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.

Tri wrote:

GangstaMuffin24 wrote:

Tri wrote: I would say that testing for LOS out side the shooting phase is tantamount to cheating.

What makes you say that exactly?

Say that you test it in the movement phase ... You can now place your models where they'll get the best LOS and wont get shot as much. Checking LOS is something that only happens in the shooting phase. Needing to do it in another phase is not aloud.

It is tantamount to cheating because it is not permitted but almost impossible not to judge roughly. For example I'll move a unit here because I know that they'll get to shoot X and Y can see them very well ... but i wont know if Y can see them at all till they shoot and we check. They may see nothing or all but we won't know till its his turn. It would however be wrong for me to take out my pointer and check if they can (in doing so making sure they cannot).

How do you stop someone checking for line of sight? They're just looking at the models on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tri wrote:Yes it is OK to look at your unit a tweak it so it will get a good shoot.

No it is not OK to actually check that it is a good shot (by actually checking LOS).

What's the difference between looking at the models and checking LOS?

ChrisCP ... shooting issues should be discussed in the shooting phase. You want to eyeball it go for it ... just don't ask me if I agree with what you say or use any checking (ie Laser) till you actually shoot at it. If you hadn't done a good enough job moving then tough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:

Tri wrote:Yes it is OK to look at your unit a tweak it so it will get a good shoot.

No it is not OK to actually check that it is a good shot (by actually checking LOS).

What's the difference between looking at the models and checking LOS?

You normally do not require a laser pointer or other LOS checking.

Tri wrote:Though he obviously gets a better judgement when placing, its only an issue when he starts asking or going round the board to check.

So you can only look at the table from your side? There is nothing to even hint at that in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tri wrote:You normally do not require a laser pointer or other LOS checking.

Laser pointers are neither here nor there since they are not required for verifying LOS. Do the rules even give permission for any method other than unassisted visual confirmation?

Ok Scott-S6 i guess its just that I've never come across some one that required to know he has clear LOS in the movement phase. I can judge well enough that i don't need to skip round the board checking. However I think that asking is this clear is not in spirit of the game.

It's perfectly okay to check LOS from either side during the movement phase.

I don't think there's anything wrong with asking your opponent. It's often easier to check from the other side and it saves a trip round the table.

Doubly important at a tournie where the tables are all pushed together and you have to walk to the end of the aisle to get around to the other side.

olympia wrote:That's fine ChrisCP, a person can walk around the table, laser point, eye-ball, or whatever the feth they want in the movement phase. A person can ask all sorts of questions. However, the insidious behavior I describe in the OP is making declarative statements about the shooting status of a unit in the movement phase (e.g., "I moved my leman russ here and it has an unobstructed view of your looted wagon") and thereby forcing your opponent to object at that time or face the consequences in the shooting phase. So it's not even a case of ignoring or refusing to answer questions.

"Does it? I don't know."
...
"Have you finished it's move?"
...
"Well I guess it might be then but we'll check together in the shooting phase."

Still not even one person from the "can't do it" side addressing the most important rule yet.

DarknessEternal wrote:Still not even one person from the "can't do it" side addressing the most important rule yet.

TMIR is genuinely irrelevant to rules discussions.

So, I read the battle report that you have gotten this quote from. A game with Dash at the Alamo GT. What he was trying to do by declaring his intention to shoot units was trying to help his opponent. This means he was attempting to avoid rules arguments later, and avoid nasty surprises when his opponent sees his Tac Marines cut down with splinter rifle rounds. He wasn't doing what people are suggesting, which is checking and removing and checking and removing till he is sure he has a clear shot.

Another situation he was trying to avoid was when his opponent moved his landspeeder 12" and was about to shoot with the scouts inside. Dash told him he couldn't shoot with embarked units if it has moved at that speed, so the man tried to move his speeder back 6" and position his scouts.

This was patently unacceptable as the movement phase had already passed.

The idea with declaring intention during the shooting phase is not to gain some undue advantage, but to avoid hurt feelings, and to avoid an opponent being surprised when he is either left out in the open to be shot, or that he has moved something too far to fire. It certainly isn't against the rules to ask questions. Dash does this to facilitate gameplay, and to hopefully have no hurt feelings at the end of the game.

This idea can be used on both sides, and it would be very agreeable, and would help streamline gameplay if all potential arguments were settled as early as possible. It's certainly not meant to be a way to cheat.

I apologize if this seems off topic, but I feel we needed a bit of context for the OP's quote.

Why post in YMDC if you're just going to argue with everyone who doesn't agree with you?

Tri wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:That conclusion (you're now shooting) does not follow.

Nothing disallows you from looking at your models. I can do so in any way I wish, and if I gain TLOS knowledge then that is just tough. Same as when measuring a move I can end up gaining additional information.

when other then the shooting phase do you check? ... sure you can 'in ... your ...head' judge if you get a cover save (easy enough to do this with ranges as well). What you cannot do is any actual checking like asking your opponent, using a laser marker, ect.

Why not?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Tri wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:That conclusion (you're now shooting) does not follow.

Nothing disallows you from looking at your models. I can do so in any way I wish, and if I gain TLOS knowledge then that is just tough. Same as when measuring a move I can end up gaining additional information.

when other then the shooting phase do you check? ... sure you can 'in ... your ...head' judge if you get a cover save (easy enough to do this with ranges as well). What you cannot do is any actual checking like asking your opponent, using a laser marker, ect.

Why not?

I think tri would concede that you can ask your opponent whatever the feth you want during a game. As Tri cleverly pointed out (in case you didn't get a chance to read the whole thread) a person is under no obligation to answer correctly either. The problem is when you are badgering your opponent to gain an advantage, or, as I outlined, making declarative statements about shooting status while you are moving (e.g., "I have moved here and clearly you will *not* be getting a cover save with your rhino in my shooting phase.")

Do people really behave like that?

If they do, it is a politeness issue not a rules query.

Scott-S6 wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Still not even one person from the "can't do it" side addressing the most important rule yet.

TMIR is genuinely irrelevant to rules discussions.

The whole point of this endeavor is to avoid arguments, which the TMIR specifically is there for. So it is of utmost relevance here.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Still not even one person from the "can't do it" side addressing the most important rule yet.

TMIR is genuinely irrelevant to rules discussions.

The whole point of this endeavor is to avoid arguments, which the TMIR specifically is there for. So it is of utmost relevance here.

most important rule, is bluntly a crock for rules debate. We have effectively followed it rolled off finished the game and now we are discussing the problem rule in question. Rules do matter if they didn't why have I spent £300+ on these rule books?

As to whether discussing LOS I'm bloody well calling a game if I'm asked to roll on such a thing ... no rule say that I need help in any way ... If we're checking on LOS that's some thing that we do when its called for.

olympia wrote: As Tri cleverly pointed out (in case you didn't get a chance to read the whole thread) a person is under no obligation to answer correctly either.

Either do not answer or answer correctly. I would have your head at a tournament if you said, 'Yeah, leave it there you get a cover save' and then said 'Ha, no cover save'

As above.

If you answer, and deliberately lie, you have broken the social contract of the game. That IS cheating, as you are being knowingly dishonest.

Lying in a tournament is a good way to be DQ'd

Olympia, was there an actual case of badger to which you refer or is it hypothetical?

Perhaps I am not getting it, but why are you asking these things in the movement phase. The only reason I see from asking your opponent in the movement phase instead of the shooting phase wether or not you have LOS/cover/etc is so you can argue it there and then and adjust if the answer is no.

My problem with this is that it is often used in to gain an advantage as it allows for repositioning or by using a declaration to get away with not actually doing what the declaration would be (saying I move all these models out of LoS, but that's a lot of work so we just assume they all 10 of them stand behind this 5" wall).

Personally in the cases I feel my opponent is trying to gain an advantage out of making declarations I will politely say move the unit/model and we will see what happens. I find it rather unsettling to read that people will ruin the game by then moving at slower speed "to learn that person a lesson", while all he does is not give you an advantage.

You will concede though that declaring and collaborating increases gameplay and decrease likelihood of argument, right?

Not really. The only difference is that instead of having the argument in the shooting phase you now have it in the movement phase.

While I agree that it decreases the chance of an argument thought as it just means you keep moving until you get the answer you want. Meaning you move your unit, declare what advantage you want to have and if your opponent does not agree adjust the movement until you get the best set-up you can get.

Also I find that there are hardly any situations where it is difficult for someone to judge whether or not the unit can do what you want it to do. The only time it becomes an issue is when you want to get the absolute most out of placement and by using the declaration not run any risks by doing so (example would be getting ~50% view of a tank, while keeping in cover, or having to move out of cover to see 90% of the tank).

Looking at the rules I can't see either side having a lot to corroborate their argument. The conversation topic is free, but so is declining to confirm the declaration. There is an argument that LoS is only checked in the shooting phase, but this would only relate to "looking over the barrel" and not "eye-balling" LoS. Therefore I do think that checking LoS and declaring (and conversely confirming) targets/cover can be seen as against the rules (as it is a permissive ruleset and nowhere except in the shooting phase are you asked to check LoS). So if something like this happens:

nkelsch wrote:Basically if you are extreme with the "eff off, you have to wait till shooting phase" then he can be extreme by wasting all day with precise measurements and checking LOS all day long in the movement phase.

I do think that you could argue that he can't spend time checking LoS during his movement phase. In reality some LoS checking will and should be okay to occur, however completing several steps that are part of the shooting phase (checking LoS and determining cover saves) in the movement phase by deliberately going out of your way to do these, I can see as being against the permissive rule set of 40k.

I have found the more vehicles you explode in a turn, the more likely my opponent is to argue for marginal cover.

Good lord. If I played against someone who I could ask a simple question about whether LoS or cover was applicable to a model for fear that they'd think I'm badgering them, I'd probably just decline to play.

Do you folks never just say, "Hey, I'm working on this assumption here; is that fair?" to your opponent?

In my opinion, the game should be won or lost based on the skill of a player, their ability to choose targets and employ a strategy, to eyeball distances and their dice rolls they make, not on an argument over cover or LoS.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As above.

If you answer, and deliberately lie, you have broken the social contract of the game. That IS cheating, as you are being knowingly dishonest.

Lying in a tournament is a good way to be DQ'd

No need to lie if your opponent badgers you with declarative statements in the moving phase. As tri explained, you might have just been mistaken in your response.

In my area it's commonplace to move and check line of sight too. Even at tournaments I've (and my opponents) have moved a model, checked line of sight, asked my opponent, moved again until I'm happy. I figure, if it's possible to place a model with clear line of sight that both people agree on, then I should do that.

If both players ask the others opinion on issues like LoS when moving then it's not problem, as you both benefit.

It seems to me that the whole point of playing a wargame is to manoeuvre your units into positions from which they can attack the enemy or be safe from enemy attack.

Why would people not want to do that?

Exactly Killkrazy...

Olympia - no, it was a lie.

Either respond correctly or dont respond Not a tricky concept there. Misleading your opponent is a good way to get chucked out of a tournament.

And, again - do you ever get "badgered", or do you go OTT at the first question? I only ask because, based on your responses here i would have to guess the latter.

Kilkrazy wrote:It seems to me that the whole point of playing a wargame is to manoeuvre your units into positions from which they can attack the enemy or be safe from enemy attack.

Why would people not want to do that?

People certainly can try to gain every advantage possible in a wargame, even if that means attempting to combine processes from the shooting phase (determining cover saves) with processes from the movement phase (moving and placing your models). Whether or not your opponent lets you get away with this is another question.

Tri wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Still not even one person from the "can't do it" side addressing the most important rule yet.

TMIR is genuinely irrelevant to rules discussions.

The whole point of this endeavor is to avoid arguments, which the TMIR specifically is there for. So it is of utmost relevance here.

most important rule, is bluntly a crock for rules debate. We have effectively followed it rolled off finished the game and now we are discussing the problem rule in question. Rules do matter if they didn't why have I spent £300+ on these rule books?

Quite so. TMIR can be useful when there's a disagreement and you need to get the game moving again. It has no place whatsoever in a discussion of what the rules actually say.

You may wish to read the 7th Tenet of YMDC - "Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

olympia wrote:People certainly can try to gain every advantage possible in a wargame, even if that means attempting to combine processes from the shooting phase (determining cover saves) with processes from the movement phase (moving and placing your models). Whether or not your opponent lets you get away with this is another question.

You can check what cover saves you're going to be granting as you move in the movement phase. Nothing preventing that at all.

The final determination will be done as the shooting occurs though.