LOS and facing Arcs

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.

**Brikhause**

Does a model have to have another model in its front facing in order for it to be in LOS?

**solkan**

Line of sight isn't limited to the front arc.

Very many things which require line of sight do, however, also require that the target be in the front arc, though.

**Brikhause**

But with things like Augment spells it can be assumed that a model can even see behind itself correct?

This came up in the game, and the Warhammer rulebook does not really fully clarify this.

Otherwise, I don't know how a mage can augment a unit that it is in, if it is in the front rank of the unit.

**Minsc**

I think that is more caused by "A Model can always see itself. If a model can see itself, it may target itself. Said model's effect goes beyond just that model, to the whole unit. Therefore, model can affect whole unit". Sort of like how if you have LoS and Range to even just one model in the enemy unit, you can still hit said unit as they're an established part of it.

**Brikhause**

Fair enough. Last question though can a model with an augment spell be able to see models behind it or to the side of it period.

In the Warhammer Rulebook LOS is established by drawing a clear sight from the model's eyes to the target. Is this factoring in turning the models head then, or does that mean its eyes are static in its place. If static can it see greater than its front 45 degrees? How much Greater? See what I mean when I say the WHFRB is vague on this?

**solkan**

Yes, it's horrible and vague, just like in 40K. And on top of the 40K problem, you also get to deal with models that have a few dozen pairs of eyes on them.

If you really want to argue about LOS, just think about the Tomb Kings Casket of Doom and it's Light of Death ability. That's an even higher stakes argument about how line of sight is supposed to be determined, and just as little guidance for it.

**Killjoy00**

Augment spells do not need line of sight. The default rule is that spells do not need line of sight anymore. Unless your spell specifically says it or its spell type requires it, it doesn't need line of sight. Augments spell type do not require line of sight.

**ShivanAngel**

Killjoy00 wrote:Augment spells do not need line of sight. The default rule is that spells do not need line of sight anymore. Unless your spell specifically says it or its spell type requires it, it doesn't need line of sight. Augments spell type do not require line of sight.

Augment spells most definately require LoS....

This is from the chart in the back of the BRB.

**SlaveToDorkness**

No, they do NOT. Check the rules instead of the charts (which are often notoriously wrong). BRB pg 31 specifically.

Augments and Hexes do not require LOS or the target in the front arc.

**ShivanAngel**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:No, they do NOT. Check the rules instead of the charts (which are often notoriously wrong). BRB pg 31 specifically.

Interesting, yay for charts being wrong

**SlaveToDorkness**

There is also a big difference in reading the rules. Read pg 31 then tell me what you learned.

**ShivanAngel**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:There is also a big difference in reading the rules. Read pg 31 then tell me what you learned.

That the chart in the back of the book is wrong and your a smug donkey-cave.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Yeah, being wrong after being smug yourself does put that spin on things, definitely.

**ShivanAngel**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Yeah, being wrong after being smug yourself does put that spin on things, definitely.

I simply stated that according the the chart in the back of the book they require LoS. I posted a source that was contradicted in its own book.

Then you come in and make a smart ass comment when the book was wrong. Honest mistake that you were being a dick about.

Btw glad you were right, seems to do wonders for your ego.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Yes, editing out smarmy responses totally makes you the better person. Totally...

**ShivanAngel**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Yes, editing out smarmy responses totally makes you the better person. Totally...

Considering i edited it about 30 seconds after i posted it and a full minute before you comment, yeah I really am trying to make you look bad...

Glad you were right, looks like it really helps you feel better about yourself!

**SlaveToDorkness**

Oh yes, you're terribly perceptive. Much better than your reading comprehension.

**Frazzled**

There's a lot of smugness going on. I'm smugly smug about your smugging you dirty smugger!

Lets all move along back to politeness now shall. What do you think this is, the OT Zone?

**Da Butcha**

solkan wrote:Yes, it's horrible and vague, just like in 40K. And on top of the 40K problem, you also get to deal with models that have a few dozen pairs of eyes on them.

If you really want to argue about LOS, just think about the Tomb Kings Casket of Doom and it's Light of Death ability. That's an even higher stakes argument about how line of sight is supposed to be determined, and just as little guidance for it.

Actually, if you really want to argue about line of sight, point out that your opponent's undead, for the most part, do not have eyes, but only eye sockets. Similarly, those Chaos Knights might have vision slits in their helms, but do not actually have eyes (unless you count the ones on his shield). No charges for them!

A good tactic, then, would be to model your Chaos Knights lying prone on the ground, with eyes emerging from their lances, held aloft. This would maximize their protection from shooting and spells, while allowing them clear lines of sight from the eyes emerging from their untargetable weapon tips.

What a goofy rule.