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 think it's a less-desireable way to play, for two reasons.

1. Laying down models changes the location of their base, and impacts measurement.
2. It seems oddly inconsistent for one method of marking the Gone to Ground status (laying down models) to have a substantial impact on LOS, and a non-zero impact on assault and other distance measurements, and another (putting down a marker) to not.

I think the better and quicker and "cleaner" way to play the game is to just use a marker. It keeps things a bit more accurate and consistent.

I can understand how someone would feel the same, and thus find the option of laying down models to be unappealing, and question why an opponent would want to choose that option.

Same reason if he moved 6 inches and 1/64 and me saying he moved to far. What he is doing would be annoying just like saying he moved to far would be. It's really personal preference. If you don't care then sweet, if you do then make their life miserable like they are to you

The Acolyte wrote: Going to ground just represents a unit hiding after a couple of shots have already been fired at it, or how would it know it was about to be shot? (its not like they see giant dice rolling past them) So therefore the unit has already fired at the moment you go to ground so you cannot avoid being shot at by lying on the ground. If this was true alot of real life wars would have been avoided.

Once again, that's not the issue.

Mannahnin wrote:2. It seems oddly inconsistent for one method of marking the Gone to Ground status (laying down models) to have a substantial impact on LOS, and a non-zero impact on assault and other distance measurements, and another (putting down a marker) to not.

It's most definitely inconsistent. But that doesn't mean it wasn't how it was intended to work.

I absolutely agree that just using a marker is the better way to play it. So far as why someone would want to use the laying down option, though... if the rules allow it, why not use it?

What it really boils down to is whether or not you personally decide that the inconsistency is an oversight or just one of the vagaries of the way the rules work.

Lennysfury wrote:Same reason if he moved 6 inches and 1/64 and me saying he moved to far.

That's not even remotely the same thing. Moving further than the rules allow is breaking a rule. Laying your models down to denote GtG is following the rules as written.

What he is doing would be annoying just like saying he moved to far would be. It's really personal preference. If you don't care then sweet, if you do then make their life miserable like they are to you

So if I don't like blue, I should likewise nitpick my Ultramarine opponent's every move because his army irritates me?

Yeah, that's going to make games a lot of fun.


Frankly, I think this is getting built up into a bigger issue than it really is. In practice, it's going to have a fairly minimal impact on the game other than in certain specific situations.

I would have to say that just for simplicity sake, lay one model in the squad down, or use another marker of sorts to save time and argument. It's only a marker. The bonus they get for Going to ground is in the +1 to their cover save, not from hiding from LoS from future attacks. Remember, they are trying to give the game a sense of real war feel by giving us these rules. Look at the +4 cover save for infantry being obscured by other models as an example.

If you look at it from that perspective, them going to ground is simple getting snug with whatever it is they are using as cover after a few shots fire past them. The other army still knows they are hiding there, just they are a bit harder to hit now (Which is represented already by the +1 to cover).

That's my own take anyways.

insaniak wrote:What it really boils down to is whether or not you personally decide that the inconsistency is an oversight or just one of the vagaries of the way the rules work.

It boils down to either you are or are not That F'ing Guy

insaniak wrote:

tgf wrote:I agree to suggest otherwise is simply being WAAC

Would you mind explaining how, exactly?

There are (as I see it, and as I explained earlier) 3 possible ways to interpret this rule, one of which follows the rules, the other two requiring an assumption that the outcome of the two possible actions should be exactly the same regardless of what the rules actually say.

So why is following this particular assumption the 'correct' way to play, while choosing the other assumption or the actual rules suddenly makes you a WAAC player?

Its quite easy, it makes you WAAC because no where in the go to ground rules does it say that it changes the position shape formation or LOS to the unit. Laying them down is not supposed to impact game play it is a method of keeping track of what has gone to ground for the players that have trouble remembering things. Example the marker, does not impact the game, lets say I use a big - Do not try to circumvent the language filter, insaniak - rock as a marker to remind me they have gone to ground. Oh hell the rock is blocking your LOS I guess you can't shoot at them. The rules are pretty simple it is a memory aide not a game impacting change. To play it like this is to be WAAC, to continue to argue about it is to be purposefully obtuse. Show me where a marker can block LOS and maybe I will consider it your way, the RAW and the RAI suggest this is just to help remember not to change the game play.

General_Chaos wrote:It boils down to either you are or are not That F'ing Guy

If you don't actually have anything to contribute to the discussion, please don't waste everyone's time with this sort of nonsense.

tgf wrote:Its quite easy, it makes you WAAC because no where in the go to ground rules does it say that it changes the position shape formation or LOS to the unit.

So laying them down isn't changing their position?

Laying them down is not supposed to impact game play it is a method of keeping track of what has gone to ground for the players that have trouble remembering things.

This is an assumption that is not backed up by the actual rules. Ultimately, we aren't told that the resultant position of the models should have any effect on LOS different to any other situation. Since the rules don't tell us to treat them as standing up despite the fact that the models are laying down, we have no rules basis for doing so. LOS continues to work using the actual position of the models as always.

Example the marker, does not impact the game, lets say I use a big - Do not try to circumvent the language filter, insaniak - rock as a marker to remind me they have gone to ground. Oh hell the rock is blocking your LOS I guess you can't shoot at them.

A marker is just a marker. It has no impact on the game beyond denoting an effect in play.

To play it like this is to be WAAC, to continue to argue about it is to be purposefully obtuse. Show me where a marker can block LOS and maybe I will consider it your way, the RAW and the RAI suggest this is just to help remember not to change the game play.

Here's the thing. I do think the rules in this case should just be taken as written, for simplicity's sake. However, to date I have never actually used the GtG rule in a game. Not once. And, as I have stated a couple of times now in this thread, if I did, I would be using a marker rather than laying the models down. So any benefit from my interpretation is going to go to my opponent, not me.

So... how exactly is allowing my opponent to make his unit harder to shoot when he goes to ground making me a WAAC player?

insaniak wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:It boils down to either you are or are not That F'ing Guy

If you don't actually have anything to contribute to the discussion, please don't waste everyone's time with this sort of nonsense.

have you actually tried to do this in a game? Or you just "wasting everyone's time" trying to argue a rule you don't even use in games?

Is it a waste of your time to read a thread in a discussion forum intended for us to discuss rules?

We're not at the table here. For my money, if we had a long conversation at the actual gaming table about this, that would be a waste of time. But part of the point of this forum is that by discussing issues here we avoid having long arguments or angry disagreements at the actual table.

Part of the point I'm trying to get across (and I think Insaniak as well) is that if some opponent DOES at some point lie down his Gone to Ground models, he MAY just be following the rules as he understands them; not trying to be a dick. So it's not a good idea to get angry over it. Heck, we're just talking here. If we get a slightly different perspective on the rules from this, and it helps us understand where someone's coming from in real life at some point, and not get ticked off, then that's a benefit to us.

What are the rules for laying down a model? Do I tip them over on the edge of the base which could increase the distance between your models and mine by the width of the base if I tip directly away from you? Do I lay them down so the center of the prone model approximates the center of the location wherenthe base was which could possibly put parts of my model closer to your models?

When standing back up do I place them over the center point of the prone model? Can I place the base anywhere the prone model was touching?

If we allow it to impact model location and TLOS then this is like free pivot movement for rectangle vehicles. Basically if you are about 6" awAy I may be able to deny your assault depending on the size of my models base and the technique for tipping over or laying down.

Thenwhole thing reeks of shenanigans to me.

nkelsch wrote:If we allow it to impact model location and TLOS then this is like free pivot movement for rectangle vehicles.

So not actually a problem, then

But yes, the lack of rules detailing just how they should be laid down is a big part of why I would rather just use the marker and forget they even mentioned laying the models down.

no kidding it is a free inch of movement away from your enemy to deny the assault if anyone actually played it this way its like hey gtg, tip back, awe man you are 6.5 inches away now, guess you shouldn't have gotten out of that land raider. :(

IMO RAW and RAI say to help you remember in other words no game impact beyond helping you remember.

Lennysfury wrote:I agree 100% Manna, I guess I came off like I'm just going to scream at them a call them a cheater. That's not what I meant to do so I will explain.

If someone were to try to get out o LoS by going to ground which by RAW is legal, I would tell them that what they are attempting is a little shady and if they wanted to keep on playing like that I would simple match how they play. By that I mean I would make sure they didn't move over 6 inches by even the smallest bit. I would not scream at them or anything I would just match their play style.

It seems like you think requiring that your opponent not move further than they are allowed to move is being some sort of a jerk? Playing by absolutely straight forward rules is shady? What about if they started their raiders parallel to the long edge to gain an extra bit of movement by pivoting? Or if they measured when shooting at something they knew was in range to give them a better idea of the range to something else? Or put their orcs close behind gretchin so they got a cover save without giving you one in return?

It's not some alternate interpretation or exploiting some idiotic raw interpretation here, it's playing two very simple easy to understand rules, GtoG and LOS. If you don't like the result, don't get upset at the person happily playing by basic rules. Get mad at GW for writing guidelines and then calling them rules.

tgf wrote:no kidding it is a free inch of movement away from your enemy to deny the assault if anyone actually played it this way its like hey gtg, tip back, awe man you are 6.5 inches away now, guess you shouldn't have gotten out of that land raider. :(

It's a free inch of movement if you just tip the model over on the edge of their base. If you lay them over in the same spot they were originally in, it's a different story.

How to lay them down and stand them up again is ultimately not that big an issue. People have been doing the same thing with Necrons for more than a decade now without any real complaints.

It's still easier not to... but not that big a deal if you do.

insaniak wrote:

tgf wrote:no kidding it is a free inch of movement away from your enemy to deny the assault if anyone actually played it this way its like hey gtg, tip back, awe man you are 6.5 inches away now, guess you shouldn't have gotten out of that land raider. :(

It's a free inch of movement if you just tip the model over on the edge of their base. If you lay them over in the same spot they were originally in, it's a different story.

How to lay them down and stand them up again is ultimately not that big an issue. People have been doing the same thing with Necrons for more than a decade now without any real complaints.

It's still easier not to... but not that big a deal if you do.

Actually no, the necron rules specifically address this and stand them back up in unit coherency nowhere does it say that they must return to the same position. Also if they are tipped back to go to ground they are an inch 28mm further away from the enemy who can now not assault because they are out of range. To suggest they can be assaulted because you "count them as upright for assault" but they can not be shot at because they are laying down out of LOS pretty much detracts from your original argument. It is as if you are just making up how this works to be argumentative. Be consistent at least it either impacts the game, all aspects, or it doesn't impact the game because it is just a memory aide, the same as a marker.

Well this has been useful informatiion.

So let me see if I got this right. The rules say that you can lie them down or use a counter. If you choose the option to lie them down, if another sqaud decided to shoot at them, RAW technically means they could avoid LoS, however doing something like that would be frowned on; and by doing so, you run into problems of people abusing this to change the location of where a model was. I would probably be okay with someone claiming they can't be shot at but using that to avoid getting assualted or something would be someting I'm not okay with.

I should point out how I think that lieing the ground would be more accurate in terms of an actual battlefield. If a space marine was standing at a wall at half his height, but gets shot at, he get's an increased cover save because he goes to ground while he's being shot at. But afterwards he's lieing down on the ground. In an actual battlefield he wouldn't be seen at all, but the way you're interpreting the rues means they can still be seen.

I also don't feel like someone can say they can still be shot at because this represents them poking there heads up to see the battlefields, because if they were doing that, that would go against the description in BRB about dropping everything they're doing and and ducking for cover.

If you decide to use a counter, then you just have to make sure the counter doesn't interfere with LoS.



And let me pose another question for you guys. I once had a squad of Necron warriors behind and by 1 side of a building, forming kind of an "L" shape. They got shot at, and I removed the ones from the side of the building. Now a lot of his army couldn't see the sqaud anymore because the only ones that were alive were behind the building, however my opponent claimed he could still shoot them, because everything in the shooting phase happens at the same time, and those guys are still shooting at the ones byt he side of the building.

I let him have it, (I still tabled him though ), but what's the legality of doing what he did. Personally I don't feel like that s right, because if that were true, how can you shoot at something inside a transport the turn it's destoryed?

Just to point out: If tipping them over makes an assaulting unit out of range for an assault, why in the world would anyone shoot at them in the first place?!? If the nearest model had been removed as a casualty from the fire (they are going to ground since they were just shot at after all) then they would have been out of assault range as well.



Personally the marker seems the better way to go. Altho the best way is to usually not fire at all at a unit that you want to assault near the edge of your assault range. Have just as much sympathy for a fellow who misses an assault because the models gtg out of range as for the fellow who shoots and kills enough models to miss his assault, heh.



Sliggoth

You can remove casualties to change LOS and range to squad, this is pretty universal and has been around for years. Shooting takes place sequentially not all at the same time, however all models in a squad must shoot at the same time, so you opponent can not roll his plasma guns and make you take casualties then roll his bolters on the remaining guys.

An example is 2 PG wounds and 4 bolter wounds on a 5 man squad you can put both of the PG wounds on a unique model and thus allow your other 4 guys to save.

Just decide before playing to put a marker next to units which have gone to ground.

Homer

Soulx wrote:And let me pose another question for you guys. I once had a squad of Necron warriors behind and by 1 side of a building, forming kind of an "L" shape. They got shot at, and I removed the ones from the side of the building. Now a lot of his army couldn't see the sqaud anymore because the only ones that were alive were behind the building, however my opponent claimed he could still shoot them, because everything in the shooting phase happens at the same time, and those guys are still shooting at the ones byt he side of the building.

I let him have it, (I still tabled him though ), but what's the legality of doing what he did. Personally I don't feel like that s right, because if that were true, how can you shoot at something inside a transport the turn it's destoryed?

Your opponent was wrong. Only models of a unit shoot at the same time, so once you removed the warriors poking out, he can not shoot the others anymore.

DakkaDakka wrote:

So, if I use markers (let's say... nickles, as they fit neatly under the base and would be very accurate for positioning). What exactly is my opponent LOSing to?? The 1/16" high nickle?

The unit, as normal.

The marker represents they have gone to ground, nothing else.

Yes, but there are no figures to LOS to... just coins. So to what object does he draw LOS?

Soulx wrote:And let me pose another question for you guys. I once had a squad of Necron warriors behind and by 1 side of a building, forming kind of an "L" shape. They got shot at, and I removed the ones from the side of the building. Now a lot of his army couldn't see the sqaud anymore because the only ones that were alive were behind the building, however my opponent claimed he could still shoot them, because everything in the shooting phase happens at the same time, and those guys are still shooting at the ones byt he side of the building.

I let him have it, (I still tabled him though ), but what's the legality of doing what he did. Personally I don't feel like that s right, because if that were true, how can you shoot at something inside a transport the turn it's destoryed?

Yeah, he was smoking crack. I don't think shooting (except for a given unit's own shooting) was considered to be simultaneous even in 2nd edition. It definitely isn't now, and wasn't in 4th or 3rd ed. I think this used to be the rule in Warhammer Fantasy, maybe back in 5th ed, or possibly earlier. It's been a lot of years. It's worked the same way as 40k in 6th, 7th, now 8th, and possibly 5th as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gitsplitta wrote:Yes, but there are no figures to LOS to... just coins. So to what object does he draw LOS?

You misunderstand. When you use a marker to designate GtG you leave the figures exactly where they are. You just put a marker next to the unit.

Ahhhhh..... got it. Thanks Mannahnin... I was most assuredly, confused.

tgf wrote:Actually no, the necron rules specifically address this and stand them back up in unit coherency nowhere does it say that they must return to the same position.

Except for the Lord, who doesn't join a unit and just stands back up where he started.

To suggest they can be assaulted because you "count them as upright for assault" but they can not be shot at because they are laying down out of LOS pretty much detracts from your original argument.

It might do if I had suggested it. I have no idea where you got that from.

Be consistent at least it either impacts the game, all aspects, or it doesn't impact the game because it is just a memory aide, the same as a marker.

My point was that the actual position of the models is what the game revolves around. So LOS is to the actual models, whether they are standing up or laying down. Assault would likewise be to the actual models. I have no idea what inconsistency you're seeing.

Here's a suggestion for you: Stop assuming that I'm just arguing to be argumentative. Sometimes people will disagree with you. Not because they're trying to be difficult, or because they're seeking some sort of advantage for themselves, but simply because they have an opinion that is different to your own. Discussing those differences of opinion is a large part of what this forum is for... and accepting that a different opinion isn't usually grounded solely in self-interest or a desire to be difficult can go a long way towards making rules discussions much less aggravating for everyone involved.

IMO, specially in friendly games, it is important to keep in mind the spirit of the rule. In this case the rule is meant to grant a cover save to a unit that would not have had one otherwise. It is a last ditch effort to save a few men, nothing more.

Anubis_513 wrote:IMO, specially in friendly games, it is important to keep in mind the spirit of the rule.

While you're doing that, it's also important to remember that your opponent might have a completely different idea of just what that means.

For the assault and they are laying down arguement, keep in mind that once they are assaulted they go back to normal, ie stand back up.