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.

Fair enough, I've fed you enough for the day apparently

Apparently you believe that being in front of the model is being behind the model. LOL

rigeld2 wrote:

helixthief wrote:Yes you can be behind a model and face to face with it. Behind is in relation to the target in my arugement. (much like you can be beside a car and using it for cover from gunfire...you are hiding behind the car, but not at its rear)

I brought up the tyranid because earlier in the Thread Nos said of my necron whose head is glued poorly and is facing the ground 5' in front of himself. That model would be unable to fire during the shooting phase since when you looked through the models eyes you would not see the target. I tried to debate; sometimes units can be looking away from a target for effect, but still can shoot the target. Of course I think Gants can shot their target, I just wanted to see how Nos answered this questions since it seems to contradict his rule for eyes.

I believe, but don't have my rulebook available, that the rule says to stand behind your model and then look at the target - not stand behind your model in reference to the target. See the difference?

You're correct - by the RAW the model staring at the ground would be unable to shoot similar to how blind models are unable to shoot. As I said earlier, that's something that is essentially always "house-ruled".

I am happy to debate this with you.

It only references getting behind models (plural). "getting down to the level of your warriors, taking in the veiw from behind the firing models to 'see what they can see'" There is really no behind a unit if you men are facing different directions. But I can see where this is open to interpretation.

See I dont think that is the case. for LOS a "Line mst be traced from the tyes of the firing model to any part of the body" also "Firing models can always draw LOS through memebers of their own unit" Since is model is a member of his own unit, he can not obstruct his own LOS. In essense the eyes have a full range of directions they can look. None of which can be obstrstructed by the model itself (Example can a models own flag he is holding obstruct him from seeing a target?)

helixthief wrote:It only references getting behind models (plural). "getting down to the level of your warriors, taking in the veiw from behind the firing models to 'see what they can see'" There is really no behind a unit if you men are facing different directions. But I can see where this is open to interpretation.

See I dont think that is the case. for LOS a "Line mst be traced from the tyes of the firing model to any part of the body" also "Firing models can always draw LOS through memebers of their own unit" Since is model is a member of his own unit, he can not obstruct his own LOS. In essense the eyes have a full range of directions they can look. None of which can be obstrstructed by the model itself (Example can a models own flag he is holding obstruct him from seeing a target?)

So essentially, the answer to the first issue is the answer to the latter. And I doubt we'll ever agree on the former, so...

I don't see anywhere in the rules that allows you to draw LoS behind you - indeed the rules imply that you can't (stating that the infantry can turn, vehicle LoS traces along the barrel, etc.).

rigeld2 wrote:

helixthief wrote:It only references getting behind models (plural). "getting down to the level of your warriors, taking in the veiw from behind the firing models to 'see what they can see'" There is really no behind a unit if you men are facing different directions. But I can see where this is open to interpretation.

See I dont think that is the case. for LOS a "Line mst be traced from the tyes of the firing model to any part of the body" also "Firing models can always draw LOS through memebers of their own unit" Since is model is a member of his own unit, he can not obstruct his own LOS. In essense the eyes have a full range of directions they can look. None of which can be obstrstructed by the model itself (Example can a models own flag he is holding obstruct him from seeing a target?)

So essentially, the answer to the first issue is the answer to the latter. And I doubt we'll ever agree on the former, so...

I don't see anywhere in the rules that allows you to draw LoS behind you - indeed the rules imply that you can't (stating that the infantry can turn, vehicle LoS traces along the barrel, etc.).

It mentions along with turning models in the same sentence in fact (although dramatically facing off against their foes is traditional) That makes the facing part seem more like fluff to enhance the feel and atmosphere.

Vehicle's gun barrels use Arc of Sight. My understanding would be LOS is from the hull to the target, it can be fired upon only if also in Arc of Sight. It doesnt state that specifically in the rules. But I dont see anything that contradicts it either.

Actually they dont, they use LOS, as it tells you to trace LOS down the barrel.

helixthief wrote:It mentions along with turning models in the same sentence in fact (although dramatically facing off against their foes is traditional) That makes the facing part seem more like fluff to enhance the feel and atmosphere.

That's during the movement phase that it's not required. The shooting phase, specifically LoS, doesn't say anything about not turning to face.

Vehicle's gun barrels use Arc of Sight. My understanding would be LOS is from the hull to the target, it can be fired upon only if also in Arc of Sight. It doesnt state that specifically in the rules. But I dont see anything that contradicts it either.

Can you tell me the page Arc of Sight is defined on? (hint, I know it's not in the rules).

Saying that nothing contradicts it isn't a valid argument in 40k. Since it's a permissive rules set, you must be permitted to do something, rather than be denied the opportunity.

rigeld2 wrote:

helixthief wrote:It mentions along with turning models in the same sentence in fact (although dramatically facing off against their foes is traditional) That makes the facing part seem more like fluff to enhance the feel and atmosphere.

That's during the movement phase that it's not required. The shooting phase, specifically LoS, doesn't say anything about not turning to face.

Vehicle's gun barrels use Arc of Sight. My understanding would be LOS is from the hull to the target, it can be fired upon only if also in Arc of Sight. It doesnt state that specifically in the rules. But I dont see anything that contradicts it either.

Can you tell me the page Arc of Sight is defined on? (hint, I know it's not in the rules).

Saying that nothing contradicts it isn't a valid argument in 40k. Since it's a permissive rules set, you must be permitted to do something, rather than be denied the opportunity.

1) But it doesnt say you must face where you are shooting. The only time facing it talking about it is optional (and even then references fluff)

2) p 59

helixthief wrote:1) But it doesnt say you must face where you are shooting. The only time facing it talking about it is optional (and even then references fluff)

2) p 59

1) True. So really it depends on your interpretation on that point.
2) Apologies - I'd always read those images as Line of Sight.

The Arcs being described are firing arcs more than an "Arc of Sight". Ie where the guns are physically able to fire - you still have to trace LoS along the gun barrel to shoot something.

rigeld2 wrote:

helixthief wrote:1) But it doesnt say you must face where you are shooting. The only time facing it talking about it is optional (and even then references fluff)

2) p 59

1) True. So really it depends on your interpretation on that point.
2) Apologies - I'd always read those images as Line of Sight.

The Arcs being described are firing arcs more than an "Arc of Sight". Ie where the guns are physically able to fire - you still have to trace LoS along the gun barrel to shoot something.

Yes you use LOS from the barrell since the model doesnt have eyes (my apologies this time, its not fromthe hull)

Im reading it as LOS is for terrain perposes and AOS is for firing arc...Infentry have no AOS referenced so I would think it was 360.

helixthief wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

helixthief wrote:1) But it doesnt say you must face where you are shooting. The only time facing it talking about it is optional (and even then references fluff)

2) p 59

1) True. So really it depends on your interpretation on that point.
2) Apologies - I'd always read those images as Line of Sight.

The Arcs being described are firing arcs more than an "Arc of Sight". Ie where the guns are physically able to fire - you still have to trace LoS along the gun barrel to shoot something.

Yes you use LOS from the barrell since the model doesnt have eyes (my apologies this time, its not fromthe hull)

Im reading it as LOS is for terrain perposes and AOS is for firing arc...Infentry have no AOS referenced so I would think it was 360.

And what does the Monolith door reference? (hint it's not AoS)

rigeld2 wrote:

helixthief wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

helixthief wrote:1) But it doesnt say you must face where you are shooting. The only time facing it talking about it is optional (and even then references fluff)

2) p 59

1) True. So really it depends on your interpretation on that point.
2) Apologies - I'd always read those images as Line of Sight.

The Arcs being described are firing arcs more than an "Arc of Sight". Ie where the guns are physically able to fire - you still have to trace LoS along the gun barrel to shoot something.

Yes you use LOS from the barrell since the model doesnt have eyes (my apologies this time, its not fromthe hull)

Im reading it as LOS is for terrain perposes and AOS is for firing arc...Infentry have no AOS referenced so I would think it was 360.

And what does the Monolith door reference? (hint it's not AoS)

Right, because it is blocked by terrain. LOS is blocked by terrain. (it doesnt say the same for AOS)

But a model still has to have LoS. Even if I stipulate infantry have a 360 degree AoS (which I don't) they don't have a 360 degree LoS.


edit: If it was just no-terrain, they could have left the sentence out - as its a shooting attack which requires the Monolith to be able to see its target.

rigeld2 wrote:But a model still has to have LoS. Even if I stipulate infantry have a 360 degree AoS (which I don't) they don't have a 360 degree LoS.


edit: If it was just no-terrain, they could have left the sentence out - as its a shooting attack which requires the Monolith to be able to see its target.

I feel they have 360 degree both as I interpret the rules....you seem reasonable, Id liek to go through this step by step and see where we agree and disagree.

Right now, I just got home from MNF so..a few too many to debate...

random point, perhaps nothing to do with the op but the last few points about infantry not having 360 line of sight got me thinking....

am i REQUIRED to position every single ork in my 190 model army facing the correct direction to move, shoot and/or assault.... that seems crazy.

plus if we are arguing "what the model can see", how does say, a marine with a scope on his lascannon ever fire (or a scout holding the binoculars ;-) )- i challenge you to look through the sight to aquire your target.


to answer the OP, not all-together useful but i seem to remember reading that units have no line of sight at all in combat (thus cant shoot etc) but i'll have to look it up

@mrspadge, they "see" better than a model that doesn't even have eyes.
Better question, since wraithguards don't have a nose, how do they smell?

mrspadge - only for shooting, in theory. In practice noone bothers. Nothing requires you to move the direction the model is facing.

helixthief wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:But a model still has to have LoS. Even if I stipulate infantry have a 360 degree AoS (which I don't) they don't have a 360 degree LoS.


edit: If it was just no-terrain, they could have left the sentence out - as its a shooting attack which requires the Monolith to be able to see its target.

I feel they have 360 degree both as I interpret the rules....you seem reasonable, Id liek to go through this step by step and see where we agree and disagree.

Right now, I just got home from MNF so..a few too many to debate...

The model must have LoS to the monolith's door.
LoS is blocked both by scenery and being unable to trace a line to the "target".
The rules state "to stoop over the table for a ‘model’s eye view’. This means getting down to the level of your warriors, taking in the view from behind the firing models to ‘see what they can see’."
So you get behind the model, then see if they can see the target - IE you don't get to use the reference of the target to say you're "behind" the model when it's facing you.
If the Monolith's door simply meant "as long as no terrain is in the way" (as your interpretation asserts) then there would be no requirement for the target models to have LoS to the Monolith - since the door has to see the target to even attempt to "suck it in" and walls/terrain block that.

What it comes down to is - the rules for the door are poorly written and poorly thought out. I agree that the intent is probably to suck in anything not blocked by a wall or terrain, but that is not how the rules currently work.

GAH! I don't know why I bother with my horrible jokes. Really? No one?
Wraithguard have no nose, how do they smell?
Awful! Ha ha ha.

nosferatu1001 wrote:mrspadge - only for shooting, in theory. In practice noone bothers. Nothing requires you to move the direction the model is facing.

Wait?!! Why does no one bother to move the direction the model is facing? Because, it's assumed non-vehicle models have 360 degree LOS......

No, its because LOS isnt important for moving, oddly enough.
If it is some rules would be good.

So, my question to you then is would you make a large (20+ model) unit turn and face a Monolith if it was targeting the Monolith?

TheGreatAvatar wrote:So, my question to you then is would you make a large (20+ model) unit turn and face a Monolith if it was targeting the Monolith?

Since it matters for the door, yes, I would. Replace that Monolith with, say, a Land Raider then no, I wouldn't bother - because there is zero reason to enforce that rule.

edit: In reality - for games versus my brother I understand the intent behind the rule and just let models get sucked in if I screw up and leave them close enough. But that's house ruling it - because the RAW is pretty straightforward imo.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:So, my question to you then is would you make a large (20+ model) unit turn and face a Monolith if it was targeting the Monolith?

Yes, if they were shooting the monolith, because it has a purpose to it.
Taking shortcuts that dont affect the game - fine. Not otherwise

Hello everyone.

I have been reading this thread all day with great interest.

Im not going to meddle to much in what is what, I just want to ask a question to you all.

Is there seriously anyone of you who is going to play ageinst necrons and turn your models with your back towards the monolith and say that the glowing door can not remove them?
Or is this just a discussion for what is RAW and RAI and how it works as it is now written?

Hope that was clear enough

regards ogard

Honestly, for me, this is more of a RAW vs RAI debate. My friends and we generally don' bother to t turn our models to face what they are shooting at (with the exception of walkers and tank weapons).

Happyjew wrote:Honestly, for me, this is more of a RAW vs RAI debate. My friends and we generally don' bother to t turn our models to face what they are shooting at (with the exception of walkers and tank weapons).

Agreed. I have yet to participate in a tournament where either myself or my opponent did this, or for that matter encountered anyone that advocated this. It's an amusing debate to have, but I can easily picture the silent stares and raised eyebrows you'd get if you tried to pull this against a 'Cron player.

-Yad

Yes - it's mostly RAW vs RAI... and since YMDC is all about debating RAW there's nothing wrong with this thread.

rigeld2 wrote:Yes - it's mostly RAW vs RAI... and since YMDC is all about debating RAW there's nothing wrong with this thread.

Agreed

-Yad

rigeld2 wrote:Yes - it's mostly RAW vs RAI... and since YMDC is all about debating RAW there's nothing wrong with this thread.

Not saying there is anything wrong with this thread.
It was just a question.

Ogard

So I asked GW about the rule and yes it could still suck the Dredn. through even if it was not facing it because coming from GW the Dredn. has a 360 LOS.

hahahahaha. really late but still funny to me.