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.

Happyjew wrote:

Warhammer 40K uses True LOS. not everything has 360 degree LOS. There is nothing that has 360 degree LOS unless otherwise specified. This includes all vehicles, including Walkers (which must turn in the Shooting Phase to face what they are shooting.)

nosferatu1001 wrote:Especially as youre told to determine LOS by looking behind their heads. Difficult to do that from in front of them

Read the rules again. Look at what's written on the page. Remember, the only corollaries you can draw are the ones that can be logically proved with no added assumptions, ie those that must follow from what you are told.

Here's the logical progression of my argument.

First, we define LOS;

1. Models must draw line of sight in order to perform a variety of actions. LOS is a straight line, and is blocked by any solid object which crosses the line; other models, terrain, etc.

2. You may draw LOS to an object if you can draw LOS to any part of that object, excluding decorations.

3. Line of sight is drawn from the eyes of the model.

Conclusion 1: Therefore, you may draw LOS to some object if and only if there could exist a straight line with one endpoint at the eyes of the model and one endpoint at some non-decorative part of the object you are drawing LOS to, without any third object crossing that line. The rulebook defines what is decorative and what is not.

Next, we consider the exception to the rule and what the consequences of that exception are;

4. There exists an exception to the rule that LOS is blocked by any solid object; models in the same unit as the model which is attempting to draw LOS do not block LOS. Therefore, for the purpose of drawing LOS, you may ignore any models which are a part of the same unit as the model drawing LOS.

5. All models are considered to be in (or comprise entirely, in the case of single models) a unit.

6. All A = A; that is, everything is what it is. A model is always itself, and thus always in the same unit as itself.

Conclusion 2: Therefore, a model may draw LOS through itself, as it is in the same unit as itself and may therefore ignore itself for the purposes of LOS.

Finally, we examine possible limitations.

7. The rulebook states that sometimes (please note; it does not state that this condition will always hold) a player will not be able to tell if LOS exists or not easily.

8. In cases where the player cannot determine whether LOS exists or not, they may (please note; the word "must" is not used here) lean down and attempt to get a 'model's eye view'. A model's eye view is defined vaguely, but indicates a view from behind the head of the model drawing LOS.

9. A non-vehicle model may pivot in any direction in order to point towards what it is targeting in the Shooting phase.

Conclusion 3: Due to the lack of imperative language, the portion of the rules regarding model's eye view is not a direction but an option. You are not required to draw LOS in this manner, and in fact even the option is only presented for certain (also vaguely defined) situations. Nowhere is it stated that LOS must be drawn from behind the model. Point 9 is simply irrelevant, except insofar as the act of pivoting physically moves the eyes of the model and thus slightly adjusts what the model can draw LOS to.

This argument is entirely logically valid; if my assertions are true, my conclusions must necessarily be true. If all of 1-9 are correct, Conclusions 1-3 are also correct. So; which, if any, of 1-9 are incorrect, and why?

Conclusion 3 is the one being debated here; if 7, 8 and 9 didn't exist in the rulebook, this wouldn't even be a debate. Conclusion 1 is certainly correct, and Conclusion 2 must logically follow from what's written. SO let's examine Conclusion 3, and what could falsify it.

If one of 7, 8 or 9 is false (for instance, if I have misremembered the rule in question and the word "must" is in fact used, rendering 8 invalid) then Conclusion 3 is partially falsified. That would mean that if and only if the player could not determine whether LOS existed 'easily' (whatever that means in this context), he would be required to look for it from close behind the model's head. That would limit possible LOS to about a 180 degree angle; a little less depending on how far 'behind' you consider to still be 'behind' the model. It would also mean that, yes, you could in fact avoid any negative consequences of Rage or similar rules simply by moving your models backwards.

If that is your argument, please provide a rules quote showing which of my assertions is incorrect.

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:And vehicles can't pivot towards their target in the shooting phase.

True, but irrelevant. Bikes, which are the example I used, are not vehicles.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:And vehicles can't pivot towards their target in the shooting phase.

True, but irrelevant.

Except that isn't always true. Walkers specifically have to rotate to face their target. All other vehicles are not allowed to pivot for shooting purposes.

Happyjew wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:And vehicles can't pivot towards their target in the shooting phase.

True, but irrelevant.

Except that isn't always true. Walkers specifically have to rotate to face their target. All other vehicles are not allowed to pivot for shooting purposes.

Touche; walkers do indeed pivot. That doesn't invalidate my argument, though, since vehicles (including walkers) are specifically given different LOS rules than other models.

And nowhere does it state that units have a 360 degree LOS. In fact there was a nice argument about LOS here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/415463.page

The whole LOS issue starts (I think) somewhere on page 2. If not, definitely page 3.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Conclusion 2: Therefore, a model may draw LOS through itself, as it is in the same unit as itself and may therefore ignore itself for the purposes of LOS.

Except in context of the rules, this is not what this means. Models (friendly and enemy) can block LOS to other enemy models. The exception is that members of a models own unit don't block LOS, as the rules themself explain why ("as in reality they would take up firing positions to maximize their own squad's firepower"). Models don't kneel or move by themselves; therefore this rule is an abstraction. It is meant to simulate what real soldiers would be doing when preparing to fire. In reality, you wouldn't just point your weapon at the back of your squad member's head and pull the trigger like he wasn't there. Your squad members would either kneel or move out of the way of one another so that all members of the unit could maximize their firepower, just like the rule says ("as in reality they would take up firing positions to maximize their own squads firepower"). Similarly, in reality, you wouldn't be facing away from the target you are about to shoot at and just lift your weapon over your head and point it backwards and fire or point your weapon at your chest and fire as if you weren't there, which is what you are suggesting that models on the table top are doing since they have 360 degree vision and don't actually have to face their targets. You are taking it farther than what the rule was intended for and applying some nonsense to it about having eyes all around their head allowing them to see 360 degrees.

Vehicle squadrons have the same rule in that they ignore other vehicles in their squad. By your logic, vehicles in squadrons would be able to fire 360 degrees regardless of facings because a squadron vehicle would be able to draw LOS through itself. But we all know that is not true....

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Conclusion 2: Therefore, a model may draw LOS through itself, as it is in the same unit as itself and may therefore ignore itself for the purposes of LOS.

Except in context of the rules, this is not what this means. Models (friendly and enemy) can block LOS to other enemy models. The exception is that members of a models own unit don't block LOS, as the rules themself explain why ("as in reality they would take up firing positions to maximize their own squad's firepower"). Models don't kneel or move by themselves; therefore this rule is an abstraction. It is meant to simulate what real soldiers would be doing when preparing to fire. In reality, you wouldn't just point your weapon at the back of your squad member's head and pull the trigger like he wasn't there. Your squad members would either kneel or move out of the way of one another so that all members of the unit could maximize their firepower, just like the rule says ("as in reality they would take up firing positions to maximize their own squads firepower"). Similarly, in reality, you wouldn't be facing away from the target you are about to shoot at and just lift your weapon over your head and point it backwards and fire or point your weapon at your chest and fire as if you weren't there, which is what you are suggesting that models on the table top are doing since they have 360 degree vision and don't actually have to face their targets. You are taking it farther than what the rule was intended for and applying some nonsense to it about having eyes all around their head allowing them to see 360 degrees.

I am not applying any nonsense; you are applying fluff. The rules of reality, which govern soldiers fighting on the ground, are inapplicable to little plastic figures on a table. I'm making a strict RAW argument. Please do note that I'm saying nothing about how I play the game; I'm talking strictly about what the actual rules tell you to do. Arguments about what you would do in reality don't change that.

Is it or is it not true that a model is a member of a unit that it is a member of? If it is, then it can draw LOS through itself (except vehicles, because vehicles have different LOS rules). If it isn't, then you are playing 40k in a dimension where all A does not equal A, and I confess myself puzzled as to how you're even typing without the certainty that your fingers are in fact fingers, or yours.

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:
Vehicle squadrons have the same rule in that they ignore other vehicles in their squad. By your logic, vehicles in squadrons would be able to fire 360 degrees regardless of facings because a squadron vehicle would be able to draw LOS through itself. But we all know that is not true....

Do you remember all those places where I specifically mentioned that vehicles have entirely different LOS rules? Or when I referenced "non-vehicle models"? The vehicle LOS rules are immaterial to this discussion.

Happyjew wrote:And nowhere does it state that units have a 360 degree LOS. In fact there was a nice argument about LOS here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/415463.page

The whole LOS issue starts (I think) somewhere on page 2. If not, definitely page 3.

I'm sorry, that's a pointless assertion. You're claiming that you can only draw LOS within a certain arc. There's no rule that says that. There is a rule that allows you to draw LOS from a model's eyes. There is no rule which limits you to doing so only in front of the model, or to the side of the model, or behind the model.

If your claim is "you can only draw LOS within an arc specified by the rule" then I'm afraid that no non-vehicle model can draw LOS to anything, ever, because no such arc is ever specified. Fortunately that isn't what the rules say; the rules say you can draw LOS to units that meet a certain list of requirements, and 'being in front of you' is not one of those requirements. The rule has already given us permission when it said ". . .can choose a single enemy unit"; the only restrictions which limit that permission are those which the rules say limit it.

You are right, I claim that non-vehicle models have an approximately 120 degree LOS. This is because you use TLOS. Most people only have a 120 degree arc of vision. If you are "looking through your models eyes" you are looking with a 120 degree arc.

Happyjew wrote:You are right, I claim that non-vehicle models have an approximately 120 degree LOS. This is because you use TLOS. Most people only have a 120 degree arc of vision. If you are "looking through your models eyes" you are looking with a 120 degree arc.

Fair enough. Now, please tell me where the rule can be found that says "Models can draw LOS only to targets within a 120 degree arc in front of them". Unfortunately, there isn't one; you're making a fluff argument, not a rules argument.

I can make an equally valid fluff argument; since turns represent a constantly changing, dynamic battlefield, it's assumed that models maintain a great deal of situational awareness and constantly scan their environment in all directions, giving them a 360 degree arc.

Each of those arguments is equally valid. Each of them has exactly the same rules basis, ie an out-of-context fluff quote; both quotes come from the same page, even. And neither of them is worth anything in this debate, since we're discussing the RAW.

BeRzErKeR wrote:I am not applying any nonsense; you are applying fluff. The rules of reality, which govern soldiers fighting on the ground, are inapplicable to little plastic figures on a table. I'm making a strict RAW argument. Please do note that I'm saying nothing about how I play the game; I'm talking strictly about what the actual rules tell you to do. Arguments about what you would do in reality don't change that.

Is it or is it not true that a model is a member of a unit that it is a member of? If it is, then it can draw LOS through itself (except vehicles, because vehicles have different LOS rules). If it isn't, then you are playing 40k in a dimension where all A does not equal A, and I confess myself puzzled as to how you're even typing without the certainty that your fingers are in fact fingers, or yours.

Except that you are taking your interpretation beyond the scope of the rules. I am not applying the rules of reality, I am applying the explanation given in the rules as to what the rule is supposed to represent ("as in reality they would take up firing positions to maximise their own firepower") The rule is therefore saying that you can shoot through models in your own unit as in reality they would not be in your way. In addition, the rules say a model can draw LOS through members of their own unit "just as if they were not there." How does a model draw LOS through itself when it isn't there? Just because this is a game of aliens and flying space ships doesn't mean they aren't trying to include a bit of realism in the game, thus TLOS.

You are taking just the first part of the rule "Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit" and ignoring the rest of the same sentence as "fluff." Thus you aren't getting the full context of the rule. It is just like reading Psalms 14:1 out of context and saying it is Biblical proof that there is no God because part of the sentence says "There is no God."

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Happyjew wrote:You are right, I claim that non-vehicle models have an approximately 120 degree LOS. This is because you use TLOS. Most people only have a 120 degree arc of vision. If you are "looking through your models eyes" you are looking with a 120 degree arc.

Fair enough. Now, please tell me where the rule can be found that says "Models can draw LOS only to targets within a 120 degree arc in front of them". Unfortunately, there isn't one; you're making a fluff argument, not a rules argument.

I can make an equally valid fluff argument; since turns represent a constantly changing, dynamic battlefield, it's assumed that models maintain a great deal of situational awareness and constantly scan their environment in all directions, giving them a 360 degree arc.

Each of those arguments is equally valid. Each of them has exactly the same rules basis, ie an out-of-context fluff quote; both quotes come from the same page, even. And neither of them is worth anything in this debate, since we're discussing the RAW.

Let's see what does the rulebook say about LOS? Ah yes here we go:
1. This means getting down to the level of your warriors, taking in the view from behind the firing models to 'see what they can see'.
2. Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing models.

Does every model have a 120 degree arc of sight? No. Some models have no eyes (wraithguard for example). Some have eyes on the side of their heads (Tyranids for example). However MOST people when checking LOS correctly will have a 120 degree LOS. That is because of how the human body is built. Some people can actually see more than this range. Some people have a smaller arc. This doesn't mean to measure (using 90 degrees as the center) with a protractor from 30 degrees to 150 degrees. But I guarantee that if you look from behind the models head, you won't see the unit directly behind the model.

One more thing.

BeRzErKeR wrote:8. In cases where the player cannot determine whether LOS exists or not, they may (please note; the word "must" is not used here) lean down and attempt to get a 'model's eye view'. A model's eye view is defined vaguely, but indicates a view from behind the head of the model drawing LOS.

Conclusion 3: Due to the lack of imperative language, the portion of the rules regarding model's eye view is not a direction but an option. You are not required to draw LOS in this manner, and in fact even the option is only presented for certain (also vaguely defined) situations. Nowhere is it stated that LOS must be drawn from behind the model. Point 9 is simply irrelevant, except insofar as the act of pivoting physically moves the eyes of the model and thus slightly adjusts what the model can draw LOS to.


If one of 7, 8 or 9 is false (for instance, if I have misremembered the rule in question and the word "must" is in fact used, rendering 8 invalid) then Conclusion 3 is partially falsified. That would mean that if and only if the player could not determine whether LOS existed 'easily' (whatever that means in this context), he would be required to look for it from close behind the model's head. That would limit possible LOS to about a 180 degree angle; a little less depending on how far 'behind' you consider to still be 'behind' the model. It would also mean that, yes, you could in fact avoid any negative consequences of Rage or similar rules simply by moving your models backwards.

"Many times however, it will be more difficult to tell if line of sight is blocked or not, so players will have to stoop over the table for a model's eye view." Emphasis mine.

There is no "may" stoop down and get a model's eye view when it is difficult to determine los, you have to stoop down and get a model's eye view. Have to. As in obligated to do so. So I guess that partially falsifies your Conclusion 3 and so Raging units can moonwalk there way to the enemy.

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:Sure you do! Look at the illustration I posted. The Raging unit starts its move towards the Dread because it is the only visible enemy (not necessarilly the closest though).

Actually the dread IS the "closest visible enemy." so you "must always move as fast as possible towards" it.

you have to check before you move as to what is the "closest visible enemy." if you do not, you can not know what you must move towards.

Happyjew wrote:You are right, I claim that non-vehicle models have an approximately 120 degree LOS. This is because you use TLOS. Most people only have a 120 degree arc of vision. If you are "looking through your models eyes" you are looking with a 120 degree arc.

While we're making up rules, only my models without helmets have 120 degree LOS. My tactical marines with helmets have a Heads Up Display inside that gives them 360 vision.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Happyjew wrote:You are right, I claim that non-vehicle models have an approximately 120 degree LOS. This is because you use TLOS. Most people only have a 120 degree arc of vision. If you are "looking through your models eyes" you are looking with a 120 degree arc.

While we're making up rules, only my models without helmets have 120 degree LOS. My tactical marines with helmets have a Heads Up Display inside that gives them 360 vision.

What rule did I make up? I made a claim (models have a limited arc of vision) based on RAW (get BEHIND the model and look) and some knowledge of human anatomy (most human beings have a 120 degree arc). You have been trying to enforce this ridiculous notion with no backing that models some how have a 360 degree view. Even when the rules tell you how to check TRUE line of sight.

Place a space marine facing left on a table.
Place a hormagaunt, also facing left, on the same table.
The hormagaunt can see the space marine.
The space marine cannot see the hormagaunt.
Oh, you say he can? Well, let me check how to resolve this.
Hmm... the rulebook says that "Many
times however, it will be more difficult to tell if line of
sight is blocked or not, so players will have to stoop
over the table for a ‘model’s eye view’." So I guess I should see what the model can see... I can't ask the space marine what he can see - he's plastic!
Oh great - the rules explain how to figure that out!
"This means
getting down to the level of your warriors, taking in
the view from behind the firing models to ‘see what
they can see’."
From behind... so I get behind the model and look and I can't see the hormagaunt.

So... how does the model have a 360 degree LOS?

You forget that these models represent creatures in a battle. They are expected to turn around and have a look every few seconds. This is even raw if you read brb pg11 "this represents most creatures moving at a reasonable pace but stopping several times to scan the surrounding landscape for enemies..." So yes they do have 360° vision in the movement phase. At the shooting phase they turn to face the enemy and shoot using the LoS guidelines.

copper.talos wrote:You forget that these models represent creatures in a battle. They are expected to turn around and have a look every few seconds. This is even raw if you read brb pg11 "this represents most creatures moving at a reasonable pace but stopping several times to scan the surrounding landscape for enemies..." So yes they do have 360° vision in the movement phase. At the shooting phase they turn to face the enemy and shoot using the LoS guidelines.

Page 11 doesn't tell you how to draw LoS. That's page 16. Once you pivot during the movement phase, you've started moving - which means you should have already figured out the closes unit in LoS is.
Your quote is fluff and not relevant to the RAW.

So we are using fluff to represent 360 degree view? And what's better is the fluff has nothing to do with LOS, just moving across a battlefield.

This quote means that facing the model one way during movement means nothing since at the same time as moving it scans around for enemies. That is RAW. You want to play it using LoS during movement, fine. Move 1/2", turn your model 360° and while drawing LoS then another 1/2" while drawing LoS and so on...

copper.talos wrote:This quote means that facing the model one way during movement means nothing since at the same time as moving it scans around for enemies. That is RAW. You want to play it using LoS during movement, fine. Move 1/2", turn your model 360° and while drawing LoS then another 1/2" while drawing LoS and so on...

Except you don't have permission to draw LoS while you move. You have permission during Shooting, and the Rage USR gives you permission before you move. Nothing gives you permission to check while you're moving.

edit: And if any of the "360 LoS" people want to take a crack at this..

page 11 wrote:Infantry models 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

So... if you can draw a 360 degree LoS - why does facing matter?
Oh right - because you can't, so facing does matter in the Shooting phase.
Everyone I know plays that it doesn't matter, because you can freely pivot during the shooting phase.
But that doesn't mean that you have a 360 degree LoS RAW.

Rage doesn't specify when you check, it just says in the movement phase. Even if it did it doesn't matter. Scanning the surroundings is done constantly during the movement phase. Even units standing still check their suroundings...

copper.talos wrote:Rage doesn't specify when you check, it just says in the movement phase.

Fair enough - you must at least check before you start moving. I'm not convinced you must also check at every millimeter during your movement.

rigeld2 wrote:Place a space marine facing left on a table.
Place a hormagaunt, also facing left, on the same table.
The hormagaunt can see the space marine.
The space marine cannot see the hormagaunt.
Oh, you say he can? Well, let me check how to resolve this.
Hmm... the rulebook says that "Many
times however, it will be more difficult to tell if line of
sight is blocked or not, so players will have to stoop
over the table for a ‘model’s eye view’." So I guess I should see what the model can see... I can't ask the space marine what he can see - he's plastic!
Oh great - the rules explain how to figure that out!
"This means
getting down to the level of your warriors, taking in
the view from behind the firing models to ‘see what
they can see’."
From behind... so I get behind the model and look and I can't see the hormagaunt.

So... how does the model have a 360 degree LOS?

The issue with using that as a hard and fast rule is that it explicitly says it doesn't always apply.

So when DOES it apply? Well, according to the text, it applies when "it [is] more difficult to tell if line of sight is blocked or not". When's that? As far as I can tell, it's entirely up to player discretion. You can avoid ever having to do that by simply asserting that it isn't difficult for you to tell if you have LOS. It isn't like your opponent can say "It is most definitely hard for you to tell if LOS is blocked or not".

There are also two other problems First, of course, is that if you decide that this is a requirement, then you can avoid the effects of the Rage rule just by moving your models backwards.

Second, as long as you're behind the model there's no distance requirement. So yes, it's entirely possible to see something which is behind your model, while also being behind your model. Gamey, but legal RAW.

rigeld2 wrote:

page 11 wrote:Infantry models 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

So... if you can draw a 360 degree LoS - why does facing matter?
Oh right - because you can't, so facing does matter in the Shooting phase.
Everyone I know plays that it doesn't matter, because you can freely pivot during the shooting phase.
But that doesn't mean that you have a 360 degree LoS RAW.

For infantry, it doesn't. For other models which use the same LOS rules as infantry and have non-round bases, such as bikes and jetbikes, turning them to face their target will change their LOS slightly. This has been gone over a couple of times already.

The reason that models have 360 degree LOS is because the rules say you can draw LOS to other units, and tell us how to do so. They also give a list of circumstances which prevent you from drawing LOS. SO we have a general permission; you may draw LOS in this manner. We have restrictions; you cannot draw LOS if these conditions hold.

When you have a general permission with specific restrictions, those are THE ONLY restrictions which apply. There aren't any others besides the ones that are written down. You're inventing a restriction which does not exist, by trying to make a rule that only comes into play when you decide it does (and causes problems when you do) into a general case.

Back onto the Rage rule; You are required to check continuously, because the rule is in force continuously. During the entire length of your Movement phase, you MUST move towards the nearest visible enemy unit. That could change; if Unit A is 12" away and Unit B is 5" away, but only Unit A is visible, you move towards Unit A. But if after 3" you can now draw LOS to Unit B, Unit B is now the nearest visible enemy unit.

Refer back to the rule. You must ALWAYS move towards the nearest visible enemy unit. That unit used to be Unit A, but now it's Unit B.

If you do not move towards Unit B at this point, you're breaking the rule; you are moving towards Unit A when Unit A is not the nearest visible enemy unit, and you're not allowed to do that.

If you do move towards Unit B, on the other hand, you have satisfied the rule; you moved as far as possible towards the nearest visible enemy unit. Only 3" of movement was possible towards Unit A when it was the nearest visible enemy unit, because after 3" it was no longer the nearest visible enemy unit. Only 3" of movement was possible towards Unit B after you spotted it, because you'd already moved 3" and so could not move any further this turn.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
The issue with using that as a hard and fast rule is that it explicitly says it doesn't always apply.

So when DOES it apply? Well, according to the text, it applies when "it [is] more difficult to tell if line of sight is blocked or not". When's that? As far as I can tell, it's entirely up to player discretion. You can avoid ever having to do that by simply asserting that it isn't difficult for you to tell if you have LOS. It isn't like your opponent can say "It is most definitely hard for you to tell if LOS is blocked or not".

So your opponent can't say "No, you don't have LoS - that wall there is blocking!" and require you to get down and check? Sweet - I'll always have LoS now.

There are also two other problems First, of course, is that if you decide that this is a requirement, then you can avoid the effects of the Rage rule just by moving your models backwards.

You're asserting that's a problem. I'm asserting that's a fact and that since it's silly no one plays that way.

Second, as long as you're behind the model there's no distance requirement. So yes, it's entirely possible to see something which is behind your model, while also being behind your model. Gamey, but legal RAW.

Not true. You get behind the models head and look towards the target model. Look at the example picture. You need to draw a line with your eyes -> your models eyes -> your target.

rigeld2 wrote:

page 11 wrote:Infantry models 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

So... if you can draw a 360 degree LoS - why does facing matter?
Oh right - because you can't, so facing does matter in the Shooting phase.
Everyone I know plays that it doesn't matter, because you can freely pivot during the shooting phase.
But that doesn't mean that you have a 360 degree LoS RAW.

For infantry, it doesn't. For other models which use the same LOS rules as infantry and have non-round bases, such as bikes and jetbikes, turning them to face their target will change their LOS slightly. This has been gone over a couple of times already.

Except that quote states that it matters for Infantry.

The reason that models have 360 degree LOS is because the rules say you can draw LOS to other units, and tell us how to do so. They also give a list of circumstances which prevent you from drawing LOS. SO we have a general permission; you may draw LOS in this manner. We have restrictions; you cannot draw LOS if these conditions hold.

When you have a general permission with specific restrictions, those are THE ONLY restrictions which apply. There aren't any others besides the ones that are written down. You're inventing a restriction which does not exist, by trying to make a rule that only comes into play when you decide it does (and causes problems when you do) into a general case.

Wait - what am I inventing? Cite the rule that allows you to draw LoS from the back of the model's head. Cite the rule that says Infantry have a 360 LoS. Cite any rule that explains what you're saying. I've cited the rules that explain what I'm saying.

You have a general permission to draw LoS from the models eye's. You have no permission to draw LoS from the back of the model's head.

Back onto the Rage rule; You are required to check continuously, because the rule is in force continuously. During the entire length of your Movement phase, you MUST move towards the nearest visible enemy unit. That could change; if Unit A is 12" away and Unit B is 5" away, but only Unit A is visible, you move towards Unit A. But if after 3" you can now draw LOS to Unit B, Unit B is now the nearest visible enemy unit.

Refer back to the rule. You must ALWAYS move towards the nearest visible enemy unit. That unit used to be Unit A, but now it's Unit B.

If you do not move towards Unit B at this point, you're breaking the rule; you are moving towards Unit A when Unit A is not the nearest visible enemy unit, and you're not allowed to do that.

If you do move towards Unit B, on the other hand, you have satisfied the rule; you moved as far as possible towards the nearest visible enemy unit. Only 3" of movement was possible towards Unit A when it was the nearest visible enemy unit, because after 3" it was no longer the nearest visible enemy unit. Only 3" of movement was possible towards Unit B after you spotted it, because you'd already moved 3" and so could not move any further this turn.

I think that's debatable - but only because it's not clear when Rage is allowing you to check LoS. At the beginning of movement? Every millimeter? What if you don't check LoS every millimeter? But I have no real problems with that interpretation.

DeathReaper wrote:Actually the dread IS the "closest visible enemy." so you "must always move as fast as possible towards" it.

you have to check before you move as to what is the "closest visible enemy." if you do not, you can not know what you must move towards.

Except that is not supported by the rules, and is only really an issue if you believe models have a 360 degree LOS. If following the rules for LOS as outlined in the rulebook (must draw LOS from the model's eyes to its target) then the Dread will definitely be the closest visible enemy throughout the movement phase if every model is facing the Dread, as enemy A and B will be behind the Raging unit and thus out of LOS once they round the corner of the building.

BeRzErKeR wrote:The issue with using that as a hard and fast rule is that it explicitly says it doesn't always apply.

So when DOES it apply? Well, according to the text, it applies when "it [is] more difficult to tell if line of sight is blocked or not". When's that? As far as I can tell, it's entirely up to player discretion. You can avoid ever having to do that by simply asserting that it isn't difficult for you to tell if you have LOS. It isn't like your opponent can say "It is most definitely hard for you to tell if LOS is blocked or not".

I addressed this a few posts ago. If opponent A thinks it isn't difficult to tell LOS but opponent B doesn't think opponent A's unit can see his unit, then they will have to get a model's eye view. I guess you ignored this?

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Actually the dread IS the "closest visible enemy." so you "must always move as fast as possible towards" it.

you have to check before you move as to what is the "closest visible enemy." if you do not, you can not know what you must move towards.

Except that is not supported by the rules, and is only really an issue if you believe models have a 360 degree LOS. If following the rules for LOS as outlined in the rulebook (must draw LOS from the model's eyes to its target) then the Dread will definitely be the closest visible enemy throughout the movement phase if every model is facing the Dread, as enemy A and B will be behind the Raging unit and thus out of LOS once they round the corner of the building.

Page 76 for rage rules.

it says it all right there, you must move towards the closest visible enemy unit.

So you move your models .00000000....1 inches and check LOS (repeatedly) to make sure you are consistently moving towards the nearest visible enemy?

Happyjew wrote:So you move your models .00000000....1 inches and check LOS (repeatedly) to make sure you are consistently moving towards the nearest visible enemy?

you check, then move, since you need to know what is the closest visible enemy unit. you cant move then check, because then you do not know what the closest visible enemy unit is.

DeathReaper wrote:

Happyjew wrote:So you move your models .00000000....1 inches and check LOS (repeatedly) to make sure you are consistently moving towards the nearest visible enemy?

you check, then move, since you need to know what is the closest visible enemy unit. you cant move then check, because then you do not know what the closest visible enemy unit is.

And then if something else becomes visible?

DeathReaper wrote:

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Actually the dread IS the "closest visible enemy." so you "must always move as fast as possible towards" it.

you have to check before you move as to what is the "closest visible enemy." if you do not, you can not know what you must move towards.

Except that is not supported by the rules, and is only really an issue if you believe models have a 360 degree LOS. If following the rules for LOS as outlined in the rulebook (must draw LOS from the model's eyes to its target) then the Dread will definitely be the closest visible enemy throughout the movement phase if every model is facing the Dread, as enemy A and B will be behind the Raging unit and thus out of LOS once they round the corner of the building.

Page 76 for rage rules.

it says it all right there, you must move towards the closest visible enemy unit.

So then what you are saying is that if there are no visible enemy at the start of the movement phase, then they can ignore any enemy units that appear at a later point in their movement phase? For example, if the Dread was not in the illustration I posted, the Raging unit would be free to move past the corner of the building to the side of the wall opposite enemy B and not have to move towards enemy A once they become visible?