Rage and TLOS

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.

**kartofelkopf**

Hmm.... you might want to read the entire thread and perhaps the blog being referenced by Pika.

(yesthetruthhurts if you weren't sure)

He does pretty decent army lists, but some of his tactical advice seems a bit unsound at times. And he's a bit... erm.... abrasive? Ah, "straightforward" is the term I'm looking for.

Anyways, RAW, in the movement phase, visible enemy units would be any models he has on the table. So, even if the model is behind an LOS-blocking wall, you still move towards them, as there is no mechanic for determining a model's 'vision' in the movement phase, and must use your own vision as a substitute.

Probably not what they had in mind...

**Dracos**

Who are you talking to? Since I was the previous poster, it seems as though your post was directed at me, yet the content makes so sense in that context.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kartofelkopf wrote:Anyways, RAW, in the movement phase, visible enemy units would be any models he has on the table. So, even if the model is behind an LOS-blocking wall, you still move towards them, as there is no mechanic for determining a model's 'vision' in the movement phase, and must use your own vision as a substitute.

But that is not RAW at all. There is no way to tell what is visible during the movement phase and what is not by RAW. You are inserting a method of your choosing, which is RAP not RAW.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to clarify on that last point, it does not say visible to you, the player. So, inserting yourself as the point of reference for visibility is just as (from RAW point of view) valid as from a satellite passing by that has a good enough camera to see models from space.

**kartofelkopf**

Sorry, that was meant for Gorka.

And, I think you'll find that it is RAW. The rage rule doesn't call for the unit/model to have vision to the enemy model/unit.

"Just to clarify on that last point, it does not say visible to you, the player."

There's no mechanic in the movement phase that refers to visible, so, absent a game mechanic, a plain-word understanding of the rule dictates that I must move my Rage unit towards the nearest unit.

RAW, Rage just makes you move towards the nearest enemy. RAI, visibility for the unit is determined using LOS rules from the shooting section (and, yes, there's bound to be continued disagreement there)

RAP-- absolutely agree with you. 360* visibility for infantry.

**Dracos**

Right you have to use the plain word meaning.

But visibility is a subjective term, you need a frame of reference. What is visible to from one frame of reference may not be from another.

You have arbitrarily inserted your own frame of reference, which is not RAW, its RAP.

**kartofelkopf**

Visibility is relatively subjective, but we do have some limiting factors. We're playing a game, so the rules probably have something to do with the game. Absent a game mechanic, the visibility is determined in a non-mechanic manner. As the only remaining non-mechanic controlled entities participating in this game are the players, one must assume the players are the ones determining visibility. The rule specifies enemy models, so that eliminates my opponent from participating, ergo, I am left to determine visibility.

(incidentally, check my profile... I categorically disapprove of a 'RAW' approach to 40k.)

**Dracos**

I'm sorry but to add in these "limiting factors" is not RAW, because they are not written rules.

I'm only arguing that the method you are choosing is not RAW. Please show where the limiting factors for determining visibility are written, or admit it is not RAW.

Assuming one of the players (which one? can that player move around?) gets to determine visibility is no more raw than just saying its 360 degrees. Its not RAW because its not written in the rulebook.

**Sidstyler**

Wouldn't it be great if they actually told us how they play in the studio with their rules?

That would be fantastic. Too bad GW doesn't give a feth and doesn't take their work seriously. Either that or they're just afraid it'll hurt sales if they clarify anything.

God, this is the stupidest argument I think I've ever seen on the internet, and I'm sad that I even participated in it. Honest to god, this is a joke. "Competitive" 40k is a joke, you can't play this game "competitively" because it's so horribly written! If you can, as a legitimate tactic, have all your models walk backwards to get around a rule that was clearly not meant to be circumvented in such a slowed fashion...god damn, the idea that I could actually run into a guy doing this one day makes my balls hurt.

This is the kind of game I got into? Seriously?

**Pika_power**

Ahem. We have a precedent for visible. We see "visible" used as a term in the shooting section, page 16. "Sometimes, all that may be visible of a model is a weapon [...]". This is GW using visible to mean "In LoS". Unless you have a reference to back up your claim of "Visible means the model is able to be discerned by my eye" (which is completely ridiculous, might I add, as I have yet to see a model that I cannot see) we will use the interpretation as on page 16.

Okay, we've managed to figure out that the game locks up if you play by RAW, and once we get into RAI territory it is no longer a rules debate and instead becomes an effort to compromise between two gamers on a game-to-game basis. Our work here is done and I recommend a lock, unless someone wants to discuss potential ways of playing this.

In any case, it will now be impossible to rules-lawyer the reversing-forward tactic into success, because rule abuse does not work when RAI comes up. The world is now a happier place.

**Sidstyler**

I dunno, maybe it should be locked. I don't see how there's much more that could be discussed and indeed it seems like everyone already knows how they're going to play it anyway.

**kartofelkopf**

"Please show where the limiting factors for determining visibility are written"

You're missing the whole point. RAW is a silly argument here, and RAI is being twisted into some strange interpretation where ravening, monstrous creatures stare timidly at their feet while shaking their rears at the enemy.

RAP has already been addressed-- a lock sounds great to me.

**Pika_power**

kartofelkopf wrote:"Please show where the limiting factors for determining visibility are written"

You're missing the whole point. RAW is a silly argument here, and RAI is being twisted into some strange interpretation where ravening, monstrous creatures stare timidly at their feet while shaking their rears at the enemy.

RAP has already been addressed-- a lock sounds great to me.

I addressed the point about visibility and used the rulebook to define it as "able to draw LoS". If visibility meant "visible to the player" as was being argued, we would have nothing in the movement phase requiring the LoS to be checked, so we would not have the game freeze. It was a viable attempt, but it didn't work.

RAW isn't just silly; it locks up the game. Your definition of RAI is spot on though.

Okay, I'm fine with the lock too. RAW doesn't work, so this has no place in a rules forum.

**Kingsley**

Seems like it's time for an INAT fix here.

**Sidstyler**

I wish we didn't need the INAT.

**Pika_power**

Oh yes, I just type this up for a comment on YTTH, so I might as well post it here while I wait for the moderator approval to go through.

"In the movement phase, units subject to rage must move as fast as possible towards the closest visible enemy" (p. 76)

Okay, time to define visible. Nothing in the index, nothing anywhere that specifically defines it. Let's look for a definition in context. Found one on page 16.

"Sometimes, all that may be visible of a model is a weapon [...]" (p. 16)

From this we deduce that visible means 'Within LoS'. Let's see what that does if we plug 'within LoS' into our first quote.

"In the movement phase, units subject to rage must move as fast as possible towards the closest enemy within LoS" (p. 76 edited)

Now we need to find out what 'Within LoS' means. Let's go and visit the index again. Found it.

"Line of sight, 16" (p. 303, index)

Off to page 16 to discover how we can apply the LoS rules in the Movement Phase.

"The Shooting Phase" (p. 15, title)

Oh dear. This doesn't look good. Oh well, maybe it can apply to movement too?

"A firing unit [...]" (p. 16, top left paragraph)

Okay, this one only applies to firing units, but perhaps the next one?

"Line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy [...]" (p. 16, Top right paragraph)

It appears we can use this one. It seems universal.

"This means getting down to the level of your warriors, taking in the view from behind the firing models [...] (p.16, top right paragraph a bit further down)

Or not.

"Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model [...]" (p. 16, second top right paragraph)

Nothing useful here either.

"There is one important exception to the rules for line of sight. Firing models [...]" (p. 16, Own Unit)

Nope.

"Warhammer 40,000 uses what we call "true line of sight" for shooting attacks. This means that you take the positions of models and terrain and simply see if your warriors have a view to their targets." (p. 16, grey box, Line of Sight)

So they use it for shooting attacks and finding view to targets. I don't think we can apply this box to the movement phase either, and that was our last resource.

There is nothing else to look at. It is quite clear that visible means 'within line of sight" (and the idea that visible means "A model my eye can see" is just plain silly) and it is just as clear that none of the LoS rules work in the movement phase under RAW. However we have to apply the LoS rules. This isn't just a rule that can be abused, it's a rule that freezes the game. You're told to do something impossible. As such, this will have to be discussed at the start of each game between opponents or defined by TOs, and I consider the average TO to be able to correct flawed rules, unlike GW. This means that this tactic is all but doomed for tournament play, and is impossible against a dissenting opponent.

Yeah, time for an INAT fix, although I personally don't use the INAT, as it often changes the rules when there is no need and they work fine under RAW.

**insaniak**

Yup, I think this has gone about as far as it's going to...