be brought to light by these 'agreement', that your right. Just be aware that people usually follow the rules of a game for good reasons.

ChrisCP wrote:
Actually 'most of these' argument are soundly based on following the rules and the understanding that the turn follows a sequence for a varity of reasons.

Assuming one agrees that the turn sequence is a rigid structure created for enforcement purposes and not as a guide to help people learn the game, perhaps.

I don't see how it makes sense to pretend LoS and Cover are separated from Movement when they're caused by it.

There's a difference between putting the cart before the horse and wanting to be sure the cart's been strapped to the harness before you get the horses running.

Yet noone can point to any rules stating I cannot ask my opponent questions during the game, nor that I am unable to determine LOS during the movement phase.

nos, I'm disappointed that you're using that argument.

"The rules don't say I can't"? You're better than that.

____________________________________________

Can we just agree that it's a grey area in the rules and that it should be discussed with your opponent when the situation arises? That seems to be the most sensible conclusion.

That isnt my argument, at all. I just shortened it at, frankly, 6 pages in is just dull to have to repeat the exac t same points.

My argument is that: the rules do not even ATTEMPT to cover what conversations you can and cannot have wih your opponent.

They are not even considered in the ruleset.

As such, it is not "illegal" or "legal", it is simply: this is a game between two people. There is a social contract between two players.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As such, it is not "illegal" or "legal", it is simply: this is a game between two people. There is a social contract between two players.

Ah. Well then.

I agree.

Good good

I think the only time it does actually require you to converse are on objectives and cover, as well as you must identify units inside transports. No other conversations are stipulated, howeevr.

Yep, and since it actually isn't covered it's just something you're going to have to sort out at the time and no one is evil/cheating for taking either position.

If you aren't comfortable with telling your opponent they have a clear shot, don't. If your opponent doesn't want to help you optimally place your units, they don't have to.

Which was the point i was making all along - that, as part of the social contract, there are times when you probably *should* help out - in the 10 tables in a line situation, or ina friendly game over a cheeky drink or 5

If you do answer, however, you cannot lie - if you answer in the affirmative, you have to be truthful or simply not answer.

Two people have agreed. Quick, close the thread before someone comes along to disagree!

I disagree!

Man, this makes me glad I have yet to try playing in a tournament yet. At my FLGS, everyone just moves their models, determing LoS for themselves then their opponents get into the argument after all movement has taken place.

If someone asked me the question, I am unsure how I would answer as I have never ran into the situation. My initial reaction is to say that I could not answer his question because when I play, I do not ask my opponents if they have cover in the movement phase. But the more I think about it, it really does not violate any rules asking questions or repositioning models as long as you do not move other models and when including time constraints, I could see this actually being beneficial for both players to playing a complete game. It makes sense that your opponent will always try and move into an advantageous position, baring tactical decisions.

One thing might be to look at this in the light of what if there was a rule that said that this kind of behavior is favorable as it lets each opponent play to the fullest extent of the game. If this was the case, would this rule cause the game to break down or deviate from the original gameplay? Looking at it initially, to me, would mean the fault of giving up cover in the movement phase is the moving player's fault as you know the opponent is given complete truth of all movement situations during their movement phase, just like you are, unlike the way it is now where giving cover is more a combination of both player's movement.

So, with that in mind, it seems to me that the answer is dependent on if the game is ment to be clear-cut like M:tG or more open-ended. If it is suppose to be clear-cut like M:tG, then letting your opponent know when he asks for cover questions in the movement phase makes sense. But I have a sneaking suspension that this game is not clear-cut but more open-ended to allow hobbists to modify the rules, which is not very conducive to tournament play.

If it was up to me, I say that it is up to your opponent to determine if his movement is good enough to determine if their target's are getting cover. Of course, your always welcome to play anyway you wish as that is how the rules were written, in an open-ended mannor. And until GW makes the move to clean up their rules, I think this situation will always cause problems in the tournament scene unless it is specified before hand.

Foo wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:
Actually 'most of these' argument are soundly based on following the rules and the understanding that the turn follows a sequence for a varity of reasons.

Assuming one agrees that the turn sequence is a rigid structure created for enforcement purposes and not as a guide to help people learn the game, perhaps.

I don't see how it makes sense to pretend LoS and Cover are separated from Movement when they're caused by it.

There's a difference between putting the cart before the horse and wanting to be sure the cart's been strapped to the harness before you get the horses running.

By joves! You are correct, the turn structure isn't define clearly in the rules book, henceforth I will assault units in my movement phase as this yeild the greates advantage for me ...Or one could try to play the game by using the rules and reading the rule book...
"THE TURN SEQUENCE
1 The Movement phase
The player can move any of his units that are capable of doing so. See the Movement rules for more details of how to move your forces.
2 The Shooting phase
The player can shoot with any of his units that can see an enemy. See the Shooting rules for more details about how to resolve this.
3 The Assault phase
The player can move any of his units to assault the enemy if they are close enough. Assaults are bloody, desperate affairs where units are fighting in close combat. This means that both
forces can fight in an Assault phase, but only the player whose turn it is can move into an assault. The Assault rules will tell you more about them." Page 9

Again you seem to be missing the point that, if one is trying to force one's opponent to agree on cover y/n for that squad. One can gain a tactical advantage. That one's opponent or even yourself is not compelled to give any information or make any kind of agreement on this untill "TAKE SAVING THROWS" Page 22. And that it's actually the player asking these question - more so if they take issue with "I'm not sure let's work it out in the shooting phase/when you've finished you movement." - whos at fault.

Would this argument be made mute if you say politly, "Cover is worked out in the Shooting phase."? The rules state that is where it is done.
If the questioner then says "But this will speed up the game. (or something along those lines)".
Then the resopnse of "Doing that now is NOT playing THIS game." not in a mear ro demining way, just a fact and admintence of liking this game system.

I agree that in competion cover is a problem, and that a laser pointer sloves it most of the time. In friedly games this is not so much an issuse. However getting cover or not is is not the problem here, it is the act of taking advatage of the other player for your benifit intentionally or not.

An explaination that dertrmining cover or making a "social contract (asking with reply for ther person)" durring the movment phase takes a part of the game away and off balances the game by giving an unfair atvantage to the moving player, thus unsportman of him/her. If you want to check LoS durring the movment phase fine, lean you head/Laser point away, but most of the time you're just spliting hairs. if you have dout, then address at the approprate time instead of stalling the game in the wrong phase because THAT seems unsporting to the other player to watse their time doing something twice (by the rule you would have to check durring the shooting phase anyway).

That's all I got, This is a social question,
P.S. - as far as sportmanship score goes, the TO should think real hard about including it because no one likes losing...

ChrisCP wrote:Again you seem to be missing the point that, if one is trying to force one's opponent to agree on cover y/n for that squad. One can gain a tactical advantage. That one's opponent or even yourself is not compelled to give any information or make any kind of agreement on this untill "TAKE SAVING THROWS" Page 22. And that it's actually the player asking these question - more so if they take issue with "I'm not sure let's work it out in the shooting phase/when you've finished you movement." - whos at fault.

I'm not missing any point. If both players move and clear up LoS and cover concerns while moving, neither player gains any tactical advantage.

To me, it's more important to work out ahead of time so that there's no disagreement later, but obviously I'm concerned with having a personable game whereas you're clearly more concerned with the rules and doing things in a certain order.

Do you never do Running while in the moving phase, either?

Foo wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:Again you seem to be missing the point that, if one is trying to force one's opponent to agree on cover y/n for that squad. One can gain a tactical advantage. That one's opponent or even yourself is not compelled to give any information or make any kind of agreement on this untill "TAKE SAVING THROWS" Page 22. And that it's actually the player asking these question - more so if they take issue with "I'm not sure let's work it out in the shooting phase/when you've finished you movement." - whos at fault.

I'm not missing any point. If both players move and clear up LoS and cover concerns while moving, neither player gains any tactical advantage.

To me, it's more important to work out ahead of time so that there's no disagreement later, but obviously I'm concerned with having a personable game whereas you're clearly more concerned with the rules and doing things in a certain order.

Do you never do Running while in the moving phase, either?

Again, they do. The point you are missing is - Who ever is the defending player is at a disadvantage because the offensive player can move his forces in response to a yay/nay of cover.

It's a fallacy to say 'working it out ahead of time' prevents disagreement, if there's going to disagreement it's now occurring ahead of time.
Again, 'It makes no difference' is false and I've explained to you how such practices can generate an in game advantage.

With running in the shooting phase. It shouldn't be done, as one could have unit A occupying a space at the end of a movement phase which should be busy having unit B in it preparing to run. Allowing for assault that would otherwise be blocked. Other than this one advantage everything else to do with running is a disadvantage for the controlling player - If I don't spot that particular advantage at stake, I guess I have no problem with you moving and running during the movement phase... Just don't roll your run and say "well these guys are going to more 12 that way." Move as far as you’re going to move and then run, cos like, that's how you run, after you've finished moving.

And Personally - no I do not run in the movement phase, I do it in the shooting phase like the rules allow.

Foo wrote:

Do you never do Running while in the moving phase, either?

We know that running in the movement phase is often used to make room for another unit to movement. The run in conjunction with the unit's normal move gives a rhino, land raider, or whatever enough room to squeeze between units or whatever. So in a tournament setting allowing running in the movement phase would depend on whether or not the run would confer this significant advantage. Now, to go back to the main issue, combining elements of the shooting phase with your movement phase is always going to confer a significant tactical advantage. Foo, do you play in many tournaments? I'd suspect that the opinion in this thread is roughly divided between tournament/competitive players who grasp the huge advantage of this type of gameplay, on the one hand, and more casual players who see it as somehow smoothing out gameplay (although how I don't see), on the other. Personally, I would be embarrassed for my opponent iif in a tournament game he tried to pull the gak I describe in my OP. In a tournament game you'd have to have a neck like a jockey's bollox to even ask about cover saves while you were conducting your moves.

Quite amusing post that, given this is a thread started in response to a bat rep by one of the most well known tournament players who think in opposition to you.

Or do you think Dash doesnt realise this can grant an advantage?

It can alleviate arguments in the shooting phase, as a contentious position on the field can be avoided.

Still waiting on any rules quotes from you Olympia, care to provide any?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Quite amusing post that, given this is a thread started in response to a bat rep by one of the most well known tournament players who think in opposition to you.

Or do you think Dash doesnt realise this can grant an advantage?

It can alleviate arguments in the shooting phase, as a contentious position on the field can be avoided.

Still waiting on any rules quotes from you Olympia, care to provide any?

Nos in 4th how many players including yourself correctly used LOS? (I know I'm guilty of playing it wrong) ... simple fact that just because lots of people do doesn't make it right.

Sure you can change the rules so long as you both agree ... but the point is I don't as it gives an advantage and it make little or no difference to the speed of the game (unless he spends an age making absolute sure they're in the right place) ... when the actual LOS check comes up in the shooting phase you can quickly check and see if they do or don't.

I attmepted to correctly use it, was defeated by too many "so, this hill is height 3 area terrain, yeah?" people...same as 7th WHFB and trees. Sigh.

I also didnt use the crowd-source argument, I was simply pointing out the absurdity of Olympias contention (another absurdity, actually) that there was a split with tournament players being against this - when that clearly isnt the case, and was easily disproven.

Additionally: there are no rules being changed. Simply put, the rules do not in any way, shape or form govern the conversations you can have during the game. Absolutely no consideration is given to restricting what you can talk about (it makes some elements mandatory, see above, but imposes no restrictions) therefore this is NOT a case of TMIR coming into play.

It also can make a big difference to the speed of the game. Some calls are very difficult to make from your side of the table, and going around a line of 10 tables, past gamers / gaming bags / model trays precariously balanced on the edge of chairs / etc to check can increase the aggravation of an already long day.

I simply hold to the social contract theory, even in a competition (which shold, imho, not have "money" on the line anyway - trophies are one thing, actual goods another), whereby there are some situations where this is a good thing.

Fair enough ... I still don't see it being a issue simply because I can place models without going round ... but end of the day its between the two players. While I'm not going to help (or ask for it ether) I cannot complain if you do so with you're opponent, any more then when I watch to players go ah there close enough and pushed them the last 1/4" into close combat.

Funny enough, I had an opponent yesterday doing exactly what olympia suggested. He forced me to run around just two tables(three in a row, we had the middle one) multiple times to check LoS for my big shootas, rokkits or deffguns. He basically answered "not my problem" whenever I asked him whether I had clear LoS to something, even during shooting, as long as I didn't declare and "lock" a target to shoot at. After that, he'd usually argue to have a cover save, even if only a branch of a tree was hiding the helmet of one scorpion. He wasn't a really fun opponent.

However, because of his bad sportsmanship his dice revolted and not a single serpent managed to dodge a deff rolla. Justice has been done.

Jidmah wrote:Funny enough, I had an opponent yesterday doing exactly what olympia suggested. He forced me to run around just two tables(three in a row, we had the middle one) multiple times to check LoS for my big shootas, rokkits or deffguns. He basically answered "not my problem" whenever I asked him whether I had clear LoS to something, even during shooting, as long as I didn't declare and "lock" a target to shoot at. After that, he'd usually argue to have a cover save, even if only a branch of a tree was hiding the helmet of one scorpion. He wasn't a really fun opponent.

However, because of his bad sportsmanship his dice revolted and not a single serpent managed to dodge a deff rolla. Justice has been done.

Movement phase is one thing but not checking for you in the shooting phase ... well the guys TFG

Most arguments contra movement phase would fully back him up even during shooting though.

Jidmah wrote:Most arguments contra movement phase would fully back him up even during shooting though.

I really don't see how.

Jidmah wrote:Funny enough, I had an opponent yesterday doing exactly what olympia suggested. He forced me to run around just two tables(three in a row, we had the middle one) multiple times to check LoS for my big shootas, rokkits or deffguns. He basically answered "not my problem" whenever I asked him whether I had clear LoS to something, even during shooting, as long as I didn't declare and "lock" a target to shoot at. After that, he'd usually argue to have a cover save, even if only a branch of a tree was hiding the helmet of one scorpion. He wasn't a really fun opponent.

However, because of his bad sportsmanship his dice revolted and not a single serpent managed to dodge a deff rolla. Justice has been done.

See the dice never lie, he was being rude ("even if only a branch of a tree was hiding the helmet of one scorpion.") and they stuck a rudder up him


But funnily enough, you didn't need to run around the tables, he did.
"As usual, check the firers’ line of sight by taking a good look from behind their heads, and ‘see what they see’." Pg 21
This is from "When are models in Cover?" So if he doubted you assesment that his models were not in cover from the PoV of your firing models he'd have to come around the table to have a look

Monster Rain wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Most arguments contra movement phase would fully back him up even during shooting though.

I really don't see how.

As you don't check LoS until you've actually committed to shooting a target, you might shoot another unit if you're giving something a cover save.

The point here is that it isn't incumbent upon your opponent to help one determine the perfect placement of their models to ensure that they have optimal shots at your models.

If you're not being compliant in the shooting phase however, you are being a tool.

MR - except under the social contract idea, where you and I know I CAN quite happily place them to hoot your brilliantly, however in order to do so its going to take a lot of moving round the table(s) in the way to do so.

Sometimes the expedient route is the "correct" one in a social game.

Monster Rain wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Most arguments contra movement phase would fully back him up even during shooting though.

I really don't see how.

This is quite hypocritical, don't you think? Just pull any of your posts from this thread, and apply it to checking LoS before declaring a target unit. Works perfectly fine.

So how is choosing between which unit to shoot based on LoS different in shooting than in moving?

One argument was that you may only check LoS when shooting/actually taking cover saves, which was what my opponent was insisting on.

Another was that clearing that discussing cover before saves would grant me an advantage. How is this advantage any different from me checking whether I chose the scorpion with the stick in the face or dire avengers out in the open to shoot at?

How are you not helping determining whether they get a cover save(to quote you)?

So jidmah, let me see if I understand. You are now claiming that is is fine to declare a target, measure range, and then change your mind if the target is deserving of a cover save?

You've misunderstood.

olympia wrote:So jidmah, let me see if I understand. You are now claiming that is is fine to declare a target, measure range, and then change your mind if the target is deserving of a cover save?

You're either misunderstanding, trolling, or unable to figure out LoS without using something with a measuring scale on it.

How can you possibly claim anything about measuring from my posts?

Plus, my flash gits can do that.

Wait. The fact that determining cover should be done in the shooting phase is an argument that cover shouldn't be determined in the shooting phase?

Think about that again, Jidmah.

Just to wade in and offer my 2 irrelevant cents:

If I am midway through moving a unit - and then realise that said move was actually quite a stupid idea - am I allowed to move back to where I was, and re-move?

Monster Rain wrote:Wait. The fact that determining cover should be done in the shooting phase is an argument that cover shouldn't be determined in the shooting phase?

Think about that again, Jidmah.

So, putting words in my mouth now? I was arguing based on your posts so far. Do you want me to quote them all?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liam0404 wrote:Just to wade in and offer my 2 irrelevant cents:

If I am midway through moving a unit - and then realise that said move was actually quite a stupid idea - am I allowed to move back to where I was, and re-move?

Yup, that's what the rules say. You should have a way to find the original position though.

Jidmah wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
If I am midway through moving a unit - and then realise that said move was actually quite a stupid idea - am I allowed to move back to where I was, and re-move?

Yup, that's what the rules say. You should have a way to find the original position though.

... er the rules don't say that ... they say you can measure as much as you like and even go else where or not at all.

Jidmah wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Wait. The fact that determining cover should be done in the shooting phase is an argument that cover shouldn't be determined in the shooting phase?

Think about that again, Jidmah.

So, putting words in my mouth now? I was arguing based on your posts so far. Do you want me to quote them all?

Yes, please do. I said that I would reply "we'll see in the shooting phase."

How would that mean that we wouldn't determine cover in the shooting phase?

I do this.

You move the model the spot you're moving it for a reason. You probably have enough movement to ensure your opponent will not get a cover save.

Communicating this with your opponent avoids the arguement in the shooting phase, and the "well if I knew you were going to say that, I would have done this' conversation.

Communication is key to effective, efficient, and enjoyable play.

ChrisCP wrote:Again, they do. The point you are missing is - Who ever is the defending player is at a disadvantage because the offensive player can move his forces in response to a yay/nay of cover.

If both players do the same thing, there is no advantage.

My Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be in cover. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *move model*

Your Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be in cover. Would you agree?"
"Yeah, looks good to me."
"Word. I enjoy playing with you as you are laid back and cool."
"Let's get married."
"Yes, let's."

No one gains anything except a beautiful relationship.


To reiterate: My belief is that the game should be won on tactics and rolls of the dice, not arguments which can drastically change the tactical situation from what one thought it was based on whether something is 45% in cover or 50%.

It's just confirming expectations to avoid a nasty surprise and argument.

Cottonjaw wrote:I do this.

You move the model the spot you're moving it for a reason. You probably have enough movement to ensure your opponent will not get a cover save.

Communicating this with your opponent avoids the arguement in the shooting phase, and the "well if I knew you were going to say that, I would have done this' conversation.

Communication is key to effective, efficient, and enjoyable play.

Thank you for putting into words that which I could not, especially the bolded part.

1. The argument seems to be suffering from two different camps consisting of competitive play, and social play. It appears to me that the majority of the people fighting against allocating cover in the movement phase (me included) are referring to competitive play and not friendly pick-up games. You guys are comparing apples and oranges in your arguments..

In a friendly game, we have all let people go back and use that psychic power they forgot to do, that charge they forgot to declare, etc etc...but in competitive play, the rules are more strictly adhered to and people are supposed to bring their "A" game. This I feel is what the OP was talking about though I may be wrong. Lets face it, if I go to a GT I have shelled out damn near a grand to do so and i expect to play an opponent that follows the rules to the letter..As i mentioned in another post, if i personally were looking for camaraderie, there are far less expensive ways to do so. Loser buys the first round..

2. Nos, your demands for a rules quote as to disallowing your opponent to speak to you, ask you questions and such are baffling. The OP never said that you couldn't speak to your opponent, exchange recipes, or make out. He simply stated that it was not your opponents job to help you place models in the best possible way. You can ask me all day long if you have cover during the movement phase, and it is my prerogative to politely answer with "we shall see in the shooting phase".

3. I also do not see at all how this "speeds things up" in the least. If I tell you "we shall see in the shooting phase" in response to your movement phase cover query, you will make a decision on your own and when the shooting phase comes around we address whether it is or it isn't. We either debate it during the shooting phase or during the movement phase..If we debate it in the movement phase the argument is actually longer because you are going to keep moving until you get the answer you want to hear.

4. To the poster (i forget who it was) who said "it's not an advantage if you both do it, i say this; proper placement IS TACTICS...I don't need or want my opponent to guide me..being able to line up that perfect shot, charge etc, is a huge part of competitive play.

Again..i think we can all agree that in friendly games we are not even remotely discussing this situation..it is in competitive play!!!!!...for that reason it seems like half of the posters aren't understanding what people are trying to say and in what context

1. Then yu havent read the originating post, which was a competitive game, or the numerous references to tournament play.

2. The OP stated it was *illegal* to ask these questions. When asked to actually back that bald assertion up, they failed. Many, many times. Again, this suggsts you havent really read all the thread.

3. Have you ever played in an envronment with 5 tables in a long line? I am perfectly allowed to move around the table as I wish when I move, and if you wont help confirm something from your side then I WILLmove around, past the 13 bags, 8 hot gamers, numerous chairs, etc - and back again - for every model.

This is the "social contract" part youre missing. Again, this point has been raised NUMEROUS times, so again suggesting you have failed to do everyone the courtesy of reading the full thread.

Your final point sums up just how much you have missed in this thread.

Nos, you aren't making any sense...you are agreeing with me in a way...

1. Yes, as i said..it happened in a competitive game...I am talking about the multitude of posters who say it's wrong because it's not the "friendly" or "nice" way to play the game. So, yes..I did read it..

2. again, i think you are missing his point entirely

3. Where in my post did I say that you couldn't do that if you wanted in a tourney?...did I miss some extra paragraph on my part that my cat typed when i wasn't looking. You can jog for all I care..it's just not my job to move your models or confirm things out of phase.

/shakes head

Foo wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:Again, they do. The point you are missing is - Who ever is the defending player is at a disadvantage because the offensive player can move his forces in response to a yay/nay of cover.

If both players do the same thing, there is no advantage.

My Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be in cover. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *move model*

Your Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be in cover. Would you agree?"
"Yeah, looks good to me."
"Word. I enjoy playing with you as you are laid back and cool."
"Let's get married."
"Yes, let's."

No one gains anything except a beautiful relationship.

To reiterate: My belief is that the game should be won on tactics and rolls of the dice, not arguments which can drastically change the tactical situation from what one thought it was based on whether something is 45% in cover or 50%.

It's just confirming expectations to avoid a nasty surprise and argument.

You seem to be concentrating on the argument side of things instead of the impact it has on the game, clearly you do not have any understanding of the implications of your actions and you're misunderstanding the situation.

The scenario goes like this:
My Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be be a clear shot at unit XXX. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves model*
*Pew Pew Pew, Dakka-Dakka-Dakka* Three extra guys die because they don't have 4+ cover
Your Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be a clear shot at YYY. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves model*
*Pew Pew Pew....* No dakka because I was able to kill three extra guys, the three with missile launchers in fact, on my turn.

Again, I can accept that you don't play games at a level where you would appreciate the impact of these actions - That’s clear from your ending your argument with a 'joke' instead of addressing the issue.
So another scenario for you, wish I had a picture it would save a lot of words.

My Turn:
"I'm moving unit XXX here But I'm not sure if it's a clear shot. What do you think?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves unit*
^Hmm as they don't have cover I won't neeed to shoot extra shots at them, lets move YYY over there then^
"I'm going to drive my ZYX transport down there, I has clear LoS to your Tank right?"
"Ummm, yeah I guess..."
"Awesome" *moves unit*
^excellent as XXX has a clear shot it's almost certain to force him to GTG or lose the squad, and my ZYX is going to at least shake his rhino so I won't have to worry about that, Hmmm...^
"Hey if I move my next squad there they can see that Metal Box right?"
"...yeah....."
*Rinse repeat until every unit is in optimal position*
"Pew Pew Pew, Dakka-Dakka-Dakka"
Your Turn:
"Oh, I had to GTG so I can't fire or move with that squad or that one, and all my transports are shaken/stunned and I lost weapons off everything but my skimmer"
"That's pretty unlucky, maybe if you had more 4+ cover saves. Things would have been different"
"Hey, you buddy"
*You pick up your remaining models on the second turn because you know nothings going to move and nothing has any cover*


You might this this situation is unrealistic or excessive, but it's not - it pretty damn close to how DE will pick an army apart turn one if allowed to, positioning positioning positioning. And naturally they player who is going first has the biggest advantage, their forces haven't been depleted they can bring their full power, by the time your turns come around and you try to gain an advantage by 'confirming cover' you've lost far more troops than if the player had to be set in their movement and as a result granted your units some cover. Sticking your head in the sand and saying 'but there's no advantage is a brilliant display of wilful ignorance.

Cottonjaw wrote:Communication is key to effective, efficient, and enjoyable play.

I totally agree.

I'm just going to go ahead and point at the elephant in the room and say that if someone that I'm playing against is clearly doing something of questionable ethics to gain an advantage in a tournament game I am well within my rights to deny them that advantage.

In 99.9% of the games that I play I will not be the guy who doesn't go far out of his way to be agreeable.

ChrisCP wrote:

Foo wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:Again, they do. The point you are missing is - Who ever is the defending player is at a disadvantage because the offensive player can move his forces in response to a yay/nay of cover.

If both players do the same thing, there is no advantage.

My Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be in cover. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *move model*

Your Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be in cover. Would you agree?"
"Yeah, looks good to me."
"Word. I enjoy playing with you as you are laid back and cool."
"Let's get married."
"Yes, let's."

No one gains anything except a beautiful relationship.

To reiterate: My belief is that the game should be won on tactics and rolls of the dice, not arguments which can drastically change the tactical situation from what one thought it was based on whether something is 45% in cover or 50%.

It's just confirming expectations to avoid a nasty surprise and argument.

You seem to be concentrating on the argument side of things instead of the impact it has on the game, clearly you do not have any understanding of the implications of your actions and you're misunderstanding the situation.

The scenario goes like this:
My Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be be a clear shot at unit XXX. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves model*
*Pew Pew Pew, Dakka-Dakka-Dakka* Three extra guys die because they don't have 4+ cover
Your Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be a clear shot at YYY. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves model*
*Pew Pew Pew....* No dakka because I was able to kill three extra guys, the three with missile launchers in fact, on my turn.

Again, I can accept that you don't play games at a level where you would appreciate the impact of these actions - That’s clear from your ending your argument with a 'joke' instead of addressing the issue.
So another scenario for you, wish I had a picture it would save a lot of words.

My Turn:
"I'm moving unit XXX here But I'm not sure if it's a clear shot. What do you think?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves unit*
^Hmm as they don't have cover I won't neeed to shoot extra shots at them, lets move YYY over there then^
"I'm going to drive my ZYX transport down there, I has clear LoS to your Tank right?"
"Ummm, yeah I guess..."
"Awesome" *moves unit*
^excellent as XXX has a clear shot it's almost certain to force him to GTG or lose the squad, and my ZYX is going to at least shake his rhino so I won't have to worry about that, Hmmm...^
"Hey if I move my next squad there they can see that Metal Box right?"
"...yeah....."
*Rinse repeat until every unit is in optimal position*
"Pew Pew Pew, Dakka-Dakka-Dakka"
Your Turn:
"Oh, I had to GTG so I can't fire or move with that squad or that one, and all my transports are shaken/stunned and I lost weapons off everything but my skimmer"
"That's pretty unlucky, maybe if you had more 4+ cover saves. Things would have been different"
"Hey, you buddy"
*You pick up your remaining models on the second turn because you know nothings going to move and nothing has any cover*


You might this this situation is unrealistic or excessive, but it's not - it pretty damn close to how DE will pick an army apart turn one if allowed to, positioning positioning positioning. And naturally they player who is going first has the biggest advantage, their forces haven't been depleted they can bring their full power, by the time your turns come around and you try to gain an advantage by 'confirming cover' you've lost far more troops than if the player had to be set in their movement and as a result granted your units some cover. Sticking your head in the sand and saying 'but there's no advantage is a brilliant display of wilful ignorance.

Why is it that the most damning possible scenarios always needs to be brought up as an attempted tool for an argument? By all means please show me the dice rolls that creates the situation above for DE.

Outrageous claims of possible scenarios do not make an argument. Creation of a modest, REALISTIC scenario is far more convincing of an argument.

"And the the guns sprouted min-guns with targeters that were mounted on hellfire missile pods that shot snakes with poisonous fangs out of each miniature skull shaped warhead. Oh and everything was on FIRE!!!"

ChrisCP wrote:

Foo wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:Again, they do. The point you are missing is - Who ever is the defending player is at a disadvantage because the offensive player can move his forces in response to a yay/nay of cover.

If both players do the same thing, there is no advantage.

My Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be in cover. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *move model*

Your Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be in cover. Would you agree?"
"Yeah, looks good to me."
"Word. I enjoy playing with you as you are laid back and cool."
"Let's get married."
"Yes, let's."

No one gains anything except a beautiful relationship.

To reiterate: My belief is that the game should be won on tactics and rolls of the dice, not arguments which can drastically change the tactical situation from what one thought it was based on whether something is 45% in cover or 50%.

It's just confirming expectations to avoid a nasty surprise and argument.

You seem to be concentrating on the argument side of things instead of the impact it has on the game, clearly you do not have any understanding of the implications of your actions and you're misunderstanding the situation.

The scenario goes like this:
My Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be be a clear shot at unit XXX. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves model*
*Pew Pew Pew, Dakka-Dakka-Dakka* Three extra guys die because they don't have 4+ cover
Your Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be a clear shot at YYY. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves model*
*Pew Pew Pew....* No dakka because I was able to kill three extra guys, the three with missile launchers in fact, on my turn.

Again, I can accept that you don't play games at a level where you would appreciate the impact of these actions - That’s clear from your ending your argument with a 'joke' instead of addressing the issue.
So another scenario for you, wish I had a picture it would save a lot of words.

My Turn:
"I'm moving unit XXX here But I'm not sure if it's a clear shot. What do you think?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves unit*
^Hmm as they don't have cover I won't neeed to shoot extra shots at them, lets move YYY over there then^
"I'm going to drive my ZYX transport down there, I has clear LoS to your Tank right?"
"Ummm, yeah I guess..."
"Awesome" *moves unit*
^excellent as XXX has a clear shot it's almost certain to force him to GTG or lose the squad, and my ZYX is going to at least shake his rhino so I won't have to worry about that, Hmmm...^
"Hey if I move my next squad there they can see that Metal Box right?"
"...yeah....."
*Rinse repeat until every unit is in optimal position*
"Pew Pew Pew, Dakka-Dakka-Dakka"
Your Turn:
"Oh, I had to GTG so I can't fire or move with that squad or that one, and all my transports are shaken/stunned and I lost weapons off everything but my skimmer"
"That's pretty unlucky, maybe if you had more 4+ cover saves. Things would have been different"
"Hey, you buddy"
*You pick up your remaining models on the second turn because you know nothings going to move and nothing has any cover*


You might this this situation is unrealistic or excessive, but it's not - it pretty damn close to how DE will pick an army apart turn one if allowed to, positioning positioning positioning. And naturally they player who is going first has the biggest advantage, their forces haven't been depleted they can bring their full power, by the time your turns come around and you try to gain an advantage by 'confirming cover' you've lost far more troops than if the player had to be set in their movement and as a result granted your units some cover. Sticking your head in the sand and saying 'but there's no advantage is a brilliant display of wilful ignorance.

Look, dude, stop telling me I don't understand. Just because I disagree and don't care, doesn't mean I don't comprehend. I ended with a joke because I don't have a stick up my ass.

Also: nobody but you is talking about having your opponent guide every single move you make for maximum effect. Your examples are all overblown and ridiculous. I'm talking about clarifying ahead of time when something might be contentious (i.e., the difference between 45 and 50% in cover), not having the opponent confirm that every move being made is in range with LoS and cover, because 90% of the time it's obvious when something's got cover and LoS.

forget it

Foo wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

Foo wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:Again, they do. The point you are missing is - Who ever is the defending player is at a disadvantage because the offensive player can move his forces in response to a yay/nay of cover.

If both players do the same thing, there is no advantage.

My Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be in cover. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *move model*

Your Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be in cover. Would you agree?"
"Yeah, looks good to me."
"Word. I enjoy playing with you as you are laid back and cool."
"Let's get married."
"Yes, let's."

No one gains anything except a beautiful relationship.

To reiterate: My belief is that the game should be won on tactics and rolls of the dice, not arguments which can drastically change the tactical situation from what one thought it was based on whether something is 45% in cover or 50%.

It's just confirming expectations to avoid a nasty surprise and argument.

You seem to be concentrating on the argument side of things instead of the impact it has on the game, clearly you do not have any understanding of the implications of your actions and you're misunderstanding the situation.

The scenario goes like this:
My Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be be a clear shot at unit XXX. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves model*
*Pew Pew Pew, Dakka-Dakka-Dakka* Three extra guys die because they don't have 4+ cover
Your Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be a clear shot at YYY. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves model*
*Pew Pew Pew....* No dakka because I was able to kill three extra guys, the three with missile launchers in fact, on my turn.

Again, I can accept that you don't play games at a level where you would appreciate the impact of these actions - That’s clear from your ending your argument with a 'joke' instead of addressing the issue.
So another scenario for you, wish I had a picture it would save a lot of words.

My Turn:
"I'm moving unit XXX here But I'm not sure if it's a clear shot. What do you think?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves unit*
^Hmm as they don't have cover I won't neeed to shoot extra shots at them, lets move YYY over there then^
"I'm going to drive my ZYX transport down there, I has clear LoS to your Tank right?"
"Ummm, yeah I guess..."
"Awesome" *moves unit*
^excellent as XXX has a clear shot it's almost certain to force him to GTG or lose the squad, and my ZYX is going to at least shake his rhino so I won't have to worry about that, Hmmm...^
"Hey if I move my next squad there they can see that Metal Box right?"
"...yeah....."
*Rinse repeat until every unit is in optimal position*
"Pew Pew Pew, Dakka-Dakka-Dakka"
Your Turn:
"Oh, I had to GTG so I can't fire or move with that squad or that one, and all my transports are shaken/stunned and I lost weapons off everything but my skimmer"
"That's pretty unlucky, maybe if you had more 4+ cover saves. Things would have been different"
"Hey, you buddy"
*You pick up your remaining models on the second turn because you know nothings going to move and nothing has any cover*


You might this this situation is unrealistic or excessive, but it's not - it pretty damn close to how DE will pick an army apart turn one if allowed to, positioning positioning positioning. And naturally they player who is going first has the biggest advantage, their forces haven't been depleted they can bring their full power, by the time your turns come around and you try to gain an advantage by 'confirming cover' you've lost far more troops than if the player had to be set in their movement and as a result granted your units some cover. Sticking your head in the sand and saying 'but there's no advantage is a brilliant display of wilful ignorance.

Look, dude, stop telling me I don't understand. Just because I disagree and don't care, doesn't mean I don't comprehend. I ended with a joke because I don't have a stick up my ass.

Also: nobody but you is talking about having your opponent guide every single move you make for maximum effect. Your examples are all overblown and ridiculous. I'm talking about clarifying ahead of time when something might be contentious (i.e., the difference between 45 and 50% in cover), not having the opponent confirm that every move being made is in range with LoS and cover, because 90% of the time it's obvious when something's got cover and LoS.

So, you disagree that determining if a unit is in cover or not during the movement phase provides and advantage to the attacking player... when I've shown clear evidence.

olympia wrote:

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.

That's actually the exact topic of the thread, announcing one's intention for the shooting phase in hope of one's opponent correcting one of you errors.

And no, my examples are exactly how it goes down, if I deal six un-saveable wounds and have denied your 4+ cover extra guys are going to die, meaning you won't be able to fire back. When I have clear shots on 50% of your army, and ensure by checking that any other shots which are contentious are actually clear during the movement phase, I can distribute my forces better. With someone playing to win and people asking to settle on cover in the movement phase, as you say, you disagree, you can't conceive of how this subtle breaking of the rules confers a significant advantage to the attacking player and I think that it is taking quite a short-sighted view to say that there's no advantage in this breaking of the rules.

Prophaniti wrote:Nos, you aren't making any sense...you are agreeing with me in a way...

1. Yes, as i said..it happened in a competitive game...I am talking about the multitude of posters who say it's wrong because it's not the "friendly" or "nice" way to play the game. So, yes..I did read it..

Yet there isnt that split - and even in a tournament courtesy and an appreciation that the game is STILL a social contract is important.

Prophaniti wrote:2. again, i think you are missing his point entirely

No, I am asking someone who states, baldly, that something is "against the rules" aka "this is illegal" to actually support their statement with rules, as required by the tenets of this forum. His point is badly mde and not supported by the rules in the rulebook.

Prophaniti wrote:3. Where in my post did I say that you couldn't do that if you wanted in a tourney?...did I miss some extra paragraph on my part that my cat typed when i wasn't looking. You can jog for all I care..it's just not my job to move your models or confirm things out of phase.

Sigh. Read your first words. Your claikm is that you cannot see how it speeds games up. I gave you a real world situation where it DOES speed up the game. Something that has been brought up many times. For you to claim you cannot see how it speeds games up implies that you have either not read / ignored these examples, or believe they dont occur. Given the latter isnt true...well guess that means you didnt read the thread very closely.

Also: you are answering a point I did not make. I did not say it was your "job", I was pointing out how something could speed up the game, despite your insistence that this wouldnt happen.

Prophaniti wrote:/shakes head

Useful reaction.

This argument seems to have gone as far as it can. I don't think there is anything to be gained by continuing.