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.

A constant source of disagreement in my local gaming group is the question "do you need to have LOS when you are assaulting a unit?'

can you help sort this out

You're not playing WHFB, assaults don't require LOS.

quite clearly states in the rules that you can move around impassible objects any distance up to 6 inches to get into base to base contact in order to assault. Never says you need LoS and requiring LoS would make no sense. You are in a war, you walk around the corner of a building to find an enemy Unit standing there... You had no clue they were there... What do you do? Stand there and do an Irish jig? or assault them?

AFAIK, Solkan is correct, they do not require LOS. The only requirement is that the unit is within 6" of the unit they are assaulting (not including units on upper floors or in buildings, those have separate rules if the assaulting figures are outside of a building). I know that you can assault into ruins, but you must make a terrain test and assault at I1.

Dobbo - no one is with you on this one

Or, to try to put this in words more helpful for a group which is playing both WHFB and 40K:

In WHFB, a charge requires the charging unit to see the target because the rules say so on page 18, column two, middle paragraph.

In 40k, there is no corresponding requirement for line of sight anywhere. The requirements for declaring an assault are half a column of text on page 33 of the rulebook, and anyone insisting that a LOS requirement exists should be politely asked to point out where it is.

And if your group is coming in from some other, more enlightened gaming system, there's still time to change.

Catachan_Devil wrote:Dobbo - no one is with you on this one

That whether or not assaults require LOS it's a constant source of disagreement?

I really don't think anyone outside his local gaming group is qualified to judge on that one...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yeah it doesn't say anywhere that you need LOS.

MekanobSamael wrote:

Catachan_Devil wrote:Dobbo - no one is with you on this one

That whether or not assaults require LOS it's a constant source of disagreement?

I really don't think anyone outside his local gaming group is qualified to judge on that one...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yeah it doesn't say anywhere that you need LOS.

i am within his local gaming group - i am more than happy to advise him that he is wrong and LOS is not required

Nothing says LOS is required in WH40K. Why even make a poll when it's a simple rules question?

Spetulhu wrote:Nothing says LOS is required in WH40K. Why even make a poll when it's a simple rules question?

its called denial

visavismeyou wrote:quite clearly states in the rules that you can move around impassible objects any distance up to 6 inches to get into base to base contact in order to assault. Never says you need LoS and requiring LoS would make no sense. You are in a war, you walk around the corner of a building to find an enemy Unit standing there... You had no clue they were there... What do you do? Stand there and do an Irish jig? or assault them?

its quite clearly RAW that you dont need los to charge...
however, visavismeyou, its kind of besides the point for what your saying...
there is already normal movement phase in 40k, assault is a specific movement to charge into combat...
the way you put it makes it seem like you are always charging around hoping you run into an enemy if you cant see one already...

I mainly play assault armies so the no LOS required helps me. I can actually see both sides of the argument (if you cant see it you cant assault it makes sense) but agree that there is no specific requirement for LOS in the rulebook.

As to your question Spetulhu...poll was made to check if there was something we were missing in our local group. Im not sure if your post added anything to the conversation but good on you for contributing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Catachan_Devil wrote:

MekanobSamael wrote:

Catachan_Devil wrote:Dobbo - no one is with you on this one

That whether or not assaults require LOS it's a constant source of disagreement?

I really don't think anyone outside his local gaming group is qualified to judge on that one...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yeah it doesn't say anywhere that you need LOS.

i am within his local gaming group - i am more than happy to advise him that he is wrong and LOS is not required

You are a tool devil...lol