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.

Solkan, you're ignoring page 72.

insaniak wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:This, despite the clumsy phrasing on page 11 which implies that an infantry unit might conceivably be able to have a target before it has LOS to said target (which implication is in conflict with all the rest of the shooting rules), clarifies the issue by telling us that infantry actually DO NOT have a facing, for LOS purposes. That is, whatever direction an infantry model might happen to be facing is totally irrelevant for its LOS. Page 11 just explains it badly.

The problem with that is that you are taking a section that is dealing with LOS for Walkers, and assuming that it over-rides the section of the rules that actually deals with infantry.

Surely, when you're trying to determine how the rules for infantry work, that's a little backwards?

If you're assuming that page 72 takes precedence here, then page 11 doesn't make more sense... it makes absolutely no sense for them to tell us on page 11 that infantry can turn to face their targets if there is no point in actually doing so, or for the rule that explains that to be hidden at the end of the book in the rules for Walkers.

I am not exactly saying page 72 overrides page 11. I am saying the two complement.

I am saying that the passage on page 72, intended by GW merely to emphasize that Walkers' LOS is DIFFERENT from infantry LOS (despite their movement being very similar), winds up clarifying page 11 because the explanation on page 11 is badly-written.

Page 11 does imply that the infantry pivot is really for aesthetic purposes/visual drama. The writer got sloppy in expressing when/how it legally is done or matters; which is not entirely shocking because page 11 is still talking about the movement phase. When the page 11 passage was written that writer clearly wasn't thinking about the order of operations for shooting.

Again, everywhere else in the rulebook that deals with LOS and targeting (p15-16, p58-59, p.72) is clear and consistent when it comes to the order of operations. You have to have LOS to something before you can choose it as a target.

The only clash is page 11, which says infantry models can pivot whatever way they want in the movement phase, and "...can also be turned to face their targets in the shooting phase, so don't worry about which way they are pointing at the end of their Movement phase (although dramatically facing off against their foes is traditional).

Look at the way that's expressed. It's clearly a bit loose and informal; if infantry models can pivot freely in the shooting phase, pivoting in the movement phase really has no game effect. They're trying to say that infantry facing in general is meaningless during your own turn, and that you can face them as you like multiple times during your turn. It's not that there's "no point to actually doing so"; they are telling us that the primary purpose of facing for infantry is just aesthetics (the ancillary purpose being to situate the head/"eyes" properly for determining your exact LOS path).

If you try to get into infantry facing being relevant for LOS, you're in the same territory as folks who try to claim that models without eyes can't shoot, because the LOS rules say draw LOS from the model's eyes. Getting caught up in a slightly wrong phrasing and drawing a bad conclusion.

Mannahnin, do you believe that the rules state a walker can target a unit behind itself using page 72, and the fact that line of sight is checked after pivoting?

Because from your post you appear to be ignoring the fact that page 72 says that walkers check line of sight after pivoting to face their selected target, something that would change the process on page 11.

Edit: I shouldn't type other people's names without my glasses, sorry.

Triple edit for clarity:

I'm accusing you of descending to the "models without eyes can't draw line of sight" level of rules interpretations for walkers, and then compounding the problem by managing twisted logic so that you can claim that the same standard doesn't apply to infantry models.

You may note that my original post in this thread was about what happened if you take the same standard you want to appear to want to apply to walkers and then to infantry models.

Infantry models can be turned to face targets that they can't initially draw line of sight to. Vehicle weapons turn to draw line of sight to targets that are not initially in line of sight. And walkers pivot on the spot to draw line of sight to targets that are not initially in line of sight, as well.

So line of sight, and thus what a model can see, is not completely determined by the current positioning of a model (or its components).

Mannahnin wrote:If you try to get into infantry facing being relevant for LOS, you're in the same territory as folks who try to claim that models without eyes can't shoot, because the LOS rules say draw LOS from the model's eyes. Getting caught up in a slightly wrong phrasing and drawing a bad conclusion.

Which was pretty much exactly my point, from the other side

Solkan's post sums up better than I'm going to be able to at this time of the morning, though.

I wish GW would clarify this.....I have witnessed a pretty serious "dispute" over this between two players and it wasn't pretty.

Anyone think that a GW update might actually happen?

solkan wrote:Mannahnin, do you believe that the rules state a walker can target a unit behind itself using page 72, and the fact that line of sight is checked after pivoting?

Because from your post you appear to be ignoring the fact that page 72 says that walkers check line of sight after pivoting to face their selected target, something that would change the process on page 11.

It doesn't say that at all. It absolutely does not say that. You have the order of operations backwards.

"When firing a walker's weapons, pivot the walker on the spot to that its guns are aimed at the target..."

In order to know which direction to pivot, you MUST have ALREADY selected a target. Otherwise you don't know where to point the walker. It mentions drawing LOS again AFTER the pivot, because you need to confirm whether the second arm/gun will also have a clear line of fire, if applicable.

Literally everywhere in the rules (except, arguably, page 11) the order of operations is clear and consistent: You must check what is in your LOS to determine what units are eligible targets. And only then can you then select a target from among the visible units.

Page 15, The Shooting Sequence wrote:
1. Check line of sight and pick a target.
Pick one of your units, check its line of sight
and choose a target for it. All models in the
unit that can see at least one enemy model in
the target unit may open fire.

solkan wrote:I'm accusing you of descending to the "models without eyes can't draw line of sight" level of rules interpretations for walkers, and then compounding the problem by managing twisted logic so that you can claim that the same standard doesn't apply to infantry models.

You are incorrect. I'm going to do you the courtesy of not characterizing you or your logic in any negative way, or accusing you of descending to anything. You're just making a mistake. Please have a refreshing drink and relax.

How can you think that the same standard is supposed to apply to LOS for Infantry and for Walkers when page 72 explicitly tells us that "unlike infantry, a walker has a facing"?

solkan wrote:Infantry models can be turned to face targets that they can't initially draw line of sight to. Vehicle weapons turn to draw line of sight to targets that are not initially in line of sight. And walkers pivot on the spot to draw line of sight to targets that are not initially in line of sight, as well.

This is a decent argument, thanks. It's still wrong, though. Because the rules specifically tell us that vehicle weapons turn within specified arcs to draw LOS, and that anything within those arcs is within their LOS. Identically, the rules tell us that walker weapons turn within specified arcs to draw LOS, and that anything within those arcs is within their LOS "as normal for vehicles" (p.72).

Mannahnin wrote:"When firing a walker's weapons, pivot the walker on the spot to that its guns are aimed at the target..."

In order to know which direction to pivot, you MUST have ALREADY selected a target. Otherwise you don't know where to point the walker. It mentions drawing LOS again AFTER the pivot, because you need to confirm whether the second arm/gun will also have a clear line of fire, if applicable.

Literally everywhere in the rules (except, arguably, page 11) the order of operations is clear and consistent: You must check what is in your LOS to determine what units are eligible targets. And only then can you then select a target from among the visible units.

Page 15, The Shooting Sequence wrote:
1. Check line of sight and pick a target.
Pick one of your units, check its line of sight
and choose a target for it. All models in the
unit that can see at least one enemy model in
the target unit may open fire.

So A Predator would also have to fire at what it has LoS to already and can not swivel its turret?

P.58 under Vehicle weapons and LoS "just like infantry, vehicles need to be able to draw LoS to their targets in order to shoot at them. When firing a vehicle's weapons, Point them against the target and then trace LoS from each weapons' monting along its barrel"

Even vehicle weapons Pick a target THEN Point them against the target and THEN trace LoS from each weapons' monting.

So it seems when picking a target you do not trace LoS initially.

insaniak wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:If you try to get into infantry facing being relevant for LOS, you're in the same territory as folks who try to claim that models without eyes can't shoot, because the LOS rules say draw LOS from the model's eyes. Getting caught up in a slightly wrong phrasing and drawing a bad conclusion.

Which was pretty much exactly my point, from the other side

Solkan's post sums up better than I'm going to be able to at this time of the morning, though.

To expand on this a little, the fact that your argument requires an inconsistent approach to the LOS rules to not wind up in the argument about infantry facing being relevant for LOS is exactly why I think your interpretation is the wrong one.

It shouldn't be necessary to argue that infantry facing matters for LOS, because it effectively doesn't. But the same logic that gets us to that point causes us to also accept that vehicle weapons don't need LOS before you point them at their target, and walkers don't need LOS before they pivot... because they all come from the same place in the rules. Namely, that the rules tell us, in all of these cases, to turn them to face their target as a part of the process of establishing LOS.

Where that brings us back to with Fire Frenzy is that, if the pivot is a part of drawing LOS, then you would need to include that pivot as a part of determining the nearest visible target to shoot at.

Won't restricting Dreadnought Fire Frenzy to the weapons LoS pre-pivot also cause issues with infiltrating troops?

Specifically you'd be able to infiltrate just over 12" directly behind a Dreadnought provided no other models could trace LoS to the infiltrators.

For vehicles, weapon arcs define their LOS. Yes, it says to point the gun at the target; it also tells us what exact arc in which the weapon may draw LOS, and thus select said target. The weapon is pointed for visual effect and to confirm that the target is indeed in the allowed arc.

The rulebook specifically tells us that this is a different process and requirement than infantry have.

Equating vehicle LOS with infantry LOS is fundamentally mistaken.

Walkers are vehicles, and the walker section makes a special point of tell us explicitly that, despite moving very much like infantry (and the section on walker movement four times telling us that walker movement is like infantry movement), walkers do not draw LOS like infantry. They draw LOS like vehicles.

Chrysis wrote:Won't restricting Dreadnought Fire Frenzy to the weapons LoS pre-pivot also cause issues with infiltrating troops?

Specifically you'd be able to infiltrate just over 12" directly behind a Dreadnought provided no other models could trace LoS to the infiltrators.

You could do the same thing behind a Vindicator, too.

Mannahnin wrote:Equating vehicle LOS with infantry LOS is fundamentally mistaken.

I'm not equating vehicle LOS with infantry LOS. I'm saying that one particular aspect of the process for establishing LOS with infantry, normal vehicles and walkers is the same for each due to using very similar terminology.

Walkers do have different LOS rules to infantry. I'm not disputing that in the slightest. All I am disputing is the idea that walkers can not pivot to draw LOS while infantry can, despite both having rules that are written in such a way that they should have the same result.

If infantry have a rule allowing them to turn to face their target, and walkers have a rule allowing them to turn and face their target, then the end result for both should be the same. You can't arbitrarily decide that in the one case is means one thing, while in another it means something different.

Or, rather, you can, but I'm not going to agree with it.

Looking back at P.16 it says 'A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in combat as its target,... in order to select an enemy unit as a target, at least one model in the firing unit must have LoS to at least one model in the target unit. if no models have LoS then a different target must be chosen'

Choose and Select mean two different things in this case.

This establishes you choose a target then Check LoS then if visible you can select that unit as a target, check range, roll to hit, roll to wound etc.

If not within LoS after you choose a target, then you can not select that unit as a target, and have to choose a different target then Check LoS etc.

Dreads can pivot as a part of target acquisition, as well as other vehicles guns. So they are able to choose a target, Pivot, then Check LoS then if visible you can select that unit as a target, check range, roll to hit, roll to wound etc.

The summary says check LoS and choose a target for it, not check LoS and then choose a target for it.

Reading P.16 further, it establishes Visible means in sight and not completely blocked by intervening terrain or models.

insaniak wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Equating vehicle LOS with infantry LOS is fundamentally mistaken.

I'm not equating vehicle LOS with infantry LOS. I'm saying that one particular aspect of the process for establishing LOS with infantry, normal vehicles and walkers is the same for each due to using very similar terminology.

Walkers do have different LOS rules to infantry. I'm not disputing that in the slightest. All I am disputing is the idea that walkers can not pivot to draw LOS while infantry can, despite both having rules that are written in such a way that they should have the same result.

Again, I disagree entirely with one of your premises- I do not grant that they "should" have the same result. I maintain that page 72 very clearly is telling us that they are intended to have different results.

insaniak wrote:If infantry have a rule allowing them to turn to face their target, and walkers have a rule allowing them to turn and face their target, then the end result for both should be the same. You can't arbitrarily decide that in the one case is means one thing, while in another it means something different.

Infantry have rules allowing them to functionally ignore their facing entirely for the purposes of drawing LOS. Page 11 tells us that they may pivot freely at multiple times during the turn. Page 72 tells us they have no facing.

Walkers do not. Walkers have a rule requiring them to pivot at a target already selected, to face directly at it and bring any guns to bear from their other arm which were not already able to point at the target.

These are manifestly, explicitly, and intentionally different end results and rules to get there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:Looking back at P.16 it says 'A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in combat as its target,... in order to select an enemy unit as a target, at least one model in the firing unit must have LoS to at least one model in the target unit. if no models have LoS then a different target must be chosen'

Choose and Select mean two different things in this case.

This establishes you choose a target then Check LoS then if visible you can select that unit as a target, check range, roll to hit, roll to wound etc.

If not within LoS after you choose a target, then you can not select that unit as a target, and have to choose a different target then Check LoS etc.

You are attempting to mount an argument that "choose" and "select" are game-specific terms with definitions beyond those of a dictionary? I think you're very much mistaken, and that the word variation there is simple use of a thesaurus to avoid an overly repetitive paragraph. That paragraph is made up of four sentences. Two of them use "choose" or "chosen", and two use "select". They are used interchangeably and mean the same thing.

I believe your interpretation here is directly at odds with the rule you have quoted. In order to select a target, you must already have LOS to it. LOS is a prerequisite.

DeathReaper wrote:Dreads can pivot as a part of target acquisition, as well as other vehicles guns. So they are able to choose a target, Pivot, then Check LoS then if visible you can select that unit as a target, check range, roll to hit, roll to wound etc.

Not at all. The only way to determine in which direction to are required to pivot is to have already selected a target. The Walker rules require that a walker pivot to face the unit which has been chosen as a target. If you have not selected a target, you have no knowledge of where to face the Dread. Selecting the target is a prerequisite to pivoting the walker.

Mannahnin wrote:Again, I disagree entirely with one of your premises- I do not grant that they "should" have the same result. I maintain that page 72 very clearly is telling us that they are intended to have different results.

All page 72 is telling us is that LOS for walkers functions differently to infantry. Which it does. That doesn't mean that every part of the LOS rules for walkers is different to that for infantry, or that parts of the rules that have similar wording should do different things. It simply means that there are differences to how they work.

Infantry have rules allowing them to functionally ignore their facing entirely for the purposes of drawing LOS. Page 11 tells us that they may pivot freely at multiple times during the turn. Page 72 tells us they have no facing.

And page 72 is a direct contradiction to the actual section dealing with infantry. Page 11 gives you a specific time that they are turned in the shooting phase. It is every bit as specific as the walker rules, and the rules for shooting with other vehicles. They turn to face their target.

Walkers do not. Walkers have a rule requiring them to pivot at a target already selected, to face directly at it and bring any guns to bear from their other arm which were not already able to point at the target.

Except the walker rules don't specify 'already selected' any more than the infantry rules do.

The walker rules require the walker to pivot to face their target. Just like the regular vehicle rules tell you to move the weapons to point at the target, and just like the infantry rules tell you to turn the models to face their targets.

The overall LOS rules are different for each of these three groups... but this one aspect of them is functionally the same. The model (or weapon) is turned to face the target.

..AFTER said target is selected.

And unlike vehicles, infantry lack a facing for the purposes of LOS, so they have 360.

Insaniak wrote:All page 72 is telling us is that LOS for walkers functions differently to infantry. Which it does. That doesn't mean that every part of the LOS rules for walkers is different to that for infantry, or that parts of the rules that have similar wording should do different things. It simply means that there are differences to how they work.

"All"? It tells us that infantry doesn't have a facing but (like all other vehicles) walkers do. It is the most basic and fundamental difference for LOS purposes. In this respect, vehicles are very different from infantry.

Insaniak wrote:Except the walker rules don't specify 'already selected' any more than the infantry rules do.

It's implicit. If you don't have a target, you don't have anywhere to pivot the walker. Once you have a target, the walker pivot rule kicks in and forces the pivot.

Mannahnin wrote:

Chrysis wrote:Won't restricting Dreadnought Fire Frenzy to the weapons LoS pre-pivot also cause issues with infiltrating troops?

Specifically you'd be able to infiltrate just over 12" directly behind a Dreadnought provided no other models could trace LoS to the infiltrators.

You could do the same thing behind a Vindicator, too.

Not if it has a cupola-mounted Stormbolter. And funny enough you can do the same to infantry since they only turn to face a target in the shooting phase. Which is actually pretty silly...

Chaos Vindis don't have SBs.

And page 72 tells us infantry don't have a facing. So that trick doesn't work on them.

Mannahnin wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Looking back at P.16 it says 'A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in combat as its target,... in order to select an enemy unit as a target, at least one model in the firing unit must have LoS to at least one model in the target unit. if no models have LoS then a different target must be chosen'

Choose and Select mean two different things in this case.

This establishes you choose a target then Check LoS then if visible you can select that unit as a target, check range, roll to hit, roll to wound etc.

If not within LoS after you choose a target, then you can not select that unit as a target, and have to choose a different target then Check LoS etc.

You are attempting to mount an argument that "choose" and "select" are game-specific terms with definitions beyond those of a dictionary? I think you're very much mistaken, and that the word variation there is simple use of a thesaurus to avoid an overly repetitive paragraph. That paragraph is made up of four sentences. Two of them use "choose" or "chosen", and two use "select". They are used interchangeably and mean the same thing.

I believe your interpretation here is directly at odds with the rule you have quoted. In order to select a target, you must already have LOS to it. LOS is a prerequisite.

LoS is a prerequisite to fire upon a unit, but not to choose a target to see if you have LoS. those are two different steps of the same process. you can not check if you have LoS until after you have chosen a target. LoS is not a prerequisite.

'You choose a target then Check LoS then if visible you can select that unit as a target, If not you have to choose a different target.'

Vehicles can pivot the weapons before they check if they have LoS.

I.E. a vehicle can pivot its weapons to attempt to draw LoS to something that is behind it, out of LoS initially. with walkers you pivot to something behind you then check LoS.

Basically the first step of shooting with a unit is to choose a unit on the board. Step 2 is Check LoS (with vehicles we get a pivot as step 2 and Check LoS is step 3).

The language on P.16 is clear, even further on where it establishes Visible means not completely blocked by intervening terrain or models.

The question remains, how do we know what is the closest visible unit if we do not Pivot the walker at the closest unit, then check LoS along its weapons to see if LoS is blocked by terrain or models?

DR - how do you know where to pivot until you have determined what is visible?

YOu are still ignoring the FF rules, where you cannot pivot until you know what is visible.

Mannahnin wrote:"All"? It tells us that infantry doesn't have a facing ...

In direct contradiction to the actual rules for infantry, which say that they are turned to face their target.

It's implicit. If you don't have a target, you don't have anywhere to pivot the walker.

Which then has to also be true for infantry, and for other vehicles. There's really no getting around that. If the walker pivoting to face it's target happens after checking LOS, then infantry turning to face their target means the same thing. The vehicle rules don't redefine the word 'target'... There is simply no way that you can make it mean something different for walkers.

A target is a target.
Turning towards the target is turning towards the target.
If the target is only a target after you have established LOS, then it doesn't make the slightest difference what sort of unit we're talking about... if that unit has a rule that says that it is turned to face its target, then it means exactly the same thing as it does for any other unit that has a rule saying that it is turned to face its target.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - how do you know where to pivot until you have determined what is visible?

YOu are still ignoring the FF rules, where you cannot pivot until you know what is visible.

Because P.16 establishes Visible means not completely blocked by intervening terrain or models.

So if two vehicles are in clear terrain, they are visible to each other even if they currently not in LoS. all vehicles pick a target, then turn weapons to face, or pivot to face like walkers, then Check if LoS is blocked by terrain or models.

Visible == LOS, actually.

Okay, it's just become circular, and I'm not into it anymore.

Agree to disagree.

Thankfully I will most likely never encounter either of you in a tournament game, and IMO the likelihood of encountering your interpretation on this one is extremely low as well. Which is good news for my blood pressure.

Shake hands?

Works for me

Lets just hope GW clarify it soon. lol