Do flamers require LOS?

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.

**Axyl**

Probably an obvious question, but does the firer of a flamer require LOS to the target in which it is firing?

**Mekboy**

He needs to have line of sight to a model in the target unit, but does not need to have line of sight to any other units it may hit.

**Gwar!**

Of course he needs LoS, otherwise he cannot Target the unit.

**Axyl**

Ok, thanks for clarifying. As I thought the answer was quite obvious.

**ajfirecracker**

Of course flamers require LOS. How else do you prevent a wraithlord from torching your precious grots?

[/lulz]

**gaylord500**

The only possible exception is against units in buildings or bunkers. Then, all it needs to hit is a firepoint to hit d6 hits on the unit (that's out of LOS).

**s2ua7**

I understand shooting and that if one figure can see, they all can fire (I think that is how it is according to pg 16 of the BRB). How does this work for a squad of units with flamers? Say one figure in the squad can see the targeted unit, but no others can. The scenario in our last game was that my figures were behind a ruined building and only 2 burnas had LOS on my Guardsman. We played it that he could fire all of his templates through the building as this is how normal shooting worked and we could not find anything in the book to suggest any different.

**Lordhat**

s2ua7 wrote:I understand shooting and that if one figure can see, they all can fire

No, each individual model must be able to see to fire, however only one model in the target unit has to be in LOS and any model can then be taken as a casualty.

**Spetulhu**

ajfirecracker wrote:How else do you prevent a wraithlord from torching your precious grots?

Point out that the Wraithlord model has no eyes...

**ajfirecracker**

The wraithlord having no eyes only works because flamers require LOS.
In other words, that was my point. It's okay though, we can all laugh at the silly eldar and their blind models.

I've seen mention somewhere (Gwar?) that only IG/humans without eye coverings should be able to fire due to LOS, but I think the argument is faulty. Nowhere does it say that humans still have eyes in the 41st millenium. It could, for example, be standard practice to replace eyes with loose bionic equivalents.

Shy of some sort of eye wargear, either everything should be able to fire (well, maybe wraithlord and wraithguard still can't, given the lack of anything there) or nothing should.

**Gwar!**

ajfirecracker wrote:I've seen mention somewhere (Gwar?) that only IG/humans without eye coverings should be able to fire due to LOS, but I think the argument is faulty.

Last I checked, only Homo sapiens sapiens have "Eyes". Other races have their Xenos Equivalents, but they are not eyes.

**ajfirecracker**

Last I checked, nowhere in any rulebook does it state that humans have eyes at all. Also, last I checked, they're plastic models, who cannot have biological eyes regardless of race.

**Gwar!**

ajfirecracker wrote:Last I checked, nowhere in any rulebook does it state that humans have eyes at all. Also, last I checked, they're plastic models, who cannot have biological eyes regardless of race.

Therefore nothing can fire. Congrats!

**ajfirecracker**

Of course, the rulebook gives an example of a SM checking line of sight, so a crafty SM player might argue that "eyes" is used to mean "SM head" as the example indicates.

This would, of course, give SM players an unfair advantage (well, against most armies).

**Kitzz**

If flamers didn't require LoS, YMDC would be even more heated.

(that's two birds)

**Shrike78**

okay, I have a, perhaps stupid, question:

If you can see one model in the squad (say one model in a squad poking out of a tall and relatively intact ruin) could you draw line of sight to that one model, and then proceed to vaporize the other models in the squad?

**s2ua7**

Lordhat wrote:
s2ua7 wrote:I understand shooting and that if one figure can see, they all can fire
No, each individual model must be able to see to fire, however only one model in the target unit has to be in LOS and any model can then be taken as a casualty.

Wow, thats my bad, we (my group) misread the rulebook there. I think that I read the part about drawing line of sight from one figure and then failed to read further on. Thank you for pointing that out Lordhat

**Lordhat**

NP. Figured as much.

**Gwar!**

Shrike78 wrote:okay, I have a, perhaps stupid, question:

If you can see one model in the squad (say one model in a squad poking out of a tall and relatively intact ruin) could you draw line of sight to that one model, and then proceed to vaporize the other models in the squad?

Yes.

**Mannahnin**

Gwar! wrote:
ajfirecracker wrote:I've seen mention somewhere (Gwar?) that only IG/humans without eye coverings should be able to fire due to LOS, but I think the argument is faulty.
Last I checked, only Homo sapiens sapiens have "Eyes". Other races have their Xenos Equivalents, but they are not eyes.

I am shocked and dismayed at this inaccuracy, sir! Many, many species other than homo sapiens have “eyes”. And the majority of people on earth use other words than “eyes” to describe the ocular organs of homo sapiens.

**Gwar!**

Mannahnin wrote:I am shocked and dismayed at this inaccuracy, sir! Many, many species other than homo sapiens have “eyes”. And the majority of people on earth use other words than “eyes” to describe the ocular organs of homo sapiens.

They use a different word to mean Eyes. Eldar no more have Eyes than they have Human Livers. They Have a Xenos Equivalent, but they do not have "Eyes".

**Mannahnin**

Goodness, sir. Did you read my post at all?

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that the word "eyes" refers only to the eyes of homo sapiens, of which notion any biologist or anatomist will rapidly disabuse you.

Also, the majority of homo sapiens currently extant upon our planet use words other than "eyes" in reference to their own seeing apparatus. So sticking upon that terminology as a criteria of exclusion is clearly silly.

**Gwar!**

I like Banana Pudding.