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.

Maxus wrote:Great! Now, how is Mogul Kamir being used?

He isn't.

I read and participate on the blog ran by he whose name shall not be spoken or written.

I now agree with that person and gwar.

My reason?

Why did they mention 'visible' 4 freaking times in the rage rule.

They sure were stressing it for some reason...

imweasel wrote:Why did they mention 'visible' 4 freaking times in the rage rule.

So that it wouldn't apply if the enemy were on, say, the other side of a wall, building, hill, whatever and so aren't visible?

insaniak wrote:

Maxus wrote:

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.

Wouldn't it be great if they actually told us how they play in the studio with their rules? I'll just file this under don't be an asshat with this, don't play asshats that do this.

I wouldnt worry about it too much. If it's a friendly game, and someone is ruining the game, it's not hard to just find someone else to play. If it's a tournament, the odds of 2 different dummies (a player and a TO) going along with this is very slim. When the whole argument relies on line of sight from eyes, you know it's a weak one.

Wouldn't it be great if they actually bloody wrote the rules "the way they play in the studio"?

Night Lords wrote:When the whole argument relies on line of sight from eyes, you know it's a weak one.

Yeah, who needs the rules. I frequently draw LOS from my models toes, because using eyes like the rulebook says to do in the LOS description would just be stupid.

Dumb argument? Sure.
Weak argument? Hardly.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Night Lords wrote:When the whole argument relies on line of sight from eyes, you know it's a weak one.

Yeah, who needs the rules. I frequently draw LOS from my models toes, because using eyes like the rulebook says to do in the LOS description would just be stupid.

Dumb argument? Sure.
Weak argument? Hardly.

I draw my line of sight from 6 feet above my models, because rules are for Squares Daddy-o!

insaniak wrote:

imweasel wrote:Why did they mention 'visible' 4 freaking times in the rage rule.

So that it wouldn't apply if the enemy were on, say, the other side of a wall, building, hill, whatever and so aren't visible?

Why limit it to that?

Why carry it to unreasonable extremes?

Gwar! wrote:Wouldn't it be great if they actually bloody wrote the rules "the way they play in the studio"?

The problem with this is a simple one. They know how it's intended to be played, and things might seem obvious to them and thus not get put down in writing. This is why you should get people not involved with writing the rules to play test them, as they don't have the preconceived notions about how it's supposed to work, and should thus find these issues and ask, making the writers put them into the book.

edit: Oh, and what's the deal with this "he who's blog shall not be named" malarkey? Is he really that big a deal or what's the issue?

Sarigar wrote:Can you quote why it's legal by RAW? As far as I can tell, facing for infantry has no bearing in the rules.

That is what I thought

Orkestra wrote:Why carry it to unreasonable extremes?

You mean like follow the rules?

imweasel wrote:

insaniak wrote:

imweasel wrote:Why did they mention 'visible' 4 freaking times in the rage rule.

So that it wouldn't apply if the enemy were on, say, the other side of a wall, building, hill, whatever and so aren't visible?

Why limit it to that?

Because following it through to trying to apply a vision arc for infantry very quickly runs into a gigantic rules black spot.

The rules tell us that models should be facing their targets in order to draw LOS from the model's eyes... but we're simply not given enough information to make that actually work in any sort of definable way. Does the model have to be looking directly at their target? Can they turn their eyes through a certain arc? Their heads? What if the model is looking up in the air, or down at an Auspex? Or, as gets dragged out every time this issue comes up, has no eyes at all?

Regardless of what the rules say, LOS from the model's eyes just doesn't work, because there are no rules there to cover it. And in the absence of workable rules, the most common convention (at least so far as I've seen both at the table and from online discussion) is to assume that infantry have a 360 degree arc of sight. It's not RAW, but it's simple, and it works. And it completely removes the problem of determining which direction your Dreadnought or Raging whatever is looking in to determine what's visible or not. All that matters is whether there is anything in between them and the potential target.

imweasel wrote:

Orkestra wrote:Why carry it to unreasonable extremes?

You mean like follow the rules?

As has been said many times in this thread, if you carry one thing to extremes, carry everything to extremes. Which includes helmeted models being unable to draw LoS to anything.

But wait, why stop there?

You draw LoS from eyes.
You check LoS at the start of the movement phase for rage.

Here it gets a tad confusing, but bear with me. Usually model facing does not matter, because LoS is only used in shooting, and you can rotate your models freely in the shooting phase (p. 11). You cannot rotate your models freely during the "rage check" portion of the movement phase. Only once it is established whether you have rage or not can you move/rotate. This means that if the models are not visible (i.e. Out of LoS), you don't rage. Thus if you face away from the enemy at the end of your previous shooting phase or movement phase, you will still be facing away during your next movement phase, so the enemy will not be in view, so you do not rage.

No where does it imply that models have a 360 vision field. You can manipulate the "Own Unit" rules on page 16 to say that you can see out the back of your head and such (which solves the problems of space marines not being able to shoot), but that only applies to firing models.

As for the eyeless models: that's just bad rules writing, and no one plays that way, because it falls into the "terminator armour doesn't exist" territory. This tactic of reverse charging tyrannids, on the other hand, is what you'd call 'cheesy' but I class it as the same as interspersing a couple of units in order to give each other cover saves, or if I'm feeling generous, spreading Orks out to avoid pie plates. It's playing by the rules without bending them.

Pika_power wrote: This means that if the models are not visible (i.e. Out of LoS), you don't rage.

So how do you determine whether or not the models are visible? At what angle does the model need to be facing away from them in order to no longer see them?

There is simply no way to accurately play this way. You'll be endlessly fighting over whether or not the enemy is in the model's arc of vision.

And there's no need to run your Tyranids backwards. That will still run into problems if the enemy moves around them. Just assemble them looking down at their own feet.

I think the problem we've all run into here is using line of sight at all. The rage rules state that the unit must run towards the 'closest visible enemy' not the closest enemy in line of sight. So to find the closest visible enemy...

I believe it says somewhere... maybe... perhaps... in the BRB that the unit of plastic models on the table should actually be envisioned as fluidly occupying the space on the table (a justification for the majority cover rules and shooting I believe) instead of standing rigidly at attention. I believe they also justify this view by the "you aren't the winds of fate controlling your troops every movement and thought" thing.

A fluid state for a unit would have them moving about looking every which way to keep their bearings. This would invariably let them see just about everything within 360 degrees of any model within the unit.

Does that help any or am I going on the completely wrong track with this?

Also: who knew that the logic of physical chemistry would pop out here of all places?

Pika_Power

Where in the rules do you get LOS rules that do not refer to:
a) firing unit [or 'firing models']
or
b) target unit ?

The only ones I see for determining LOS are in the firing section, and, for 'visible' to have any meaning as applied to a unit, LOS rules from the firing section must be used.

I'd argue that that means -all- the LOS rules from the shooting phase would apply (ignoring your own unit, not having to 'see' antennae, banners, etc...).

Trying to cherry-pick the 'model's eye view' interpretation while ignoring everything else seems like a willful twisting of RAW (and, honestly, it's really a RAI approach, not RAW at all--- RAW, nobody can 'see' in the movement phase at all, since determining who is visible is not explicitly laid out, save for the shooting phase).


Besides, it's in pursuit of a nebulous 'advantage' brought on by a faulty tactics discussion, from a blog by a guy who doesn't travel for national tourneys, and about a codex that hasn't been published.

kartofelkopf wrote:Pika_Power
... from a blog by a guy who doesn't travel for national tourneys ...

Harsh man, harsh.

I think the argument at this point is about LOS/visibility in general. Certain parties would like to continue using their battlesuits/firewarriors.

I agree with the cherry-picking of LOS rules though.

kartofelkopf wrote:Pika_Power

Where in the rules do you get LOS rules that do not refer to:
a) firing unit [or 'firing models']
or
b) target unit ?

The only ones I see for determining LOS are in the firing section, and, for 'visible' to have any meaning as applied to a unit, LOS rules from the firing section must be used.

I'd argue that that means -all- the LOS rules from the shooting phase would apply (ignoring your own unit, not having to 'see' antennae, banners, etc...).

Trying to cherry-pick the 'model's eye view' interpretation while ignoring everything else seems like a willful twisting of RAW (and, honestly, it's really a RAI approach, not RAW at all--- RAW, nobody can 'see' in the movement phase at all, since determining who is visible is not explicitly laid out, save for the shooting phase).


Besides, it's in pursuit of a nebulous 'advantage' brought on by a faulty tactics discussion, from a blog by a guy who doesn't travel for national tourneys, and about a codex that hasn't been published.

I'm focusing on the Own Unit rules to try and disprove that models can see through their own heads. While doing so, we've discovered that the entire LoS rules (save for a grey box in the corner of page 16) only apply to firing models. But even if we RAI it and say that we use the LOS rules, once we bring RAI into it, we can argue that the Own Unit rules don't work in movement, because when moving, a squad does not take up firing positions to maximise their firepower.

Of course, it's impossible to RAI it so that you can see through the back of your head. I doubt that was intended.

Even the grey box specifically states that this applies to shooting attacks, and uses the term 'target unit' and 'target' in its explanation, both of which have specific meanings only in the shooting phase.

As for 'taking up firing positions etc....', that really comes down to a fluff explanation for why models aren't impeded by their own unit. What's to say that models don't continue to take up advantageous positioning while on the move? I know my scouts try not to stand in front of each other whilst moving, so as not to get a shotgun blast to the back when the enemy pops up.

kartofelkopf wrote:Even the grey box specifically states that this applies to shooting attacks, and uses the term 'target unit' and 'target' in its explanation, both of which have specific meanings only in the shooting phase.

As for 'taking up firing positions etc....', that really comes down to a fluff explanation for why models aren't impeded by their own unit. What's to say that models don't continue to take up advantageous positioning while on the move? I know my scouts try not to stand in front of each other whilst moving, so as not to get a shotgun blast to the back when the enemy pops up.

Permissive ruleset. Does it tell you your models take up firing positions in the movement phase? No? Then they do not get the advantage. (Why am I even bothering with this? You're trying to argue that I should ignore the mentions of "Firing models" because the entire LoS rules are a mess.)

First, tell me if Stelek's most recent update clears it up at all.

First- lol.

Second- the firing positions thing is still fluff. Fluff is not RAW- even if it's in the same paragraph. In the firing phase, do I need to physically model my figures into dynamic firing positions? Do yours automatically do so? Does it matter? (hint, all three answers are No).

Third- Stelek doesn't go to tourneys. Period. There's not a TO in the world likely to resolve this issue that way. He even admits that, RAI, it's unlikely to be resolved that way.

I still think, RAW, using -all- of the LOS rules, any model may see in 360* (" models may always draw line of sight through members of their own unit." Am I a member of my own unit? Yes? Then I may draw LOS through myself)

If you want to use the RAW silly-stick, apply it all the way. Cherry picking the 'model's eye view' statement out of context is willfully ignoring the rest of the section.

kartofelkopf wrote:First- lol.

Second- the firing positions thing is still fluff. Fluff is not RAW- even if it's in the same paragraph. In the firing phase, do I need to physically model my figures into dynamic firing positions? Do yours automatically do so? Does it matter? (hint, all three answers are No).

Third- Stelek doesn't go to tourneys. Period. There's not a TO in the world likely to resolve this issue that way. He even admits that, RAI, it's unlikely to be resolved that way.

I still think, RAW, using -all- of the LOS rules, any model may see in 360* (" models may always draw line of sight through members of their own unit." Am I a member of my own unit? Yes? Then I may draw LOS through myself)

If you want to use the RAW silly-stick, apply it all the way. Cherry picking the 'model's eye view' statement out of context is willfully ignoring the rest of the section.

Firstly, ROFLMFAOPIMP. I used a longer aronym. Do I win?

Perfect logic. Now in what conditions may you use -all- the LoS rules? If your unit is firing. Can your unit fire in the movement phase? No.

Even if I cherrypick nothing (thus playing 100% RAW), it doesn't change. Checking LoS in the movement phase becomes impossible, so I am unable to determine if any enemies are visible. The game freezes. RAW results in a game freeze here, so we have to go into RAI. With RAI, ridiculous notions such as "I can see through the back of my head using a rule loophole" stop being viable and start being ridiculous, because obviously the more realistic TLoS isn't supposed to let you do that.

So if we play RAW, the game freezes. If we play RAI, the notion of seeing out of the back of your head is ridiculous (especially when the justification is that you pull a pose).

Coming to your second point (I covered the third point second and the first point first. Sue me. :p) where I am back to happily cherrypicking as to prevent a freeze, you do not need to model your figures, because the key line is "As in reality". I am not using fluff to justify the position, GW is, effectively making what would happen in reality into RAW for this point. "A, because of B" is their case, where A is what happens in game and B is what would happen in reality. Thus if B changes (in reality, your squad does not take up firing positions because they're not firing in the movement phase) A does not occur, meaning no wacky head tricks.

There. A stalemate for RAW, a strong 'argument' (lol) for RAI and cherrypicked RAW.

So, in reality, your frothing, mindless, RAG(E)ing monstrous creature will timidly look at his feet or turn his back on an enemy so as to avoid getting himself all worked up.

I guess the hug therapy is really helping him deal with his issues.

RAI, seeing out the back of your head doesn't happen at all. The model, per your earlier statement, is actually a moving, intelligent, rational creature, who might just turn his head to get a better shot, or crouch down to let his mate fire. All that is irrelevant to a rules discussion, though. RAW, the model can see through his head and any other bits of his unit. RAI/RAP, the model can see 360* without the need to reposition every single model in a 30-strong ork unit when you want to shoot at the drop-pod marines that landed next to you.

The idea that a model's eyes dictate its ability to see in a RAW sense leads to silliness like not being able to fire SM with helmets, etc... and seem especially likely to lead to modeling for advantage.

The game doesn't freeze with RAW-- Stelek makes a good logical chain in linking vision to LOS (well, a RAW purist may argue things freeze, but Gaming With Anal Retentives can lead to silly arguments anyways). The problem is he cherry picks the LOS eyes section without applying anything else.

To really get nit-picky, if there's no intervening terrain or models, a 'model's eye view' is never used, as the units are "plainly in view of each other."

kartofelkopf wrote:
I still think, RAW, using -all- of the LOS rules, any model may see in 360* (" models may always draw line of sight through members of their own unit." Am I a member of my own unit? Yes? Then I may draw LOS through myself)

The idea that a model's eyes dictate its ability to see in a RAW sense leads to silliness like not being able to fire SM with helmets, etc... and seem especially likely to lead to modeling for advantage.

If you want to use the RAW silly-stick, apply it all the way. Cherry picking the 'model's eye view' statement out of context is willfully ignoring the rest of the section.

So "Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit" applies to units that aren't firing by strict RAW?
And models with no eyes have invisible internal eyes for the purposes of shooting LOS, RAWwise?

All of the LOS rules mention either
a) target unit (or target)
b) firing unit (or firing model)
c) shooting

The definition of LOS that mentions eyes at all specifies "firing model" so, either we need to use all the rules that apply to firing models and LOS, or the game freezes as Pika points out.


"And models with no eyes have invisible internal eyes for the purposes of shooting LOS?"
There's a reason no one follows absolute RAW blindly.

kartofelkopf wrote:
There's a reason no one follows absolute RAW blindly.

Is the 'visible' for rage in this discussion even defined as LOS, or defined at all ruleswise?
"I can see those marines behind that building, so they're the closest visible unit and you must rage towards them."

I love RAW.

Pika_power wrote:Checking LoS in the movement phase becomes impossible, so I am unable to determine if any enemies are visible. The game freezes. RAW results in a game freeze here, so we have to go into RAI.

This I agree with.

RAW tells you to determine something and provides no way to determine it. Therefore, the RAW does not function here. No further discussion is needed here IMO - you guys have already shown the RAW does not work here.

Discussing RAI here I think will result in nothing but disagreement.

Since RAW does no function here, you have to file this under "discuss with opponents/TO".

P.S: I'm going to RAP this as 360 degree visibility on infantry. My marines look around them, and do not keep their heads frozen in place. Similarly, I'd expect that hungry Nid MC to be actively looking for his next meal, not staring at his feet.