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.

SmackCakes wrote:You can check LoS, where is the exception that says you can't check LoS in the movement phase?

There is no general rule that says "you can check LOS."

There is a general rule that says "you can check LOS in the shooting phase."

Therefore, no specific restriction is required for checking LOS in the movement phase.

There is no rule that says I can't remove your models from table... Does that mean that the fastest-removing-models-from-table player wins by annihilation rule?

There's also no rule that says I can't shove all of your miniatures off the table and claim victory because you have "no units left on the table."

Can I do that, SmackCakes?

By your warped logic, that's perfectly legal.

SaintHazard wrote:There is a general rule that says "you can check LOS in the shooting phase."

No there isn't. In the shooting phase it asks you to check LoS before shooting. That is all.

There is no rule on when you can or cannot check line of sight. So you can check line of sight at any time, providing you have the ability to see.

Chinchilla wrote:There is no rule that says I can't remove your models from table... Does that mean that the fastest-removing-models-from-table player wins by annihilation rule?

As I have already said Chinchilla. You are only attacking a straw man version of my argument which you created. If you can't address my real argument then don't bother.

There is nothing that states you can check LoS, but lets be serious that is ridiculously hard to enforce.

"Guy sets his tank down behind a rock while looking from it's rear."
"Dude no checking LoS"
"I'm not checking LoS I'm making sure it is carefully set down as gently as possible as not to scratch my paint"

Wiping out a measure tape between two locations is one thing, looking at the board is a whole different thing. "Don't sit down on that chair, you'll be able to see your LoS"

That IS your real argument. "It doesn't say you can't, so you can."

That's the crux of your entire argument.

So, again, I ask you - can I sweep all of your minis off the table and declare victory, because there is no rule that says I can't?

No no no you have this all wrong . . . I can move, shoot, and assault yes? But if I can check LOS whenever I like (because it doesn't say I can't) . . . Then I'm going to shoot your models in your movement phase, or assault them in your shooting phase. Does it specifically say I can't?

Oshova

Shamelessly ripped from another thread. . . .

SaintHazard wrote:That IS your real argument. "It doesn't say you can't, so you can."

That's the crux of your entire argument.

So, again, I ask you - can I sweep all of your minis off the table and declare victory, because there is no rule that says I can't?

That is not my argument. That is a misrepresentation of my argument that you have created to argue against so that you don't have to address my real argument.

It is a well known logical fallacy that has been around for thousands of years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Sadly it doesn't prove anything.

To set things straight. I do not believe that just because the rule book does not say I can't do something. It therefore means I can. I do not believe I can remove models from the board, or give a terminator a jump pack, just because the rules don't say I can't.

I do believe that LoS in something you can see any time you like. There is nothing in the rule book that connects it solely to the shooting phase, other the fact that the shooting phase in 1 occasion when you are expected to check LoS. Rage and Infiltrate are others.

You guys claim LoS checking is restricted only to the shooting phase. This is unsupported by the rules.

Moving, SHooting and Assaulting are clearly separated into their own phases and must be kept in those phases. It's an entirely different argument from LoS.

As for the Line of Signt Argument, it only says you need to check line of sight when shooting, it doesnt say you cant check it at all during any other time. The basis of your argument is also based on the fact that it didnt say you could check it in any other phase, so you cant.

However, you really shouldnt be checking LoS as detail in the book outside of the shooting phase anyways. Outside of the Shooting Phase, "checking LoS" can simply mean if your model can conceivably "see" enemy units, which is sorta different from normal LoS. Normal LoS requires you to actually see a physical body part of the target (since that's used to determine whether or not you can actually harm him), while "seeing" an enemy model due to Rage can be simply their gigantic banner. There's no doubt a raging DC can see a guy with a huge banner and knows that there's a crunchy victim attached to said banner. That's my current take on it based on what I have read here.

EDIT: the first half of the post isnt directly directed at you SmackCakes. You are a fast poster >.>

You just contradicted yourself. You can't check LOS any time you want. How many instances does it specifically tell you to check LOS? I can think of two. The first is in the shooting phase, where you have specific instructions to check LOS. The second in infiltrators, where you have specific instructions to check LOS.

The fact that there are only two instances where it specifically tells you to check LOS doesn't tell you that there are only two instances where you may check LOS?

If not, then we have to surmise that your argument is akin to "It doesn't say I can't check LOS outside of where it tells me to check LOS, so I can check LOS anytime I want."

You said that exact thing in your previous post.

That translates easily to "I can because it doesn't say I can't."

This is not a strawman argument, this is exactly what you're saying, and then saying you're not saying, and then saying again.

All good logic. But sadly not backed up by the rules. You need LOS (as defined by the rulebook) to be able to see anyone. It could be the whole model, or their left foot. But you need to have LOS to see the model to do anything to said model.

Oshova

...then wouldnt that mean any rule that calls for visibility require LoS by default?

Also, I think there's a miscommunication here somewhere. One half is arguing that you may check LoS when you need to regardless of phase, while the other half is arguing that you cant simply check LoS whenever you want without a reason, but only when it's a necessity. Both are largely unrelated arguments that got completely derailed into whether or not you're allowed to check LoS in any other phase (which is allowed if a specific rule requires it, otherwise part of the special rules just caught itself in a loophole wedgie).

SaintHazard wrote:That translates easily to "I can because it doesn't say I can't."

In this instance yes. Rage asks you to check for the nearest visible unit. There is no restriction that says you cannot check for the nearest visible unit, so the rule is not broken. Rage asks you to check > you check > the rule works.

What you presented were other harder to defend examples where the rules do not expressly forbid an action. That is the very definition of a strw man. Reverting to straw men is not uncommon for people with a weak argument.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:...then wouldnt that mean any rule that calls for visibility require LoS by default?

Also, I think there's a miscommunication here somewhere. One half is arguing that you may check LoS when you need to regardless of phase, while the other half is arguing that you cant simply check LoS whenever you want without a reason, but only when it's a necessity. Both are largely unrelated arguments that got completely derailed into whether or not you're allowed to check LoS in any other phase (which is allowed if a specific rule requires it, otherwise part of the special rules just caught itself in a loophole wedgie).

Except that Rage does not give you permission to check LOS, merely tells you to move towards the closest visible enemy unit. It doesn't say that you can determine what is and is not visible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SmackCakes wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:That translates easily to "I can because it doesn't say I can't."

In this instance yes. Rage asks you to check for the nearest visible unit. There is no restriction that says you cannot check for the nearest visible unit, so the rule is not broken. Rage asks you to check > you check > the rule works.

What you presented were other harder to defend examples where the rules do not expressly forbid an action. That is the very definition of a strw man. Reverting to straw men is not uncommon for people with a weak argument.

Read the rules for Rage again. It does not ask you to check.

SaintHazard wrote:
Except that Rage does not give you permission to check LOS, merely tells you to move towards the closest visible enemy unit. It doesn't say that you can determine what is and is not visible.

So according to you, you are not allowed to look at the table and see which enemy unit is the nearest visible unit. Even though rage asks you to move towards the nearest visible unit?

The rules also ask you to move your units, but does not expressly give you permission to touch them. Does that mean moving units is broken too?

Saint Hazard, how about you quote the 2 rules (Rage and Infiltrate) so that you can point out the differences that allow you to check LOS or not? =D

Oshova

Modquisition on. Lets all play nice now.

Oshova wrote:Saint Hazard, how about you quote the 2 rules (Rage and Infiltrate) so that you can point out the differences that allow you to check LOS or not? =D

Oshova

Can do.

"RAGE
Some warriors are little more than mindless killing
machines, incapable of rational thought and only
interested in getting to grips with the enemy as soon as
possible. In the Movement phase, units subject to rage
must always move as fast as possible towards the
closest visible enemy. In the Shooting phase, they are
free to decide whether to run, but if they do they must
run towards the closest visible enemy. In the Assault
phase they must always consolidate towards the closest
visible enemy. Whilst falling back, embarked on a
transport, or if no enemy is visible, they ignore this rule."

Nowhere does it say "check LOS to see which enemies are visible." Therefore, it tells you to move towards the closest visible enemy with no permission to check visibility, and since no enemy is visible (since you never checked visibility), the rule is ignored.

"INFILTRATE*
In the right circumstances, stealthy troops have the
ability to work their way into a forward position on the
battlefield or outflank enemy lines.
Units with this special rule are deployed last, after all
other units (friends and foe) have been deployed. If
both sides have infiltrators, the players roll-off and the
winner decides who goes first, and then alternate
deploying these units. Infiltrators may be set up
anywhere on the table that is more than 12" from any
enemy unit, as long as no deployed enemy unit can
draw a line of sight to them. This includes inside a
building (see page 83), as long as the building is more
than 12" from any enemy unit. Alternatively, they may
be set up anywhere on the table that is more than 18"
from any enemy unit, even in plain sight."

Here, it simply says you cannot place an infiltrator within 18" of an enemy model that can draw line of sight to them. If the unit is capable of drawing LOS (it is not specific as to when - for example, if the unit can draw line of sight in the next Shooting phase, it can draw line of sight - the condition is met) then they may not be placed within 18".

The difference is "can draw line of sight" and "is visible." The first asks you if it can draw line of sight under conditions that allow it to do so. The second asks you if it has line of sight right then and there.

Personally I can't see the difference between the two. Surely they both require you to check LOS there and then. =p

One says "Draw LOS" the other says "Visible" so I don't know why you're allowed to draw LOS when it's not the shooting phase . . . Because it specifically says "Draw LOS"?

Just looking for clarification.

Oshova

No problem.

Both have a set of conditions that have to be met, right? We can agree on that.

Infiltrate requires that the enemy model be able to draw LOS. It doesn't say it has to draw LOS right then and there, just that it has to be able to draw LOS. If the enemy model can draw LOS in the next shooting phase, were the infiltrating model still standing there, then the enemy model is capable of drawing LOS on the infiltrating model. If so, the model cannot be placed within 18" of the enemy model. If not, the infiltrating model can be placed within 18" of the enemy model, but no closer than 12".

Rage requires the enemy unit to be visible. In order for the enemy unit to be visible, you have to draw LOS. Right then and there. Not next week, not in the next shooting phase, but right then. If the unit with Rage cannot draw LOS (for example, there is no unit to draw LOS on, or the unit with Rage does not have permission to CHECK LOS) then the rule is ignored. Since the rule attempts to ascertain whether a unit is visible in instances where it does not have permission to draw LOS (such as the Movement and Assault phases), it is ignored entirely except in the Shooting phase - and even then, checking LOS is not a step before running, so it's ignored again.

Infiltrate requires that the enemy model be capable of drawing LOS.

Rage requires that you have drawn LOS.

Does that make the distinction more... distinct?

SaintHazard wrote:Rage requires the enemy unit to be visible. In order for the enemy unit to be visible, you have to draw LOS. Right then and there. Not next week, not in the next shooting phase, but right then. If the unit with Rage cannot draw LOS (for example, there is no unit to draw LOS on, or the unit with Rage does not have permission to CHECK LOS) then the rule is ignored. Since the rule attempts to ascertain whether a unit is visible in instances where it does not have permission to draw LOS (such as the Movement and Assault phases), it is ignored entirely except in the Shooting phase - and even then, checking LOS is not a step before running, so it's ignored again.

You don't need permission to check LoS. You're doing it wrong.

There you go again.

"I can check LOS because nothing says I can't."

Nothing says you can, either.

But it's quite obvious that I can... try and stop me? Are you going to call over a TO use your ridiculous argument to get me DQed? They would just laugh at you.

I think you two are at an empasse. You might agree to disagree at this point.

I agree that I disagree...

I'm out.

SmackCakes wrote:But it's quite obvious that I can... try and stop me? Are you going to call over a TO use your ridiculous argument to get me DQed? They would just laugh at you.

This is a warning. Ratchet it down or you will be suspended. Politeness is required.

"Try and stop you"? Seriously? That's your justification for breaking the rules? "You can't stop me from cheating, so I'm going to cheat" ?

I'm glad we've finally boiled this down to what it really is.

You want to break the rules, but the rules won't let you (surprise!), so you're just going to barrel on ahead and try and get away with it anyway.

You do that.

See how it works out for you.

(Maybe almost as well as the ridiculous argument you've put forward here, which, you'll notice, nobody is supporting.)

SaintHazard wrote:"Try and stop you"? Seriously? That's your justification for breaking the rules? "You can't stop me from cheating, so I'm going to cheat" ?

I'm glad we've finally boiled this down to what it really is.

You want to break the rules, but the rules won't let you (surprise!), so you're just going to barrel on ahead and try and get away with it anyway.

You do that.

See how it works out for you.

(Maybe almost as well as the ridiculous argument you've put forward here, which, you'll notice, nobody is supporting.)

Same warning to you saint hazard as you posted this after my public statement. Ratchet it down or you will be suspended. Compliance is not optional. You push me on this at your peril.

There are certain things I can always do like breath an move, and touch my figures, and check LoS. And I do not need permission from the rules to do them. But if I do that does not make them cheating.

@ Frazzled. Why do I get a warning? Saint and Gwar! troll this board 24/7 with the most inane stuff. Just because I won't get bullied off a totally fair stance on how the rules work, versus a wall of blind stubbornness. I get threatened with suspension? Shame on you. :(