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

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.