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.

Just a quick followup.

The original blog that brought this up also mentioned that units with Rage can move an additional d6...

So he was saying a Carnifex for instance can move:

6+d6(rage)+d6(run).

I read the BGB entry on rage like 6 times, and no where does it say this is in addtion to a run rule.

Any help?

Jaric wrote:Just a quick followup.

The original blog that brought this up also mentioned that units with Rage can move an additional d6...

So he was saying a Carnifex for instance can move:

6+d6(rage)+d6(run).

I read the BGB entry on rage like 6 times, and no where does it say this is in addtion to a run rule.

Any help?

Whoever wrote the blog is an idiot and is thinking of "Holy Rage" from the Witch Hunters codex

Thank you sir. That makes me feel better (was worried I was missing something in the BGB about Rage).

Are we sure that Nids have norm Rage and not Holy Rage wording in their codex?

This argument fails because some models have no eyes.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:This argument fails because some models have no eyes.

No, it doesn't. Models without eyes cannot draw LOS, if you play by the rules.

I didn't say it was wrong, I said it fails At one point a friend had discussed putting all of his models eyes on long stalks.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I didn't say it was wrong, I said it fails At one point a friend had discussed putting all of his models eyes on long stalks.

Wow...that's hilarious.

"Yes, I know you can't see the body of any of my infantry models behind the wall, but their eyes are on these long stalks 2" above the wall, so I can see you and shoot you."

Gwar! wrote:

Jaric wrote:Just a quick followup.

The original blog that brought this up also mentioned that units with Rage can move an additional d6...

So he was saying a Carnifex for instance can move:

6+d6(rage)+d6(run).

I read the BGB entry on rage like 6 times, and no where does it say this is in addtion to a run rule.

Any help?

Whoever wrote the blog is an idiot and is thinking of "Holy Rage" from the Witch Hunters codex

Speaking of idiots, if you guys had actually read the post perhaps you would have noted the first sentence which says: "This was (as with everything else) written back when it was believed 'rage' would equal the Witchhunters rage, and not just the USR in the rulebook. Since it's not to be...well, it's a shame I wrote a nice article for nothing."

I feel sorry for the person with the Snail Themed Chaos Army

Danny Internets wrote: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.

Even if you use the rest of page 16, the Own Unit section is out of bounds, because it clearly only applies to firing units, because of a) "Firing models can always draw line of sight [...]" and b) I am aware that fluff usually has no bearing on the rules, but in this case it does, because the rules say A happens because of B, where A is the unit firing through itself and B is the justification of them taking up firing positions in reality. If you are checking rage LoS, they would not "be taking up firing positions to maximise their own squad's firepower" because they are not firing. Thus in this case, B is false, so the foundation on which A lies upon does not support it.

So as I've said before, I have no interest in destroying the LoS rules, but the Own Unit section is stated to be only for firing units in so many ways.

It's interesting to see this argument spill out over here. One problem with RAW argument though. Can anyone show me in the rulebook what the LOS arc is for an infantry model? Is it 45 degrees? 90? 180? 270?

darwinn69 wrote:It's interesting to see this argument spill out over here. One problem with RAW argument though. Can anyone show me in the rulebook what the LOS arc is for an infantry model? Is it 45 degrees? 90? 180? 270?

There isn't one. You just measure a straight line from they eyes.

Danny Internets wrote: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.

Very well put. However, I'm shocked you wasted time arguing on that blog.

Do infantry get free pivoting then? Or can Devs not turn around and fire?
Where does lateral vision end?
How far can a space marine turn his head? Does this increase his field of fire and lateral vision?
My Necrons can turn their heads 360 degrees, just like the Terminator chick. Is this legal?


Remind me to buy my gaming group a beer and thank them....for being them.

Gwar! wrote:

darwinn69 wrote:It's interesting to see this argument spill out over here. One problem with RAW argument though. Can anyone show me in the rulebook what the LOS arc is for an infantry model? Is it 45 degrees? 90? 180? 270?

There isn't one. You just measure a straight line from they eyes.

So how do you recommend models with no eyes fire by RAW?

sourclams wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

darwinn69 wrote:It's interesting to see this argument spill out over here. One problem with RAW argument though. Can anyone show me in the rulebook what the LOS arc is for an infantry model? Is it 45 degrees? 90? 180? 270?

There isn't one. You just measure a straight line from they eyes.

So how do you recommend models with no eyes fire by RAW?

They don't.

Then this is an idiot's argument.

At the risk of touching on 'you can't possibly know the game designers' intent because you're not a game designer BAWWWW!!!' the game designers obviously would not create rules/models with the ability to shoot while neglecting to address either in model or game rules their inability to do so.

Either we accept that the only Space Marine models capable of firing their guns are Scouts and helmetless Sergeants and the game comes to an irrevocably crashing halt by RAW, or there is something else within the mechanics that this argument neglects.

sourclams wrote:Either we accept that the only Space Marine models capable of firing their guns are Scouts and helmetless Sergeants and the game comes to an irrevocably crashing halt by RAW, or there is something else within the mechanics that this argument neglects.

Or, rather, there is supposed to be something else within the mechanics that makes the LOS rules work. Because as they're written, they don't.

It's a safe bet to assume that few players are going to enforce RAW LOS, because it is indeed rather silly. But the problem is that the guys who wrote the rulebook in this and the 2 previous editions neglected to really elaborate on just how it's supposed to work.

There is nothing in the rules that covers the arc of sight for infantry models. We're simply told to turn them to face their target and draw LOS from their eyes. Nothing tells us what to do when the model has no eyes, or in situations where LOS is required for something other than shooting. We're left to come up with our own rules covering these situations.

I would suspect that the Games Devs make certain assumptions about LOS that they just didn't think to include in the rules. I would also suspect that the Games Devs play their own games with infantry having a 360 degree LOS, and with LOS being drawn from the model's head, rather than specifically from the eyes... and if they assume that's the most intuitive way to play the game, they quite possibly just overlooked the fact that it's not actually what the rulebook says to do, or they thought that people would figure it out for themselves.

i don't see whats so hard infantry don't have a facing so they rage in which ever direction is closest(unless los is blocked by terrains or other such objects

croggy wrote:i don't see whats so hard infantry don't have a facing so they rage in which ever direction is closest(unless los is blocked by terrains or other such objects

The point of the thread so far is that infantry do have a facing. It's just not clearly spelt out in the rules, so players have to try to figure out for themselves how it's supposed to work.

YES BUT THEY DON'T

where does it say that infantry have a facing

if they did then you would have to face them a certain way in movem,ent phased before shooting in the shooting phase and yet you don't

croggy wrote:YES BUT THEY DON'T

where does it say that infantry have a facing

if they did then you would have to face them a certain way in movem,ent phased before shooting in the shooting phase and yet you don't

I suggest you read the rulebook before further "contributing" to this thread.

Specifically the rules on page 11 about turning and facing.

Or do what insaniak says

I would suggest going back and having another read of the thread. The problem has already been explained.

yes but the rage rule also say closest visable
not LOS or visible to the model


you can't simply walk back wards or turn around to avoid it otherwise even if you did find your self raging towards a unit in your movement phase you could just turn your self around afterwards and then all of a sudden the rage is gone

no where in the rage rule does it mention LOS

croggy wrote:yes but the rage rule also say closest visable
not LOS or visible to the model


you can't simply walk back wards or turn around to avoid it otherwise even if you did find your self raging towards a unit in your movement phase you could just turn your self around afterwards and then all of a sudden the rage is gone

no where in the rage rule does it mention LOS

Errrm, so how do you determine visible then?

Visible = In LOS, FYI.

Also, capital letters at the start of sentences, full stops and other punctuation tend to make a post more readable as well as making your post look like it's worth reading.

I modeled an eye on my latest wraithlord. Talk about modeling for advantage! How cheesy is a wraithlord that can shoot?

willydstyle wrote:I modeled an eye on my latest wraithlord. Talk about modeling for advantage! How cheesy is a wraithlord that can shoot?

I would seriously consider asking a judge to potentially possibly throw you out for being a suspected cheater.

The first question to ask: are there any units out there that could have the Rage USR, and how are they treated? I don't have the full answer to that, I don't think the Rage USR has been used for a unit yet. I don't remember anyone yelling about this when the BRB came out for 5e

Second question to ask: are there any 4e or earlier codex units being used in 5e that have something similar to the Rage USR and how does that work? Well Chaos Dreadnoughts and Tankbustas do. Chaos Dreadnoughts have the Blood Rage which they have to "move as far as possible towards the nearest enemy" it gains fleet, must run towards the nearest enemy and assault them if possible. Tanksbustas have Glory Hogs "must always attempt to shoot at and/or assault and enemy vehicle if there is one in line of sight, regardless of range" if they cannot see a vehicle, they act normally.

Chaos Dreadnoughts cannot get around their Blood Rage, its closest enemy, not even "visually" close so even turning around helps avoid this. Tankbustas get around it by making sure that they do not have LoS to what they do not want to target, while the opponent tries to get the something in the way the Tankbustas might have a problem with.

In the movement phase can I face my models around after moving them? Yes. Can I change my "visual" arc (LoS) so that I can essentially ignore the Instinctive Behavior Feeders rule that from my understanding are coming from German Translations, and aren't out world wide until the 16th of January? Yes

Should GW think about clearly defining a term they use such as "visual"? Probably. Should GW think about how rules are written in conjunction with the other rules? Probably

If this is how IB-Feeders works, should there be an errata so that if there isn't any creature in visual range, they revert to a Chaos Dreadnought type rage? Or have designed it that you have to change your facing towards the nearest enemy then fall under the Rage USR? Probably.

If you are playing against a nid player who keeps facing his nids backside to you to purposely avoid IB-Feeders , should you just pack up your models and leave or play someone else? Problably, you are going to have more problems with this player than is really worth it.

As an Aside from re-reading the Rage USR, it looks like you check in each phase if an enemy is in LoS and if it is, you need to act appropriately towards the closest enemy in each phase.

Maxus wrote:The first question to ask: are there any units out there that could have the Rage USR, and how are they treated? I don't have the full answer to that, I don't think the Rage USR has been used for a unit yet. I don't remember anyone yelling about this when the BRB came out for 5e

Rough Riders with Mogul Kamir spring to mind instantly. I'll have to dig my books out to check for others, though IIRC Rage is a new USR for 5th edition so almost nothing would have it.

-Grabs his 5th ed codexes and will report back shortly-

Yup, only Mogul Kamir has Rage. No other 5th ed book has it mentioned.

Gwar! wrote:

Maxus wrote:The first question to ask: are there any units out there that could have the Rage USR, and how are they treated? I don't have the full answer to that, I don't think the Rage USR has been used for a unit yet. I don't remember anyone yelling about this when the BRB came out for 5e

Rough Riders with Mogul Kamir spring to mind instantly. I'll have to dig my books out to check for others, though IIRC Rage is a new USR for 5th edition so almost nothing would have it.

-Grabs his 5th ed codexes and will report back shortly-

Yup, only Mogul Kamir has Rage. No other 5th ed book has it mentioned.

Great! Now, how is Mogul Kamir being used? Is he galloping backwards down the field so he can ignore the Rage USR? Had this ever come up when the Imperial Guard codex came out? Any "I'm tired of seeing the ass end of Mogul Kamir" threads?

Maxus wrote:Chaos Dreadnoughts cannot get around their Blood Rage, its closest enemy, not even "visually" close so even turning around helps avoid this.

Yup, Blood Rage is no problem... but this exact same argument has been going on over Fire Frenzy since 3rd edition.

If this is how IB-Feeders works, should there be an errata so that if there isn't any creature in visual range, they revert to a Chaos Dreadnought type rage? Or have designed it that you have to change your facing towards the nearest enemy then fall under the Rage USR? Probably.

As I mentioned earlier, I rather suspect that the studio already plays it as a 360 degree vision arc. I would be surprised if they ruled otherwise, if it ever makes it into an FAQ.