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.

visavismeyou wrote:You know, when I was in the army putting up 40k directional antennas and we had to have LOS between the two dishes... not a single dish had a weapon mount... Funny... you can draw a line which is unobstructed by any intervening thing and thus would be able to be seen in a direct line from one point to another without having eyes or weapon mounts...

Which has absolutely zero to do with the rules. You can't try to inject outside experiences into a toy soldier rule set.

visavismeyou wrote:Fact, the rules do not cover this... stop acting like the rules do cover this.

I've given rules quotes and page numbers to show that Infiltrators call for LOS and the LOS rules themselves. You've given strident but unproven assertions that they don't. I'm sorry but without something more to go on than your microwave dishes we'll just have to agree to disagree.

While the rules do not specifically cover this. I think it is a fair discussion to have. You can use the rules relevant to LOS and the rules of the special rule to come to some degree of understanding. I myself am torn between the two viewpoints. While from what I have read it seems that LOS can not be drawn behind you, I believe the idea for the deployment was that it could.

In the end talking it over with your opponent or TO will be best, but discussing here will give good ideas for arguments for games.

The Green Git wrote:

don_mondo wrote:And to use those rules for anything other than shooting is just pulling something out of thin air as well.

Except when the rules tell you to use them elsewhere. Like Infiltrators, for example.

And if the rulebook said anywhere in the shooting LOS rules to use those Shooting LOS rules for determining whether or not you can 'see' an infiltrating unit, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But in spite of your claims and assertions, nowhere does it say to do so.

I realize this is crossing genres, but WFB had the same problem with infiltrators ("scouts" in that game). Due to the restricted LOS of block troops, players were deploying scouts out in the open behind the enemy army. GW's solution? Consider all units to have 360 degree LOS.

Green Git shoots his argument in the foot with his comment about the "General in the sky". If the general is up there with all these miraculous sensors, would he not warn his forces of the approaching infiltrators? Or does he not turn rhem on until the game begins?

As to GG's description of units, I find it insulting to all those who have taken up arms in their country's defense.

Durzod wrote: As to GG's description of units, I find it insulting to all those who have taken up arms in their country's defense.

While I'm in disagreement with GGs stance on the rules, I haven't seen any statements that I (SFC, US Army, Retired) view as objectionable or insulting. He's talking about our toy soldiers, not those of us who live and breath and serve.

don_mondo wrote:

Durzod wrote: As to GG's description of units, I find it insulting to all those who have taken up arms in their country's defense.

While I'm in disagreement with GGs stance on the rules, I haven't seen any statements that I (SFC, US Army, Retired) view as objectionable or insulting. He's talking about our toy soldiers, not those of us who live and breath and serve.

Thanks Don. I've nothing but admiration and respect for our service men and women who risk all so I can talk smack about toy soldiers in relative security. Don't take the term "Grunt" as anything but a term of endearment... that's what my dad called himself and he was damn proud of it.

Our troops will get nothing from me but my undying thanks.

Yep, I'm a grunt (Army, retired), as was my sister and nephew, my cousin and her husband are jarheads (Marine), there's both squids (Navy) and zoomies (Air Force) in the family tree as well.

And now for a mandatory Marine joke:
Ya know how to knock out a Marine? Throw sand on the wall, tell them to hit the beach.

don_mondo wrote:
And now for a mandatory Marine joke:
Ya know how to knock out a Marine? Throw sand on the wall, tell them to hit the beach.

Judging by the marines I used to work with, if a marine hits the wall, the wall usually comes out second best!

Lol this thread is fun, why not just do what i do.
Since RaW doesn't shed any lights on this matter, why argue about it.
Raw = Broken = Use RaP.
My group is content to pursue the logical solution.
Prisms/periscopes= eyes.

Just to set the record straight, I, too served in the US Army (1970-81).

The Green Git wrote:Which has absolutely zero to do with the rules. You can't try to inject outside experiences into a toy soldier rule set.

Good job at completely misunderstanding what I said. I didn't try to inject anything.

The Green Git wrote:I've given rules quotes and page numbers to show that Infiltrators call for LOS and the LOS rules themselves. You've given strident but unproven assertions that they don't. I'm sorry but without something more to go on than your microwave dishes we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You have quoted inapplicable rules... nothing else... You cannot use the movement rules to determine how many attacks a gaunt gets... Please pay attention to the context, you're taking a square peg and trying to shove it into a round hole...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bla_Ze wrote:Lol this thread is fun, why not just do what i do.
Since RaW doesn't shed any lights on this matter, why argue about it.
Raw = Broken = Use RaP.
My group is content to pursue the logical solution.
Prisms/periscopes= eyes.

Agreed, when RAW is broken, use the most important rule and make a house rule or ask others how they play it, the problem is that some people insist that RAW covers this when it does not.

visavismeyou wrote:You have quoted inapplicable rules... nothing else... You cannot use the movement rules to determine how many attacks a gaunt gets... Please pay attention to the context, you're taking a square peg and trying to shove it into a round hole...

Amazing. The Infiltrators rule (which I believe *IS* applicable to a conversation about Infiltrators) tell you to use Line Of Sight. So Using the rules titled "Line Of Sight" is not applicable? You really think GW needs to replicate the LOS rules in every section of the rulebook before they have any relevance? And again, you still have not a shred of actual *rules* to base your completely conjectural position on?

Come on... one quote. One page number. One FAQ. Anything that even suggests your version other than your opinion. The point you seem to be missing is when RAW is broken your gap-stop SHOULD be based on existing rules and precedent.

Dale Carnegie was right.

This is getting out of hand. Some folks are just posting to argue... that is not cool I did not know people would get so worked up over this... for what it is worth, The Green git is making prefect sense to me...

I would have said the back wing of a Vendetta could see your infiltrators a few weeks ago..

but now I think it is clear... you can use the RAW or you can make up some new rules for it... what makes me agree with TGG more than anything is he looked at the OP and said I will check the Rulebook... then he did... what he has said make sense and is backed by actual rules....

since there is nothing in the rules that tell you exactly what to do then feel free to use the RAW to cover the rules that are not written... especially when LOS is mentioned in the infiltrators entry...

If a mod could lock this up now it would be nice... there really is nothing more to discuss about it...

I agree. Let's wind this up before things get silly.