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.

I don't often browse YMDC, so I'm not sure if this has come up before in the past or not, but there seems to be a little debate going on at a certain infamous blog about the new Tyranids and the Rage rule. A tactica was recently published there which suggested that the Rage rule could be ignored by simply turning your raging models around so their backs are facing the enemy: they're no longer "visible" to your unit and so you're free to act normally. Same if a unit was dropped in behind the unit with the Rage rule, it can't be seen so you don't have to move towards it.

I was just interested in getting Dakka's opinion on this. Technically it's legal, but it just seems wrong to me, and makes the whole Rage rule kind of pointless.

Sidstyler wrote:I don't often browse YMDC, so I'm not sure if this has come up before in the past or not, but there seems to be a little debate going on at a certain infamous blog about the new Tyranids and the Rage rule. A tactica was recently published there which suggested that the Rage rule could be ignored by simply turning your raging models around so their backs are facing the enemy: they're no longer "visible" to your unit and so you're free to act normally. Same if a unit was dropped in behind the unit with the Rage rule, it can't be seen so you don't have to move towards it.

I was just interested in getting Dakka's opinion on this. Technically it's legal, but it just seems wrong to me, and makes the whole Rage rule kind of pointless.

RAW - yes.
RAI - no. (and before someone comes in with the line "did you write the codex?", I can also use common sense and say that units are not supposed to assault with their hindquarters turned towards the enemy.)

To put it simply, I won't play someone that is this petty. INAT won't support someone playing this petty.

Indeed, I hate following the RAW in circumstances like this because it's just so...absurd. Like the fact that demons technically aren't "demons". And then there are models like the zoanthrope who can't see because they don't have eyes to draw LOS from. Etc.

It's also kind of odd to me because the guy that brought this up will often rule in favor of common sense no matter what the RAW says. Not sure what makes this case so different.

How would you guys play this? How would you react if you encountered this at a tournament?

I would bitch slap the guy trying to pull this. Seriously. That is just a really petty tactic.

Can you quote why it's legal by RAW? As far as I can tell, facing for infantry has no bearing in the rules.

Sarigar wrote:Can you quote why it's legal by RAW? As far as I can tell, facing for infantry has no bearing in the rules.

LOS is drawn from eyes of the model. It's 5 a.m. here, so I'll let someone else pull out the BGB to quote pages for you.

Glancing through the BRB. I can't find the stuff about pivoting freely whenever you want.

Pika_power wrote:Glancing through the BRB. I can't find the stuff about pivoting freely whenever you want.

Nor does it address facings at all for infantry, beyond LOS for the eyes, and gun barrels for measuring distance.

RAW Technicality - Units facing so that they cannot draw LOS from their eyes to the enemy, cannot shoot said enemy (even if the only reason they cannot draw TLOS is because they enemy unit is behind them). No such rules apply to assault.

While moving though, no restriction exists on how the model ends up facing...

The Chaos Dreadnought called and would like its argument about "visible" not meaning "potentially visible" to be returned at the soonest convenient time.

solkan wrote:The Chaos Dreadnought called and would like its argument about "visible" not meaning "potentially visible" to be returned at the soonest convenient time.

Did it get the message from Page 16? I think the message went something along the lines of "Sometimes, all that may be visible of a model is a weapon, an antenna, a banner [...]".

I was just thinking that, Solkan.

In a rules sense, what does "visible" mean? Does it mean "can draw line of sight to"?

Certainly makes things a bit ridiculous when using things that have the Rage rule. Chaos Dreadnoughts, Mogul Kamir, etc would all be quite happy to just turn around and pretend that the enemy is not there...

Yes it does. See the page 16 quote. It sets a precedent.

The rulebook states that when moving infantry models their facing during the movement phase is not all that important, and that in the shooting phase you can pivot them to face the enemy they're shooting at. Vehicle movement is a little more strict, you can pivot any number of times you want during your move (provided you don't move farther than you possibly can), but you can only pivot freely if you're not moving. Walkers get to pivot in the shooting phase to face their enemy, though.

In a rules sense, what does "visible" mean? Does it mean "can draw line of sight to"?

That's part of the problem I think, the rulebook doesn't specifically state what an infantry model's arc of sight is. Can they only look straight ahead, are we to assume they can't move at all and are literally just standing there frozen in the pose they were assembled in, or can they see 180 degrees, 360, etc.?

If there's a unit nearby standing in plain sight that they would be able to see, but their eyes aren't pointing at it, can they really see it?

I already covered what "Visible" meant. The book specifies that it works via TLoS.

You can rotate your models in the shooting phase, so in effect, the models have 360 degrees of sight. However this is not the case for the current argument. In the movement phase, the model sees what it sees. You bend down behind the model and decide what it can see from its PoV. If there is no enemy in sight, they can move. If the enemy is behind them, they may move however they like.

Oh, and please don't try the "Models can see through their own squad, ergo they can see through the back of their head!" line. That rule only applies to firing units, as stated in the rule book.

If that's seriously how it's supposed to be played then Rage effectively does nothing, all you do is turn your backs to the enemy in that case and there you go. Your "mindless lunatics who behave without rational thought" suddenly got their wits back.

Anyway, in the rules for walkers it states that "unlike infantry", walkers have a facing. So that would mean infantry don't have a facing, which means they can basically see all around them. The only time their "facing" ever comes into play is when they're shooting and you have to draw LOS from their heads to the target, but in the movement phase it doesn't matter.

Sidstyler wrote:If that's seriously how it's supposed to be played then Rage effectively does nothing, all you do is turn your backs to the enemy in that case and there you go. Your "mindless lunatics who behave without rational thought" suddenly got their wits back.

Anyway, in the rules for walkers it states that "unlike infantry", walkers have a facing. So that would mean infantry don't have a facing, which means they can basically see all around them. The only time their "facing" ever comes into play is when they're shooting and you have to draw LOS from their heads to the target, but in the movement phase it doesn't matter.

1. Correct. RAW makes little sense, RAI works more realistically. However RAW can back itself up, while RAI cannot. Thus Rage is significantly weakened.

2. Facing has nothing to do with it; you're making leaps all over the place. Infantry have no facing, but they have eyes. The eyes are what we are using as a pseudo-facing, but they have nothing to do with actual facings. Usually it makes no difference, because they can rotate freely with no downside in the shooting phase. However it comes into play in the movement phase, where it does make a difference and where there isn't a free rotation or free vision rule. This is what Stelek wishes to abuse, and it's what he can abuse, by RAW.

And yet, demons are demons despite not being demons. Why forbid one brand of nonsense and defend the other so stubbornly, I just don't get it.

Sidstyler wrote:And yet, demons are demons despite not being demons. Why forbid one brand of nonsense and defend the other so stubbornly, I just don't get it.

Demons are the most often sited case, and it's one where Stelek has chosen to play RAI. Even doing that opens a new can of worms.

The phrase "demons are not demons" is due to the outdated DH codex. Back when the 3.5 ed Chaos codex was the one with demons, there were a few brands of demons, such as Nurglings, Demonettes, Bloodthirsters, etc. These could be summoned by the Chaos Marines and demon hunters had special abilities to deal with these demons (the models affected by the grey knights were defined in the DH codex). Then the Chaos codex got a rebuild without any of those demons reappearing. Suddenly the DH codex was referencing nothing and had rules killing a list of demons no longer in existence. Then the Demon codex gets released, and a few of the units are named the same as the original units were the 3.5 Chaos codex, and as such, in the DH codex list of demons that can be affected. So you get DH who, by RAW, can hurt Nurglings and other old-school demons, but can't do anything to new demons such as the Soul Grinder. To make matters worse, there was a rule in the DH codex which meant that any demons (as defined by the DH codex) in the opponent's army entered from the sides and kept respawning there, because DH fight in demon infested areas. Keep in mind that these demons were originally just a side part of a Chaos Marine army. This is clearly a trainwreck if played via RAW, so people try and RAI their way out of it, but with the infestation rule, that just makes it a bigger mess. The DH codex requires lengthy discussion with the opponent if one wishes to use it against a demon army, and even then, you'll probably just decide to rule that the DH can't do anything special to demons, because without the infestation to balance it, and considering it's a whole army, it would be overpowered.

TL;DR DH is a mess, don't try and use the special DH rules with it and don't bring it up in a rules discussion, because I hate typing that convoluted history out. :p

RAW, models in your own unit are ignored for line of sight purposes (p.16).

All models are part of a unit, therefore the ignored models include that of the firer. Ergo, a model's line of sight can be drawn through the back of its own skull and infantry all have 360 degrees in which they can see.

Conversely, if you argue that this is incorrect and a model can only see from its own eyes then be prepared to the accept the consequences:

(1) Models with helmets that block their eyes can never draw line of sight to anything (e.g., all forms of Space Marines, Tau, Eldar, etc.).

(2) Models without eyes cannot see anything (e.g., Zoanthropes, Hive Guard, etc.)

Danny Internets wrote:RAW, models in your own unit are ignored for line of sight purposes (p.16).

All models are part of a unit, therefore the ignored models include that of the firer. Ergo, a model's line of sight can be drawn through the back of its own skull and infantry all have 360 degrees in which they can see.

Conversely, if you argue that this is incorrect and a model can only see from its own eyes then be prepared to the accept the consequences:

(1) Models with helmets that block their eyes can never draw line of sight to anything (e.g., all forms of Space Marines, Tau, Eldar, etc.).

(2) Models without eyes cannot see anything (e.g., Zoanthropes, Hive Guard, etc.)

You're correct, but this only applies for firing models, if you read the paragraph. Since the rage movement check is in the movement phase, they are not firing during the checking of rage visibility/LoS (which are the same, as I explained earlier). I replied to you on YTTH in more depth, but the comment is still pending moderation. How do I get past that?

I didn't know replies were still moderated.

Not sure how to get past moderation there (might be marked as spam by the filter if you have multiple links), but where else in the rules is line of sight or visibility defined? I don't believe it is present in any other section. I think the only option is to use the firing line of sight rules unless you interpret the Rage passage (and all similar passages) to refer to the player's visibility rather than the models', which I think is silly personally because then you run into all sorts of stupid situations (such as raging towards models on an adjacent table).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/pika_power/Screenshot2010-01-05at14903AM.png


There's a screenshot of it and it explains my points.

Don't get me wrong, I'll be irritated if someone uses this tactic on me. I expect it to be FAQ'd quickly, but I have to endorse it by RAW.

EDIT: You can take the little grey box as rules that affect the movement, as it doesn't reference firing. I explained my position in more depth in that screenshot, adding a couple more points.

I understand the point that line of sight is in the context of firing, but you still haven't provided a rules-based alternative to defining what models are visible as per the Rage rule. Visibility only ever appears to be defined in terms of line of sight, which is in the Shooting Phase section of the rules.

I've got nothing against it being in the shooting section, but if it has references to the firing squad, I'd call shenanigans, especially if it goes on to justify why it happens with a fluff reason related to shooting.

Just looking at it, you can use the grey box on the bottom left corner of page 16 and the top right paragraph of the same page.

In any case, I'm certain that the Own Unit section cannon be used to justify a 360 degree vision for the movement phase.

Third time now: if you have a problem with the rules for line of sight being used to determine what is "visible" then what section of the rules do you propose should be referenced in its place?

Rules for LoS? Feel free to use those. Rules for LoS specific to firing squads? Please refrain. Unfortunately that includes the majority of LoS rules.

Propose to be referenced in its place? I am not Games Workshop, that is not my job. As you've pointed out, you can't use the LoS rules due to being in the shooting section/due to it being littered with "Firing models" references. This means that there are no rules to reference it with.

The fact of the matter is whatever you do, you cannot classify moving models as "Firing models", so they will never be able to use the see-through allies rule. That's all I need to prove to thoroughly throw a spanner in the works of your argument. To use anything else is to go into RAI territory.

Of course, RAI would be superior in this case, but we're arguing RAW.

Frankly, the argument that it incorrect to use the rules because they are contained in the Shooting Phase section is to place very specific restrictions on cross-context applications of rules and is itself an interpretation. As such, you're arguing "RAW" no more than I am.

There are a nearly infinite number of situations in the rulebook where rules from one section are referenced by another. For instance, coherency is only defined in the Movement Phase section of the rules, yet it is referenced throughout the rulebook without being redefined. When moving into assault, for example, the rules say that you must stay in coherency. By your logic, maintaining the models must stay within 2" of one another during this action would not be using the rules as they are written because this isn't happening in the Movement Phase. I believe everyone who plays this game would find that completely ridiculous.

Line of sight is also used throughout the rulebook (and codexes) in situations where there are no models shooting. Would using the rules for line of sight, which are in the Shooting Phase part of the rules, violate "RAW"? Well, if you want to argue that then "rules as written" ceases to have much meaning at all since there are precious few situations where it is upheld.

Ok, so after taking this all in, it seems to be a debate for the sake of debate. I don't foresee anyone actually trying to pull this stunt. "Your model is looking straight ahead, therefore can not possibly see anything to their right left or behind them at any point."

It's very simple:

R.a.W = Yes.

R.a.I = Yes (because that is what the authors wrote, and they didn't unintentionally crap out a rulebook, did they?)