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.

So can someone explain the legality of going to ground to avoid being fired at. I've had situations where I've been shot at, but by going to ground the enemy literally can't see me anymore. Are they still allowed to fire or do I not get shot at, due to them no longer having LoS.

At the same time, when can I send a unit to ground? Anytime during the shooting phase, or only when it's being shot at?

Only when it's being shot at.

And no, they can still shoot you when you go to ground. This is to simulate them having a chance to actually hit your guys before they duck, or having a chance to hit guys that decide to lift their heads up and look to see where shots are coming from

Does it say that in the rulebook? Like if they survive the first round, but the models are still sideways on the ground, they essentially count as standing upright, and being sideways is just to represent that they've gone to ground?

well I suppose the idea would be the shots were fired already before they actually hit the ground, so the enemy forces already know they are there.

P. 24 "After the enemy has rolled to hit and wound..." so you can't go to ground before then. Also it says to place a suitable marker or lay them down. I don't know if you can actually claim no LOS because of this, I think it's just an indicator that they have gone to ground, but I'm not positive.

Laying the models down only serves to remind you that they have gone to ground, it has no effect on LoS, and the enemy can still shoot you.

DeathReaper wrote:Laying the models down only serves to remind you that they have gone to ground, it has no effect on LoS, and the enemy can still shoot you.

I would have to disagree.

Laying them down is to denote their GtG status, yes... but nowhere do the rules tell us that when you do this you should determine LOS to the unit any differently to how you would normally. In other words, once the models have been laid down, LOS is going to be to the models as they are positioned, laying down.

Personally, I would go with the marker option rather than laying them down, just to save hassles.

Well, the fact that it says to either lay them down OR use a marker, implies that los doesn't change, because it wouldn't change if you were using a marker.

If it did, there would be no reason to ever use a marker when laying the model down would give you such a big advantage. It could almost fall under the same category as modeling for advantage at that point

omerakk wrote:Well, the fact that it says to either lay them down OR use a marker, implies that los doesn't change, because it wouldn't change if you were using a marker.

If it did, there would be no reason to ever use a marker when laying the model down would give you such a big advantage. It could almost fall under the same category as modeling for advantage at that point

This is why I was unsure. It seems to me that if a marker does the trick, why should the one method give an advantage the other clearly does not?

Yes, the fact they say use a marker tells you that LoS should not change.

Its like popping smoke, that marker for the smoke can not block LoS to anything.

omerakk wrote:Well, the fact that it says to either lay them down OR use a marker, implies that los doesn't change, because it wouldn't change if you were using a marker.

It implies that it possibly shouldn't... but the rules stop short of actually saying so. Nowhere are we told to treat the models as if they are standing up for LOS purposes if you choose to lay them down.

And frankly, doing so would just be a pain. It leaves you faffing about with the models, popping them up to determine if they can be seen whenever they're shot at. The more you fiddle with the models, the less likely they are to actually be in the same place they started, making the whole exercise in true LOS pretty pointless.

So, IMO, it's far easier to either draw LOS to the actual models as you do in every other situation, or use a marker instead of laying them down. And I'm still going for the latter option as being the easiest one and the one that is going to cause the fewest hassles.

If it did, there would be no reason to ever use a marker when laying the model down would give you such a big advantage. It could almost fall under the same category as modeling for advantage at that point

Or giving your Chaos Lord wings instead of a jump pack.

It's most definitely not modelling for advantage, any more than it is to use the prone IG snipers or heavy weapon teams, or any of the various kneeling models in your army. What it is is a grey area where they just didn't really think it through properly when they wrote the rules. Including the idea of laying the models down is horrible for all sorts of reasons. Yes, laying them down gives you a LOS advatantage. But it's also awkward, it's extra handling, and it results in models moving from where they should be. It's icky, and no sir, I don't like it.

I agree with everything above but I also have a strong dislike of counters in mini games so I usually just lie down one guy at the back of the unit. Serves as a marker but also keeps the majority of models in position.

insaniak wrote:
Laying them down is to denote their GtG status, yes... but nowhere do the rules tell us that when you do this you should determine LOS to the unit any differently to how you would normally. In other words, once the models have been laid down, LOS is going to be to the models as they are positioned, laying down.

Personally, I would go with the marker option rather than laying them down, just to save hassles.

Rephistorch wrote:P. 24 "After the enemy has rolled to hit and wound..." so you can't go to ground before then. Also it says to place a suitable marker or lay them down. I don't know if you can actually claim no LOS because of this, I think it's just an indicator that they have gone to ground, but I'm not positive.

If the above rulebook quote is correct (cannot confirm I am in work) then the issue of 'can I still be seen if I GtG' is null. As GtG is an action that takes place AFTER your opponent has ALREADY found that he has TLOS to your unit, you cannot then claim the ability to move your models out of LoS halfway through resolving the shot. Claiming that GtG can take unit out of LoS mid-shooting action would be (in a crude analogy) moving a piece on a chessboard, then in your opponents turn if he tries to take said piece, claiming that the move in your turn was incorrect and the piece should be returned to its previous position.

EDIT: In my crude example, I know that in chess there are rules in place so you cannot 'take back' a move once you have made it but a) it's the best I can think of and b) its 0935 and I've only had 1 cup of coffee, so I can't think of anything better

They laying down of models is purely an indicator, otherwise my battlefields are going to start including lots of aegis defense lines...

Leigen_Zero wrote:If the above rulebook quote is correct (cannot confirm I am in work) then the issue of 'can I still be seen if I GtG' is null.

They remain laying down until the end of their next turn. So it makes a difference if other units are also shooting at them. I wasn't claiming that it would affect LOS from the unit shooting at them when they choose to go to ground.

They laying down of models is purely an indicator, otherwise my battlefields are going to start including lots of aegis defense lines...

Here's the thing, though... a couple of people here have assumed that if you choose to lay the models down instead of using a marker, you should treat the models as still standing up for LOS purposes.

Couldn't you as easily claim that if you choose to use a marker instead of laying the models down, you should treat the models as laying down for LOS purposes?

Neither is actually supported by the rules. Either one requires the assumption that the outcome of your choice is supposed to produce an identical result. Maybe it is... although which of those identical results is intended is anyone's guess. (Personally, going by the example set by Wobbly Model Syndrome where you assume the model is where it is supposed to be when you choose not to actually put it there, I would think that the latter is actually the more 'correct' of the two: If you choose to not lay the model down, you should assume that it actually is laying down anyway).

But it's also likely, given the generally loose nature of GW's rules, that they simply didn't consider the LOS ramifications of giving you the choice of laying down or marker, or that they did consider it and just didn't think it a big enough deal to worry about it.

DakkaDakka wrote:

So how about going to ground to lay your models down on their backs, and then preventing an assault because of the extra .5" or so it would take the enemy to get into base contact?

DakkaDakka wrote:

I don't see how the LOS rules would change just because a unit went to ground. If you can't see the unit, you can't see them, by RAW.

<insert standard rant about RAW not being the only rules here>

Leigen_Zero wrote:If the above rulebook quote is correct (cannot confirm I am in work) then the issue of 'can I still be seen if I GtG' is null. As GtG is an action that takes place AFTER your opponent has ALREADY found that he has TLOS to your unit, you cannot then claim the ability to move your models out of LoS halfway through resolving the shot. Claiming that GtG can take unit out of LoS mid-shooting action would be (in a crude analogy) moving a piece on a chessboard, then in your opponents turn if he tries to take said piece, claiming that the move in your turn was incorrect and the piece should be returned to its previous position.

This is true but it would affect subsequent units shooting at them.

Honestly if some tried to pull this on me I would tell him that when he picks his models back up to the bases that they better be in the exact same place and if not he auto loses the game for moving his models out of turn. If someone tries a complete b**** move I just respond with one.

Lennysfury wrote:Honestly if some tried to pull this on me I would tell him that when he picks his models back up to the bases that they better be in the exact same place and if not he auto loses the game for moving his models out of turn. If someone tries a complete b**** move I just respond with one.

Playing specifically as allowed by the rules is BS?

Yeah. No reason to assume ill-intent when the person might be doing it innocently.

When your going to that extreme then it is. Just like moving out of turn and you also might be moving the model 1/32 of an inch forward, so therefore would be breaking the rules correct? What I'm getting at is there are always little situations that if you read between the lines you can do, but the point of the "game" is to have fun. So if your trying to attempt this move I would just do things back to you that are just as lame. So you might not be breaking the rules but when you pick your models back up and don't place them where they were then you are breaking the rules. So moral of the story is don't try lame things and they won't happen back to you

Lennysfury wrote:When your going to that extreme then it is. Just like moving out of turn and you also might be moving the model 1/32 of an inch forward, so therefore would be breaking the rules correct?

Sorry, what 'extreme'?

That's the point, lennyfury. The rulebook says we can do this thing.

Yes, there are possibly good reasons not to, and I wouldn't personally do it, but I'm not going to call someone names or be nasty to them for following a rule.

If I can tell that they're definitely trying to abuse the rules, that's one thing. But motive is not always obvious, and it's generally better not to assume the worst. Most of the time the other person genuinely is not trying to cheat you, and either misunderstands the rules or just has an honestly different opinion.

omerakk wrote:Well, the fact that it says to either lay them down OR use a marker, implies that los doesn't change, because it wouldn't change if you were using a marker.

If it did, there would be no reason to ever use a marker when laying the model down would give you such a big advantage. It could almost fall under the same category as modeling for advantage at that point

I agree to suggest otherwise is simply being WAAC

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?

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.

Lennysfury wrote: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...

Ok. Why?

Seriously, not just being difficult here. It's the first thing that your opponent is going to ask.

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.