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.

Derp. Yes, wrong thread.

There are about 4 different LOS threads going on, I am a stoopid trolle and I gets confus. :(

Gwar! wrote:Derp. Yes, wrong thread.

There are about 4 different LOS threads going on, I am a stoopid trolle and I gets confus. :(

Haha, you're not a stupid troll, it happens to the best of us. What's your opinion in the case of a normal (or DC) dreadnought?

Assuming we're still discussing Rage, then line of sight isn't important at all. You're dealing with visible or visibility, a concept that's actually not defined how to interpret. Talk to your opponent before battle. "closest visible" might actually imply that the model subject to rage does not need to see it, just that the model that is closest isn't defacto hidden, and God only know what special rule might have a model being hidden.

Oh, and you're only allowed to turn around to aim or draw line of sight in the shooting phase, when shooting, if you intend on turning outside of normal movement phase.

Edit: Oh, and the guy who wanted to turn around and shoot the bikers is free to do so, free - not required

Rephistorch wrote:It does not say in the rulebook that infantry have 360 degree LoS. It does say that infantry models can turn to face their targets in the shooting phase, very similar to the way walker rules are written. Coincidence? Not in my opinion. The only difference is that the walker rules remind you that you facing matters, you MUST face your target, and afterwords, your rear armor may be exposed. That's the price you pay for aiming at a target behind your own lines.

Sure it does. The fact that they don't have a firing arc tells us that - and try not to let this be too much of a shock - they don't have a firing arc.

Beast of war says in there videos dreadnaughts have 180 degree vision, and if you want to not be forced to move towards you could simply place your dread facing away. Thought BoW really messes up a lot of things...

SaintHazard wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:It does not say in the rulebook that infantry have 360 degree LoS. It does say that infantry models can turn to face their targets in the shooting phase, very similar to the way walker rules are written. Coincidence? Not in my opinion. The only difference is that the walker rules remind you that you facing matters, you MUST face your target, and afterwords, your rear armor may be exposed. That's the price you pay for aiming at a target behind your own lines.

Sure it does. The fact that they don't have a firing arc tells us that - and try not to let this be too much of a shock - they don't have a firing arc.

Actually that doesn't prove that they have 360 degree LoS. The only reason they can shoot any unit in 360 degrees, because the rules specifically state that they can turn to face their opponents. When determining LoS, the rules say to use "true" LoS stating that a model's position comes into play. Therefore, if you don't turn your models to face what you're firing at, you (and your models) can't see through the back of your head. You get a "model's eye view". If your model hasn't faced your opponent, his view is pretty empty, and he can not fire.

There's a reason the rules say to face your infantry towards the targeted unit, and there's a reason the rules say to pivot your walker towards the targeted unit. Again, this isn't a coincidence, and there is a reason they are worded very similarly.

SaintHazard wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:It does not say in the rulebook that infantry have 360 degree LoS. It does say that infantry models can turn to face their targets in the shooting phase, very similar to the way walker rules are written. Coincidence? Not in my opinion. The only difference is that the walker rules remind you that you facing matters, you MUST face your target, and afterwords, your rear armor may be exposed. That's the price you pay for aiming at a target behind your own lines.

Sure it does. The fact that they don't have a firing arc tells us that - and try not to let this be too much of a shock - they don't have a firing arc.

The dread rules don't say a thing about a unit having to be in its fire arc to target it. They say, choose target, spin to face target, check los and range. If you took a RAW 1 2 3 approach this implies the dread can target and shoot at anything around it regardless of where it was in proximity to its front arc at the begining of the shooting phase.

The fact that a model can turn to face its target does not mean it has 360 degree vision.

That actually implies (and is stated in the vehicles LOS section) that is not the case, or it would not need to turn.

kirsanth wrote:The fact that a model can turn to face its target does not mean it has 360 degree vision.

That actually implies (and is stated in the vehicles LOS section) that is not the case, or it would not need to turn.

No, the fact that it doesn't have a firing arc means it has 360 degree vision. I've been saying that all along.

When you don't have a firing arc, you have two options - you can fire at anything anywhere (360 degrees) or you can't fire at all.

So either infantry can fire at anything around them regardless of which way they're facing, or infantry can't shoot, ever.

For vehicles, that is presumably true. . .

kirsanth wrote:The rules for using the barrel DO state "When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them against the target and then trace line of sight from each weapons' mounting and along its barrel".
Which could imply they need to fire--and have a weapon with a barrel. There are no other rules for vehicles LOS that I see.

Otherwise you must check LOS from a (non-vehicle) model's eyes (page 16). Which dreads do not have.

Infantry (+) do not need a firing arc, they need LOS.

SaintHazard wrote:

kirsanth wrote:The fact that a model can turn to face its target does not mean it has 360 degree vision.

That actually implies (and is stated in the vehicles LOS section) that is not the case, or it would not need to turn.

No, the fact that it doesn't have a firing arc means it has 360 degree vision. I've been saying that all along.

When you don't have a firing arc, you have two options - you can fire at anything anywhere (360 degrees) or you can't fire at all.

So either infantry can fire at anything around them regardless of which way they're facing, or infantry can't shoot, ever.

I disagree, the rules seem pretty clear that your models fire from the model's perspective "model's eye view". There is no firing arc for infantry.

For those saying the dread's LOS is only from its weapons firing arcs, how do you handle a weaponless BA death company dread? By the interpretation that firing arc and LOS are the same then you'd be able to move the dread anywhere you wanted since it can't 'see' anything. Also, does that mean that you can set up scouts directly behind a tank if it's weapons aren't facing to the rear? Far too many silly situations arise if you equate firing arc and LOS.

Synnister wrote:For those saying the dread's LOS is only from its weapons firing arcs, how do you handle a weaponless BA death company dread? By the interpretation that firing arc and LOS are the same then you'd be able to move the dread anywhere you wanted since it can't 'see' anything.

If by "weaponless," you mean it's suffered enough Weapon Destroyed results to remove all of its ranged weapons, then... yeah. And "firing arc and LOS is the same" is not an interpretation, that's the rules. The rules saying exactly this have been quoted in this very thread.

Synnister wrote:Also, does that mean that you can set up scouts directly behind a tank if it's weapons aren't facing to the rear? Far too many silly situations arise if you equate firing arc and LOS.

This is legal Infiltrate placement, as long as they're 1) 12" away from the tank and 2) not in any of its firing arcs. Now, if it has a turret (or a pintle-mounted weapon), then it's got 360 degrees of vision. And that, folks, is why you put storm bolters on your Vindicators!

Also, if anything else in the deployment zone can see the infiltrators, it's illegal. So it's not as easy as you make it sound.

Synnister wrote:For those saying the dread's LOS is only from its weapons firing arcs, how do you handle a weaponless BA death company dread? By the interpretation that firing arc and LOS are the same then you'd be able to move the dread anywhere you wanted since it can't 'see' anything. Also, does that mean that you can set up scouts directly behind a tank if it's weapons aren't facing to the rear? Far too many silly situations arise if you equate firing arc and LOS.

The problem is, the only rules we have for determining line of sight from vehicles is in reference to firing the weapons. That said, a weapon destroyed result does not mean that the weapon ceases to exist. You can still draw LoS from it for purposes other than firing.

I would say that you could infiltrate scouts close to a vehicle if you are out the arcs of all it's weapons (regardless of where they happen to be pointing). A lot of vehicles have 360 coverage or close to it on at least one weapon. Some vehicles have huge blindspots though - Falcons, especially.

Scott-S6 wrote:The problem is, the only rules we have for determining line of sight from vehicles is in reference to firing the weapons. That said, a weapon destroyed result does not mean that the weapon ceases to exist. You can still draw LoS from it for purposes other than firing.

I'm not sure the rules support this statement. "Weapon Destroyed" isn't "Weapon Damaged" or "Weapon Nonfunctional." We can't say for sure what GW intended when they used the term "Destroyed." The only thing I can think of that supports the idea that the weapon is still there, just nonfunctioning, is the idea that a "Wrecked" vehicle is just as "Destroyed" as an "Exploded" vehicle, but the hull is still there - it's a wreck now.

STOP GOING ROUND IN CIRCLES!

You're seriously not going anywhere with this . . .

Let's try something else, Harlequins. Do you have to roll for their Veil of Tears (This also works with Stealth Suits and Grey Knights) to see if you can see them for the purposes of Rage?

I would say yes, and if you fail you charge towards the next closest target. But then again, I'm not the best person in the world at 40K rules =D

Oshova

Harlequins with Veil of Tears may be ignored for these purposes, it is specified in their rules.

Line of Sight and arc of fire is irrelevant. Visibility is all required by Rage. Stop discussing whether Infantry have 360 degrees sight and start discussing what defines when a model is visible, since that is a relevant debate. You'll quickly realise that visibilty isn't really defined in the rules. If I recall correctly, the rules for Rage doesn't even specify the models need to be visible to the unit with the special rule.

Oshova wrote:STOP GOING ROUND IN CIRCLES!

Welcome to YMDC!

Oshova wrote:Let's try something else, Harlequins. Do you have to roll for their Veil of Tears (This also works with Stealth Suits and Grey Knights) to see if you can see them for the purposes of Rage?

I would say yes, and if you fail you charge towards the next closest target. But then again, I'm not the best person in the world at 40K rules =D

Oshova

This ties into the argument that pops up from time to time regarding barrage weapons and VoT. That is to say, there's no clear answer, because VoT is horribly worded.

If you accept that you're "targeting" the Harlies in order to be able to charge towards them per Rage, then yes, you need to roll for VoT.

If visible /= targetable, then no, you do not.

SaintHazard wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:The problem is, the only rules we have for determining line of sight from vehicles is in reference to firing the weapons. That said, a weapon destroyed result does not mean that the weapon ceases to exist. You can still draw LoS from it for purposes other than firing.

I'm not sure the rules support this statement. "Weapon Destroyed" isn't "Weapon Damaged" or "Weapon Nonfunctional." We can't say for sure what GW intended when they used the term "Destroyed." The only thing I can think of that supports the idea that the weapon is still there, just nonfunctioning, is the idea that a "Wrecked" vehicle is just as "Destroyed" as an "Exploded" vehicle, but the hull is still there - it's a wreck now.

That interpretation creates all sorts of problems - not least of which is that a vehicle with no weapons has no ability to draw LoS at all.

Scott-S6 wrote:Is there anything in the rules that says the weapon is removed?

Looking at it a second time, yes, actually.

Page 61:

"One of the vehicle’s weapons (chosen by the
attacker) is destroyed – ripped off by the force of
the attack."

Nice edit. As to your edit, yes, it causes problems.

A Games Workshop publication containing inconsistencies?! No way!

But them's the rules.

SaintHazard wrote:"One of the vehicle’s weapons (chosen by the
attacker) is destroyed – ripped off by the force of
the attack."

Is that (ripped off) rules or is that fluff? Unfortunately, with GW not differentiating, who knows? Clearly the weapon is not "ripped off" and "ripped off" is not a game term.

ETA, regardless, the weapon mount still exists and LoS is drawn from the mount.

Scott-S6 wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:"One of the vehicle’s weapons (chosen by the
attacker) is destroyed – ripped off by the force of
the attack."

Is that rules or is that fluff? Unfortunately, with GW not differentiating, who knows? Clearly the weapon is not "ripped off" and "ripped off" is not a game term.

Neither are the words "one" "of" "the" and "is". Do you need GW to explain to you what those words mean too?

Drawing LOS from a Destroyed weapon is like claiming to get a cover save for a Lone Marine in the open because 4 dead Tactical Marines used to be in that bush.

Scott-S6 wrote:ETA, regardless, the weapon mount still exists and LoS is drawn from the mount.

The Weapon mount is part of the weapon...

So you're suggesting that "ripped off" is RAW? The weapon must be removed from the model? Or is it just a fluff description of what's happened to the weapon.

Regardless, the vehicle's weapon mounts still exist and it is from there that LoS is drawn .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:The Weapon mount is part of the weapon...

Really? Any RAW to back that up?

Scott-S6 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The Weapon mount is part of the weapon...

Really? Any RAW to back that up?

Do you have any RaW to back up what the word "one" means?

No, because we default to the English language.

The reason you can't Draw LoS is because you are not given permission to. In order to check LOS, you must fire the weapon. Since the weapon is not there, you cannot Draw LoS.

RaW, in fact, you can only ever check LoS when firing a weapon and not at any other time, making this whole discussion pointless.

And in what part of the english language is the mount for a weapon part of the weapon?

ETA, if the weapon mount is part of the weapon then what attaches it to the vehicle? The weapon-mount-mount?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:RaW, in fact, you can only ever check LoS when firing a weapon and not at any other time, making this whole discussion pointless.

Well, this is true, but let's pretend like Rage actually does something.

Well the weapon includes all such things as the mount, the barrel, the firing pin (if neccessary), the body . . . and all other such parts of the weapon.

So in removing the weapon, you must remove the mount =D

Oshova

A mount for a weapon is not part of the weapon.

Pretty much by definition.

What do you call the part of the vehicle that has all the hardware to mount a weapon? The weapon mount.

So?

Page 58:

"VEHICLE WEAPONS & LINE OF SIGHT
Just like infantry, vehicles need to be able to draw a
line of sight to their targets in order to shoot at them.
When firing a vehicle’s weapons, point them against
the target and then trace the line of sight from each
weapons’ mounting and along its barrel, to see if the
shot is blocked by terrain or models. If the target unit
happens to be in cover from only some of the vehicle’s
weapons, then work out if the target gets cover saves
exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a
separate firing model in a normal unit."

If the weapon is destroyed, where's its barrel? Oh right, gone.

So if you trace LOS from the weapon mounting and along its barrel, you basically trace the LOS from the weapon mounting to an object that doesn't exist.

If the weapon is gone, you cannot trace LOS, bottom line.

SaintHazard wrote:So?

Page 58:

"VEHICLE WEAPONS & LINE OF SIGHT
Just like infantry, vehicles need to be able to draw a
line of sight to their targets in order to shoot at them.
When firing a vehicle’s weapons, point them against
the target and then trace the line of sight from each
weapons’ mounting and along its barrel, to see if the
shot is blocked by terrain or models. If the target unit
happens to be in cover from only some of the vehicle’s
weapons, then work out if the target gets cover saves
exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a
separate firing model in a normal unit."

If the weapon is destroyed, where's its barrel? Oh right, gone.

So if you trace LOS from the weapon mounting and along its barrel, you basically trace the LOS from the weapon mounting to an object that doesn't exist.

If the weapon is gone, you cannot trace LOS, bottom line.

except this is about dreadnaughts which have additional special rules that allow them to spin in the shooting phase.

tgf wrote:except this is about dreadnaughts which have additional special rules that allow them to spin in the shooting phase.

Spin all you want. If your walker's weapons are all blown off, you can't draw LOS. Therefore the ability to rotate in the shooting phase is irrelevant.