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:

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....

Not all infantry have eyes. Most space marine models have helmets and do not have eyes. What about a model with an eyepatch that is only one eye, and therefore not "eyes"?

Infantry models do not have a firing arc. The best you can claim with your forced alternate interpretation of the rules is that the rules are incomplete and unplayable.

You can:
1) Measure from the eyes or where they might be 360 degrees in all directions
2) ignore the model itself and it's unit for blocking LOS

OR

1) The rules don't state the LOS arc for infantry without visable eyeballs, so models with no eyes, visors, sunglasses, helmets, etc cannot ever fire.
2) Find another player willing to play this way. (Good luck!)

False dichotomy is false.

Nemesor Dave wrote:1) The rules don't state the LOS arc for infantry without visable eyeballs, so models with no eyes, visors, sunglasses, helmets, etc cannot ever fire.
2) Find another player willing to play this way. (Good luck!)

Asserting that the other side actually plays this way is offensive. Please apologize.

Many of us have posted (in this thread, so maybe you should re-read it) that this is not HWWPI but is RAW.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:1) The rules don't state the LOS arc for infantry without visable eyeballs, so models with no eyes, visors, sunglasses, helmets, etc cannot ever fire.
2) Find another player willing to play this way. (Good luck!)

Asserting that the other side actually plays this way is offensive. Please apologize.

Many of us have posted (in this thread, so maybe you should re-read it) that this is not HWWPI but is RAW.

How do you know anyone else in this thread doesn't really believe they should be able to play their units with Rage this way? I did not assert that you personally play that way. However, I don't really mind if you do.

Because everyone who has posted on it has mentioned how it is played for real?

Again - your false dichotomy is false. Yet another logical fallacy.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:1) The rules don't state the LOS arc for infantry without visable eyeballs, so models with no eyes, visors, sunglasses, helmets, etc cannot ever fire.
2) Find another player willing to play this way. (Good luck!)

Asserting that the other side actually plays this way is offensive. Please apologize.

Many of us have posted (in this thread, so maybe you should re-read it) that this is not HWWPI but is RAW.

How do you know anyone else in this thread doesn't really believe they should be able to play their units with Rage this way? I did not assert that you personally play that way. However, I don't really mind if you do.

The "oh I didn't mean you" defense? So who was that directed towards?

Edit: and the "find another person to play" is not a raw argument. It's a HYWPI argument. And I agree with you on that, as I've stated.
But as has also been stated, we're discussing RAW here. Please follow the tenets of this forum and attack arguments not people.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:1) The rules don't state the LOS arc for infantry without visable eyeballs, so models with no eyes, visors, sunglasses, helmets, etc cannot ever fire.
2) Find another player willing to play this way. (Good luck!)

Asserting that the other side actually plays this way is offensive. Please apologize.

Many of us have posted (in this thread, so maybe you should re-read it) that this is not HWWPI but is RAW.

How do you know anyone else in this thread doesn't really believe they should be able to play their units with Rage this way? I did not assert that you personally play that way. However, I don't really mind if you do.

The "oh I didn't mean you" defense? So who was that directed towards?

I would never suggest that anyone actually plays by the rules they are arguing are the correct RAW interpretation. That would be unheard of.

So... I misquoted you? Or are you trolling me?

Trolling, again, would be my guess

So moving back to original question: Does a unit change it's movement if another closer enemy unit become visable?

Taking the LOS argument out of the question (I know it's a valid argument if the new, formerly unseen unit is behind the rage unit)

So a unit with rage moves towards unit A (which is the only unit in LOS at the start of the movement phase). Durring that move a closer unit, B, becomes visable (to avoid the discussion that this thread has turned into say that somehow the unit is in "sight" of the model's eyes). Does the rage unit continue towards A or change course and finish it's movement towards B?

I have read this entire thread and I don't actually remember this being answered.

optimusprime14 wrote:So moving back to original question: Does a unit change it's movement if another closer enemy unit become visable?

Taking the LOS argument out of the question (I know it's a valid argument if the new, formerly unseen unit is behind the rage unit)

So a unit with rage moves towards unit A (which is the only unit in LOS at the start of the movement phase). Durring that move a closer unit, B, becomes visable (to avoid the discussion that this thread has turned into say that somehow the unit is in "sight" of the model's eyes). Does the rage unit continue towards A or change course and finish it's movement towards B?

I have read this entire thread and I don't actually remember this being answered.

The unit changes course. The restrictions of the Rage rule apply during the whole Movement phase, so if at any point you are NOT moving towards the nearest visible enemy unit (ie moving towards unit A when B is both visible and closer) you are breaking the rule. This does mean that if a closer unit somehow becomes visible during your Movement phase, you must move towards it from that point forwards.

optimusprime14 wrote:So moving back to original question: Does a unit change it's movement if another closer enemy unit become visable?

Taking the LOS argument out of the question (I know it's a valid argument if the new, formerly unseen unit is behind the rage unit)

So a unit with rage moves towards unit A (which is the only unit in LOS at the start of the movement phase). Durring that move a closer unit, B, becomes visable (to avoid the discussion that this thread has turned into say that somehow the unit is in "sight" of the model's eyes). Does the rage unit continue towards A or change course and finish it's movement towards B?

I have read this entire thread and I don't actually remember this being answered.

The unit does not change course, as you assess what is the closest visible enemy unit, THEN move towards it.

BeRzErKeR wrote:The unit changes course. The restrictions of the Rage rule apply during the whole Movement phase, so if at any point you are NOT moving towards the nearest visible enemy unit (ie moving towards unit A when B is both visible and closer) you are breaking the rule. This does mean that if a closer unit somehow becomes visible during your Movement phase, you must move towards it from that point forwards.

DeathReaper wrote:
The unit does not change course, as you assess what is the closest visible enemy unit, THEN move towards it.

Right....

And so we are effectively back at square 1, with no changes. Disregarding LOS, there are 2 ways of looking at Rage. Both are equally valid, and (although it goes against the rules), if you and your opponent can't decide, just roll off. Or as k the TO.