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.

Proof? The rule where it says to treat them as if they are not onthe table. You then cannot draw LOS *from* the models eyes, because for the purposes of LOS the model is not on the table.

However, from the (yet again) facetious nature of your comment, you do realise that no TO would ever let you do that, right?

I guess you dont realise Rage doesnt force you to assault, right?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Proof? The rule where it says to treat them as if they are not onthe table. You then cannot draw LOS *from* the models eyes, because for the purposes of LOS the model is not on the table.

However, from the (yet again) facetious nature of your comment, you do realise that no TO would ever let you do that, right?

I guess you dont realise Rage doesnt force you to assault, right?

Actually every TO will let you draw LOS in 360 from infantry models regarding Rage. This is very standard in EVERY major tournament. You're trying to prove they do it wrong by RAW.

Yes I do realize that Rage doesn't force you to assault. The effect is the same, you're saying my death company is no longer stuck 1" away from the enemy drop pod and I can just turn my models around and "Nya, we can't seeee you".

I'm looking for proof that I shouldn't just measure from the eyes to behind the model because the model itself doesn't block LOS.

Sigh. the "that", if you read context, was talking about running DC backwards to avoid Rage. Us TOs know about this "ability", and just dont let people do it - as far as I'm aware. Or have you been to every major tournament, UK and elsewhere, to confirm this?

I've given you the proof, if you cant be bothered to read and understand it, stop asking for it.

the model itself doesnt block LOS because you trest it as if it werent there. So, at all points when you check LOS that model isnt there. Meaning it has no eyes for you to draw LOS from, because the model isnt there. Understand yet? It isnt that tricky a concept...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
the model itself doesnt block LOS because you trest it as if it werent there. So, at all points when you check LOS that model isnt there. Meaning it has no eyes for you to draw LOS from, because the model isnt there. Understand yet? It isnt that tricky a concept...

Rules as played, everyone agrees you can't do this. So you're saying RAW you can turn your models around to circumvent Rage?

For drawing LOS "imagine the model isn't there" doesn't mean I no longer know where the eyes are. Perhaps you have a much better imagination though. I personally have no problem treating the model as if it weren't blocking LOS and still knowing where the eyes are to measure from.

Yes, RAW you can. And? Have you seen the silly RAW thread at all?

"AS IF the model isnt there" - if the model isnt there then there are no eyes to draw from.

Silly RAW to foil your silly RAW that ignores the context of a rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, RAW you can. And? Have you seen the silly RAW thread at all?

"AS IF the model isnt there" - if the model isnt there then there are no eyes to draw from.

Silly RAW to foil your silly RAW that ignores the context of a rule.

I'm just looking for a good RAW argument against breaking the Rage rule like this. I'd group "you can't see the enemy behind you" with "you can't measure for closest enemy in movement" arguments. Game breaking sillyness indeed.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So why does Infantry facing matter again? And it does - page 11.

That's been answered, repeatedly. It makes a very, very small change in where LOS is drawn from, shifting the line a very, very small distance.

For infantry, the difference will only matter in fringe cases because their eyes don't move far when they rotate. For larger models it can and does make a larger difference. Please do recall that these rules were written not only for Infantry but also for all other non-Vehicle Unit Types; the word 'Infantry' is used because Infantry is the most common Unit Type and the 'default' state, not because Infantry are being specifically called out.

Now you're putting intent behind it - which you really shouldn't do. Neither you nor I know if they put Infantry there because they're the most common, or if it's because facing matters. Because it matters for shooting, I'd go with facing matters.

And really, I'd like to see a diagram showing that the line you're talking about changing will matter at all... even with all the bike models I know of, the eyes are close to the center of the base (custom models aside)...

You're saying that they included that line to cover a minuscule amount of situations, but left gaping holes in other portions of the rules. I just don't buy that.

ND - yes, it breaks the Rage rule. Doesnt really matter, because like a lot of silly RAW (Breaking Rage if you want) it just gets ignored.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

the model itself doesnt block LOS because you trest it as if it werent there. So, at all points when you check LOS that model isnt there. Meaning it has no eyes for you to draw LOS from, because the model isnt there. Understand yet? It isnt that tricky a concept...

No. That isn't, in fact, what the rulebook says.

The rulebook says that for the purpose of drawing LOS through the space occupied by the model, it is treated as if it is not there. It does NOT say, and never will say no matter how long people keep claiming it does, that the model actually ceases to exist.

Here's the difference; if the rulebook said the model actually was not there, that would mean that for all purposes you ignore it. If that was what it said, you would be correct; trying to draw LOS through your own model would be impossible, because you would have no starting point for the line as soon as you tried.

But the rule specifically and deliberately tells you the singular purpose for which you ignore the model; that purpose is, drawing LOS through it. This presents no problem, because the model never actually goes away; it is only treated as if it has gone away for this purpose. Even while you are drawing LOS through a model, it is still there, and you still treat it as being there for all purposes except the highly specific one of drawing LOS through it.

Here are the steps.

1. Find the starting point of your line. This is the eyes of the model. Check the rulebook; any problems? No. Good, we can continue.

2. Select a target, somewhere. Doesn't matter where, we haven't applied any of the restrictions yet; just pick anything on the table. Let's say we picked something directly behind our model.

3. Check to see if LOS exists. In order to do this, we refer to the restrictions in the rulebook. Ok; solid objects block the line; damn, doesn't that include my head? Oh, no it doesn't, models in your unit are treated as if they aren't there for the purpose of drawing LOS through them. Great. Nothing else blocking the line, so we're good?

Ok, wait a minute, back up. The model is treated as if it isn't there, so if you try to draw LOS through it, it 'blips out' and now you don't have a starting point for your line, right?

Wrong. Ignoring the model for the purpose of drawing LOS through it does NOT mean ignoring it for the purpose of finding the starting point of your line. For that purpose and all other purposes, the model is still there. Check; does the line start at the eyes of the model? Yes it does, there's the model, there are the eyes, there's the line. Check; are there any solid objects in the way? No, because the model's head is ignored for this purpose and this purpose only, and there's nothing else in the way. Great, the model has LOS. We're done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So why does Infantry facing matter again? And it does - page 11.

That's been answered, repeatedly. It makes a very, very small change in where LOS is drawn from, shifting the line a very, very small distance.

For infantry, the difference will only matter in fringe cases because their eyes don't move far when they rotate. For larger models it can and does make a larger difference. Please do recall that these rules were written not only for Infantry but also for all other non-Vehicle Unit Types; the word 'Infantry' is used because Infantry is the most common Unit Type and the 'default' state, not because Infantry are being specifically called out.

Now you're putting intent behind it - which you really shouldn't do. Neither you nor I know if they put Infantry there because they're the most common, or if it's because facing matters. Because it matters for shooting, I'd go with facing matters.

And really, I'd like to see a diagram showing that the line you're talking about changing will matter at all... even with all the bike models I know of, the eyes are close to the center of the base (custom models aside)...

You're saying that they included that line to cover a minuscule amount of situations, but left gaping holes in other portions of the rules. I just don't buy that.

Actually, what I'm pointing out is that there are multiple possible reasons they might have included the line; and none of them matter, because we aren't dealing with intent, only with what's written. Right?

I gave you a speculative answer, because you were asking a question that doesn't have a non-speculative answer unless you happen to be one of the people who wrote the rulebook. The words on the page are all we have to go on, and the words on the page don't tell us why that particular line was written. Fortunately, the question of why is irrelevant to this discussion, since we're talking about what's there, not why it's there.

I would like to point out, that despite, the fact I'm arguing against the 360 degree LOS, that is NOT how I play it. Mostly because my friends and I are (a) lazy, and (b) have very, very few units that need to check LOS outside of their shooting phase (some psychic powers, and a few of my Nids). For the most part we just assume the model is actually pivoting in place to look at everything.

BeRzErKeR wrote: Fortunately, the question of why is irrelevant to this discussion, since we're talking about what's there, not why it's there.

It's not irrelevant. It 100% affects your interpretation of the ignoring model bit.
The phrase says that facing matters.
If facing matters, you're interpreting the bit about ignoring models in your own unit incorrectly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:I would like to point out, that despite, the fact I'm arguing against the 360 degree LOS, that is NOT how I play it. Mostly because my friends and I are (a) lazy, and (b) have very, very few units that need to check LOS outside of their shooting phase (some psychic powers, and a few of my Nids). For the most part we just assume the model is actually pivoting in place to look at everything.

Ditto.

rigeld2 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote: Fortunately, the question of why is irrelevant to this discussion, since we're talking about what's there, not why it's there.

It's not irrelevant. It 100% affects your interpretation of the ignoring model bit.
The phrase says that facing matters.
If facing matters, you're interpreting the bit about ignoring models in your own unit incorrectly.

There's still a problem.

What the phrase actually says is (paraphrasing very slightly) "Don't worry about which way you're facing at the end of the Movement phase, you can pivot in the Shooting phase."

That does seem to imply that somehow facing matters. So the question is, WHY does it matter? The place that seems most logical to find an answer is the LOS rules, naturally, which brings us back to this line we've been talking about.

The problem that I'm having with your reading is that in order to make that side-note valuable for infantry except for dealing with the very, very slight difference it makes in the starting point of the line, you have to add a word to another rule. That's. . . not really a matter of interpretation so much as it is actually changing the rules. "Other models in the unit" and "Models in the unit" are different phrases with different meanings; I mean, if they weren't, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Turning one into the other does have an effect on the game. I don't see any permission to change the rule.

So, as it stands, the conclusion that I have to draw from what I read is that the note about facing only matters in relation to how a model's eyes move when it pivots in place. In order to come to any other conclusion, I would have to argue that, well, GW WROTE one thing, but they actually MEANT this other, slightly different thing, and when we're discussing RAW I don't think that's kosher.

The rule could easily have said you ignore OTHER models in the unit, but it doesn't. The justification that follows it (the blurb about taking up positions to maximize firepower) can easily be used as contextual support for either position, so it's a wash. Same for the sidebar about TLOS. I don't see anything which would justify changing the actual rule, which is what you're talking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:I would like to point out, that despite, the fact I'm arguing against the 360 degree LOS, that is NOT how I play it. Mostly because my friends and I are (a) lazy, and (b) have very, very few units that need to check LOS outside of their shooting phase (some psychic powers, and a few of my Nids). For the most part we just assume the model is actually pivoting in place to look at everything.

There is also this; on the tabletop this kind of thing very rarely matters, and when it does I've always seen it played as 360-degree LOS. Admittedly, the most competitive environments I've ever played in have been small local tournaments; perhaps it's different at national tournaments, I don't know.

BeRzErKeR wrote:The problem that I'm having with your reading is that in order to make that side-note valuable for infantry except for dealing with the very, very slight difference it makes in the starting point of the line, you have to add a word to another rule. That's. . . not really a matter of interpretation so much as it is actually changing the rules. "Other models in the unit" and "Models in the unit" are different phrases with different meanings; I mean, if they weren't, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Turning one into the other does have an effect on the game. I don't see any permission to change the rule.

The firing model can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit.

To me, using the words "the firing model" at the beginning of the sentence excludes that model from the rest of the sentence. I understand that you're reading that sentence differently, and that's why we're on different side of the issue.

I have no idea what's going on in this thread, all I know is that Rage USR is rubbish.

Thanks for your contribution.

The way i see it a correct me if i am wrong as long as you end yourturn closer to the enemy it is legal

rigeld2 wrote:Thanks for your contribution.

Well, I am OP...and I have no idea what you're argueing about.
Someone is seriously suggesting that infantry models don't have 360 degree LOS?

Joey wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Thanks for your contribution.

Well, I am OP...and I have no idea what you're argueing about.
Someone is seriously suggesting that infantry models don't have 360 degree LOS?

Yes, I am. Would you mind reading the entire thread for the reasoning?

rigeld2 wrote:

Joey wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Thanks for your contribution.

Well, I am OP...and I have no idea what you're argueing about.
Someone is seriously suggesting that infantry models don't have 360 degree LOS?

Yes, I am. Would you mind reading the entire thread for the reasoning?

I have.
You're wrong.`

Joey, just a reminder:
1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

Happyjew wrote:Joey, just a reminder:
1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

It's absurd and pointless.

Rage is absurd and pointless, or claiming models don't have 360 degree LOS is absurd and pointless?

Joey wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Joey wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Thanks for your contribution.

Well, I am OP...and I have no idea what you're argueing about.
Someone is seriously suggesting that infantry models don't have 360 degree LOS?

Yes, I am. Would you mind reading the entire thread for the reasoning?

I have.
You're wrong.`

I think you're cute too.

Joey wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Joey, just a reminder:
1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

It's absurd and pointless.

Welcome to YMDC where when there are two possible interpretation of a rule, RAW somehow removes English comprehension.

That being said I agree with Berzerker for a RAW answer to how LOS works 360.

Find the eyes of the model. Draw a line from the eyes to your target. The models of the unit don't exist including the model you're measuring from for purposes of blocking LOS. Yes of course you still know where its eyes are. This can mean drawing a line through the head of the model to a target behind it. That is fine and is 360 degrees.

Common sense rules the day and Rage works as RAW.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Welcome to YMDC where when there are two possible interpretation of a rule

If this had continued "there will be 3 opposing arguments" it would be funny, but

Nemesor Dave wrote: RAW somehow removes English comprehension. . . .Common sense rules the day and Rage works as RAW

is just nonsense backed by silliness.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

That being said I agree with Berzerker for a RAW answer to how LOS works 360.

Find the eyes of the model. Draw a line from the eyes to your target. The models of the unit don't exist including the model you're measuring from for purposes of blocking LOS. Yes of course you still know where its eyes are. This can mean drawing a line through the head of the model to a target behind it. That is fine and is 360 degrees.

Common sense rules the day and Rage works as RAW.

What? Someone agrees with me?! Incredible!

Nemesor Dave wrote:Common sense rules the day and Rage works as RAW.

Except in this case (360 degree) RAW is taken out of context and thus has led to a wrong conclusion.

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:

Except in this case (360 degree) RAW is taken out of context and thus has led to a wrong conclusion.

No. It isn't. Have you read my last couple of posts? I'm not seeing any objections I haven't answered.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:

Except in this case (360 degree) RAW is taken out of context and thus has led to a wrong conclusion.

No. It isn't. Have you read my last couple of posts? I'm not seeing any objections I haven't answered.

Yes, it has. Just because you answer a question based on your interpretation doesn't mean it is still the correct interpretation. Just because you say a polar bear is bright pink doesn't make it so. But, you and the 360 camp stick with your interpretation that models can see through the backs and sides of their skulls, and I will stick with the the TLOS camp where a model has to be able to "see" its target from its eyes like normal creatures by looking/facing/pointing in the direction of its target as the rules state, not looking/facing/pointing in the totally opposite direction. True line of sight in this game means just that: "true" line of sight, not los out the back of a model's skull...

Chaos_Destroyer wrote: and I will stick with the the TLOS camp where a model has to be able to "see" its target from its eyes like normal creatures by looking/facing/pointing in the direction of its target as the rules state, not looking/facing/pointing in the totally opposite direction.

You do realize that your interpretation means that any model that does not have eyes can not ever draw LoS right?

To you, does that seem silly, or rules as intended?