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.

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:

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.

If I answer a question based on what I read in the rulebook, and you can't contradict it with something from the rulebook, that pretty handily indicates it's correct . . .

You still haven't told me how it is that an allowance to draw a line through a model as if it isn't there somehow makes it disappear when you're determining the starting point of your line. That is the argument you're making, right? The problem is that you're trying to equate two separate things, which are not the same. Until you can tell me where you get permission to do so, this argument will remain invalid.

DeathReaper wrote:

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?

Yes, RAW is silly sometimes. But as someone stated earlier, common sense rules the day, meaning that in the majority of cases, it is possible to tell a models backside from its frontside, and therefore able to tell where a model's "face" should be, and therefore where its eyes should be. If unable to determine that, pick a point on the model and declare that to be where the eyes are, and use that point for the rest of the game. Or simply model or paint some eyes on your eyeless models. Problem solved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:

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.

If I answer a question based on what I read in the rulebook, and you can't contradict it with something from the rulebook, that pretty handily indicates it's correct . . .

You still haven't told me how it is that an allowance to draw a line through a model as if it isn't there somehow makes it disappear when you're determining the starting point of your line. That is the argument you're making, right? The problem is that you're trying to equate two separate things, which are not the same. Until you can tell me where you get permission to do so, this argument will remain invalid.

Sigh. I already have. Repeatedly. Taken in context of the rules, your conclusion doesn't hold up. No need to continue to repeat what has already said before. Context is everything.

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:


Sigh. I already have. Repeatedly. Taken in context of the rules, your conclusion doesn't hold up. No need to continue to repeat what has already said before. Context is everything.

Uh. . . no, actually. You've ASSERTED it, and you've assumed it, but you've never provided any evidence.

BeRzErKeR wrote:You still haven't told me how it is that an allowance to draw a line through a model as if it isn't there somehow makes it disappear when you're determining the starting point of your line. That is the argument you're making, right? The problem is that you're trying to equate two separate things, which are not the same. Until you can tell me where you get permission to do so, this argument will remain invalid.

Bolded for emphasis. That is the assumption behind your argument; you assume that because the rule says, I quote, "Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit (just as if they were not there), as in reality they would take up firing positions to maximize their own squad's firepower." (relevant word bolded for emphasis) that they vanish when you are determining the starting point of the line. Unless you can provide a quote that says THAT, this argument is invalid; you're trying to apply a limited condition to something it doesn't apply to.

If by 'context' you are referring to your argument that the explanation "[taking] up firing positions to maximize their own squad's firepower" means that you can only ignore models in front of you, well, that's also been answered several times; it's a totally subjective opinion of yours. I argue that taking up a maximally-effective firing position includes, you know, looking behind you to make sure there isn't someone there, so as to avoid being shot in the back. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

That phrase can quite easily be interpreted to support basically any position you want to adopt in this discussion, and certainly both yours and mine are equally valid. That being so, trying to base an argument on it is silly; you can't claim that your reading of that phrase is the only correct one, because there's no possible way you can know that. So you can either treat all readings of the phrase as equally valid (which means, effectively, ignoring it) or you can treat all of them as equally invalid (which, again, means ignoring it). Claiming that your reading is valid but mine isn't, when you're talking about a subjective description as opposed to an objective rule, is not defensible.

BeRzErKeR wrote:If by 'context' you are referring to your argument that the explanation "[taking] up firing positions to maximize their own squad's firepower" means that you can only ignore models in front of you, well, that's also been answered several times; it's a totally subjective opinion of yours. I argue that taking up a maximally-effective firing position includes, you know, looking behind you to make sure there isn't someone there, so as to avoid being shot in the back. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

This. Except in context, at this point in the rules, the unit is about to draw LOS to its target, and therefore is about to fire on its target, and so models in the unit are getting out of one anothers way so that they don't shoot each other. You have applied this "looking around to avoid getting shot in the back" out of context of what the rules explain. At this point, the unit has picked a target and is about to fire at it. All the looking around to avoid getting shot in the back was either done in the movement phase or prior to them picking a target to shoot at. Context is everything.

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:
This. Except in context, at this point in the rules, the unit is about to draw LOS to its target, and therefore is about to fire on its target, and so models in the unit are getting out of one anothers way so that they don't shoot each other. You have applied this "looking around to avoid getting shot in the back" out of context of what the rules explain. At this point, the unit has picked a target and is about to fire at it. All the looking around to avoid getting shot in the back was either done in the movement phase or prior to them picking a target to shoot at. Context is everything.

Ah, I see. So, since Infantry can pivot during the Shooting phase, and this discussion is about the Rage USR which occurs in the Movement phase (which is when you just said all this 'looking around' is done), you agree that Infantry have a 360-degree LOS?

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:
This. Except in context, at this point in the rules, the unit is about to draw LOS to its target, and therefore is about to fire on its target, and so models in the unit are getting out of one anothers way so that they don't shoot each other. You have applied this "looking around to avoid getting shot in the back" out of context of what the rules explain. At this point, the unit has picked a target and is about to fire at it. All the looking around to avoid getting shot in the back was either done in the movement phase or prior to them picking a target to shoot at. Context is everything.

Ah, I see. So, since Infantry can pivot during the Shooting phase, and this discussion is about the Rage USR which occurs in the Movement phase (which is when you just said all this 'looking around' is done), you agree that Infantry have a 360-degree LOS?

Really? That is what you got from that and previous posts? No wonder this discussion has gone on for so long....

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:

Really? That is what you got from that and previous posts? No wonder this discussion has gone on for so long....

What I got from your previous posts is that you're trying to apply fluff to the rules, so it's no wonder you've got this wrong. Let's go back to discussing rules. You are asserting, if I have it right, that the line about 'maximizing their own squad's firepower' is the reason (presumably, the ONLY reason) that you are allowed to ignore models in your own unit for LOS, correct? The problem is, that's nonsense.

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:. . . at this point in the rules, the unit is about to draw LOS to its target, and therefore is about to fire on its target, and so models in the unit are getting out of one anothers way so that they don't shoot each other.

We're not talking about firing on a target. We're not even in the Shooting phase, we're in the Movement phase. Claiming that the models are "getting out of one anothers way so that they don't shoot each other" is simply wrong; they aren't shooting at anything. If you are arguing that you can only ignore models in your own unit for this reason, then you wouldn't be able to ignore them any time EXCEPT when you were shooting, meaning that models in your own unit would block LOS in all situations except when your unit was shooting, and that's manifestly not true.

What about models that don't or can't "take up firing positions to maximize their own squad's firepower"? Orks, for instance; they don't give a single solitary feth about maximizing firepower, shooting off guns is just what they do to keep themselves amused when they're too far away to club someone. They can still draw LOS through each other, though. Or models with no ranged weapons; they CAN'T maximize their firepower, because they have no firepower to maximize! But Bloodletters and Fiends can still draw LOS through each other.

That explanation is not a rule, it's fluff. There are plenty of situations in which it simply does not apply, and yet you can draw LOS anyway, ignoring it completely. Its existence does not affect anything, and it certainly has nothing to do with the Rage USR, which only has any effect in the MOVEMENT phase, a phase in which the unit is not shooting and not "about to fire on its target".

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:

Really? That is what you got from that and previous posts? No wonder this discussion has gone on for so long....

What I got from your previous posts is that you're trying to apply fluff to the rules, so it's no wonder you've got this wrong

Sometimes to make sense of RAW you have to incorporate what you are considering "fluff" to get the context. In this case, the "fluff" as you call it is explaining the meaning of the rule. You are ignoring the fluff, taking just the RAW out of context, and then proceeding to develop some lengthy logical conclusion based on out of context RAW. Context is everything.

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:

Sometimes to make sense of RAW you have to incorporate what you are considering "fluff" to get the context. In this case, the "fluff" as you call it is explaining the meaning of the rule. You are ignoring the fluff, taking just the RAW out of context, and then proceeding to develop some lengthy logical conclusion based on out of context RAW. Context is everything.

Except, of course, that this particular bit of context can only possibly apply during the Shooting phase, when you are choosing a target to shoot at. And at that point, the question of whether an Infantry unit has 360-degree LOS is irrelevant, because they're allowed to pivot to face their target anyway.

At the times when the question actually comes up, such as during the Movement phase, the phrase you are hanging your hat on simply does not apply.

So, since LOS rules (as written) only apply in the shooting phase, you can never know until then whether or not a unit with Rage has LOS to an enemy and therefore can be moved as you want.

BeRzErKeR wrote:At the times when the question actually comes up, such as during the Movement phase, the phrase you are hanging your hat on simply does not apply.

Except the TLOS rules found in the Shooting phase actually help determine for Raging units what the closest "visible" enemy is before they begin their move in the movement phase....

Happyjew wrote:So, since LOS rules (as written) only apply in the shooting phase, you can never know until then whether or not a unit with Rage has LOS to an enemy and therefore can be moved as you want.

Exactly! Which means this whole discussion has been moot. lol.

Happyjew wrote:So, since LOS rules (as written) only apply in the shooting phase, you can never know until then whether or not a unit with Rage has LOS to an enemy and therefore can be moved as you want.

It's more restrictive than that, actually; if you interpret everything written on the page as a directive, that is rules (as opposed to fluff), then LOS can only be drawn while actually shooting, because only "A firing unit" is ever specified. Of course, that also means that you are not allowed to draw LOS for anything except shooting at any time, and that means the game totally breaks down.

The alternative is to conclude that any rule which tells you to draw LOS has given you permission to use those parts of the LOS rules which tell you HOW to do so, and bypasses anything which requires you to shoot or only applies when shooting in order to do so. This is what I am doing. This allows you to play the game without any further problems; it also means that Infantry and all models which use the same LOS rules as Infantry end up being able to draw LOS through 360 degrees, regardless of which way they are facing.

Trying to argue that you are allowed to draw LOS without shooting AND that the arc within which Infantry can draw LOS requires you to make one or more unsupported assumptions. You can have it one way or the other, not both.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:At the times when the question actually comes up, such as during the Movement phase, the phrase you are hanging your hat on simply does not apply.

Except the TLOS rules found in the Shooting phase actually help determine for Raging units what the closest "visible" enemy is before they begin their move in the movement phase....

Uh . . . how so?

First turn. Your movement phase. One of your units has Rage. You MUST move it if it has LOS to an enemy unit, so you need to check LOS; you can't just skip its move, because if it has LOS to an enemy it has to move. If you insist on reading everything written there as rules text, you cannot do so, and so you can't tell how it has to move; but you also can't go on to another unit or the Shooting phase without completing that unit's Movement phase, which means unless you happen to have that unit embarked on a transport you can't play the game.

My problem with the way you're interpreting that sentence is I've always understood that its wrong.

If someone says "Nominate anyone in this room to go to Disneyland" it's understood that while you're (obviously) in the room, you're excluded from being nominated.

Hence, the firing model would be excluded from the "ignoring".
I don't see how my interpretation breaks anything.

rigeld2 wrote:My problem with the way you're interpreting that sentence is I've always understood that its wrong.

If someone says "Nominate anyone in this room to go to Disneyland" it's understood that while you're (obviously) in the room, you're excluded from being nominated.

Hence, the firing model would be excluded from the "ignoring".
I don't see how my interpretation breaks anything.

I've never understood it that way. In the situation you describe it would be considered rude to nominate yourself, but that's an issue of the social unacceptability of greed, not anything to do with the sentence itself. If you did so you would have been greedy, and the people present might argue about or refuse to accept your decision on that basis, but you still would have followed your instructions perfectly.

Your objection doesn't break anything, no; it's just logically incorrect. The rules of a game are a set of instructions. In conversation lots of things can go unsaid just because we're all socialized in roughly the same way and we already know what various idioms mean, but in a ruleset that isn't the case; the rules of a game must be based on formal logic, not conversational idiom. When we're talking about the Rules As Written (or at least, when I use that phrase) we mean literally that; the words that are on the page, with only the additions and subtractions that are absolutely necessary to prevent the game from breaking and becoming utterly unplayable.

Reading a set of rules isn't the same as chatting with the developer, and you can't use the same mental shorthand you do when you're talking with friends. You're effectively reading a foreign language that happens to use a lot of the same words. It has its own set of associations and its own shorthand, but you don't know what they are when you start reading; the rulebook has to TELL you. You can't assume that they're the same ones that you use in conversation.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Uh . . . how so?

Because LOS goes from the eyes of the model out into the direction the model is currently facing, as outlined in the LOS rules for the Shooting Phase. If an enemy is visible to the Raging unit at the beginning of the movement phase, it then moves toward it.

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Uh . . . how so?

Because LOS goes from the eyes of the model out into the direction the model is currently facing, as outlined in the LOS rules for the Shooting Phase. If an enemy is visible to the Raging unit at the beginning of the movement phase, it then moves toward it.

Bold added for emphasis.

Citation, please. As I've said over and over and over, that isn't a requirement. It is an unsupported assumption, which appears nowhere in the rules.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Citation, please.

How about the entire section of "Check Line of Sight and Pick a Target" as well as the blurb in the movement phase rules about models can turn in the shooting phase to face their target and all the accompanying illustrations showing shooting units facing their targets? Taken all together and in context, that's what the conclusion is....

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:

Really? That is what you got from that and previous posts? No wonder this discussion has gone on for so long....

What I got from your previous posts is that you're trying to apply fluff to the rules, so it's no wonder you've got this wrong

Sometimes to make sense of RAW you have to incorporate what you are considering "fluff" to get the context. In this case, the "fluff" as you call it is explaining the meaning of the rule. You are ignoring the fluff, taking just the RAW out of context, and then proceeding to develop some lengthy logical conclusion based on out of context RAW. Context is everything.

This. The GW rulebook is not a legal document. Yes, the RAW sometimes contradict the RAI, but in this case the context defines the rule, there is no ambiguity.

Sorry I can't quote - on my phone, son asleep in lap...

Zerker - I don't think you can be that literal without loading vehicles full of explosives and sledgehammering models.

You have to use some level of common usage behind words and the context of a tabletop war game.

rigeld2 wrote:Sorry I can't quote - on my phone, son asleep in lap...

Sigged.

Hey now... It's a semi-valid excuse!

I was about to write a long and detailed response here, but it's not worth spending more time on this. Chaos_Destroyer, what you are claiming as context is not definitive. It is certainly not strong enough to justify re-writing the plain, literal reading of the text; and that is, in fact, what you are claiming it does. I have no more to say about that matter.

rigeld2 wrote:Sorry I can't quote - on my phone, son asleep in lap...

Zerker - I don't think you can be that literal without loading vehicles full of explosives and sledgehammering models.

You have to use some level of common usage behind words and the context of a tabletop war game.

See, I don't think you do. 40k is actually pretty good about defining its jargon. One of your references appears to be the damage result Vehicle Destroyed- Explodes! But, well, you just read the paragraph there; it tells you exactly what to do, and in the process defines 'vehicle explodes' as a jargon term, which does not mean what 'explodes' does in English. This is actually an excellent point in FAVOR of what I'm saying; you cannot interpret 'explodes' as if it was an English term, because if you did you'd have to load your tanks with C4. It isn't; it's a Warhammer 40k term, which means you measure a distance, roll some dice, apply some wounds, and then take the vehicle off the table. It;s all very clearly laid out.

Furthermore, even in the fringe cases, there is an important difference between picking the most reasonable out of several possible and equally-valid meanings of a single word ('destroyed', for instance, which I believe is one that you're thinking of) and claiming that a sentence which has a perfectly logical meaning when read literally actually means something different because it is used, idiomatically, to mean something different.

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:Yes, RAW is silly sometimes. But as someone stated earlier, common sense rules the day, meaning that in the majority of cases, it is possible to tell a models backside from its frontside, and therefore able to tell where a model's "face" should be, and therefore where its eyes should be. If unable to determine that, pick a point on the model and declare that to be where the eyes are, and use that point for the rest of the game. Or simply model or paint some eyes on your eyeless models. Problem solved.

Well if you are making concessions, I will make one as well.

Given that the models are supposed to represent actual warriors on the battlefield, why can they not just turn their heads to look at what they want, and shoot it. (Aftrer all we have to determine LoS for them, since they can not tell us what they see, we also can not turn their heads because they are glued in place)

now for actual RAW:
Infantry do not have a defined facing. Since we are not told what a infantry models facing is we only have one option:

1) Infantry do not have a facing.

Except, we are told to take the models at face value. I don't know about you, but this means, that if the model is looking at that tree over there and not the Termagant right behind him. Then the model would have LOS on that tree over there and not the Termagant right behind him. If a model is looking over his shoulder, we are told to assume that the model is indeed looking over his shoulder. If the model is jumping in the air waving his hands like a school girl, guess what that model is doing.

Happyjew wrote:Except, we are told to take the models at face value. I don't know about you, but this means, that if the model is looking at that tree over there and not the Termagant right behind him. Then the model would have LOS on that tree over there and not the Termagant right behind him. If a model is looking over his shoulder, we are told to assume that the model is indeed looking over his shoulder. If the model is jumping in the air waving his hands like a school girl, guess what that model is doing.

we are also told that models move 6 inches and that represents "Stopping several times to scan the surrounding landscape for enemies."

So that is indeed what they are doing...

Sounds like 360 degree LoS to me (From the fluff, which has no real bearing on the actual rules)

DeathReaper wrote:

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:Yes, RAW is silly sometimes. But as someone stated earlier, common sense rules the day, meaning that in the majority of cases, it is possible to tell a models backside from its frontside, and therefore able to tell where a model's "face" should be, and therefore where its eyes should be. If unable to determine that, pick a point on the model and declare that to be where the eyes are, and use that point for the rest of the game. Or simply model or paint some eyes on your eyeless models. Problem solved.

Well if you are making concessions, I will make one as well.

Given that the models are supposed to represent actual warriors on the battlefield, why can they not just turn their heads to look at what they want, and shoot it. (Aftrer all we have to determine LoS for them, since they can not tell us what they see, we also can not turn their heads because they are glued in place)

now for actual RAW:
Infantry do not have a defined facing. Since we are not told what a infantry models facing is we only have one option:

1) Infantry do not have a facing.

But they do have eyes, which are generally on a face, which is generally on the front part of a model. And we are told in the rules to draw LOS from the eyes....

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:But they do have eyes, which are generally on a face, which is generally on the front part of a model. And we are told in the rules to draw LOS from the eyes....

and you pretend members of their own unit are not there when determining LoS, the model you are drawing LoS from is a member of its own unit, so you can draw LoS from the eyen in any direction since it tells us to pretend the model is not there for LoS purposes.

Threads like this are the reason some people STILL need a gm for their game despite the passing of four editions.

Its rage. You can either do ragey things, go with the spirit of things, and finish your game or you can sit there and not do ragey things, hammer out rules as you intend them to be based on fuzzy RAW, and not get a second game in that night.

Yes, because the people involved in this discussion totally argue it out at the table. Every time. Good job figuring out!

rigeld2 wrote:Yes, because the people involved in this discussion totally argue it out at the table. Every time. Good job figuring out!

Exactly, that is why we discuss it here, instead of at the tables.