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.

rigeld2 wrote:

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?

you have already fulfilled the must move towards the closest visible enemy condition, so it does not matter what becomes visible.

The question is: Is Rage always in effect even durring the move, or is it only in effect before the move to determine the direction the model(s) move.

optimusprime14 wrote:The question is: Is Rage always in effect even durring the move, or is it only in effect before the move to determine the direction the model(s) move.

We have always played it as a restriction on declarable options at the start of a unit's move.

kirsanth wrote:

optimusprime14 wrote:The question is: Is Rage always in effect even durring the move, or is it only in effect before the move to determine the direction the model(s) move.

We have always played it as a restriction on declarable options at the start of a unit's move.

+1. Anytime I've had Rage in my units or Rage has been played against me, we determine the direction of the unit and move. We don't change direction mid-move.

However, these examples are so few and far between that we don't run into these issues. Usually the unit subject to Rage has very clear target and once they dispatch that, they simply run to whatever is closest. It is difficult to imagine running to the closest unit and then suddenly coming into view of something that is closer. We rarely have a point where you would even need to consider two different units because the closest unit is so clearly the closest.

Chaos_Destroyer wrote: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?

No, I didn't ignore it, it's just not quite correct. I'll explain it again in my response to rigeld, below.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Your opponent can absolutely claim you don't have LOS, but there's no way they can claim that YOU can't tell if you do or not; and that means that YOU are never required to check LOS in the described manner. There are no rules on how you're required to clarify LOS for your opponent. Remember that we're talking about strict RAW. Nothing, anywhere, says that every time I check LOS I have to check it in this manner, it only mentions that if "it [is] more difficult to tell if line of sight is blocked or not" then you determine it this way. Well, if I can shine a laser pointer or stretch a piece of string along a straight line from my model's eyes to the body of a target model, with allowance for whatever models of my own unit are in the way, how is that "more difficult"? Seems pretty easy to me. The language is so vague that it actually ends up not doing anything.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Fair enough; we could chalk that up to a silly RAW problem. I'm just pointing out that it's very easy (in fact, I would argue logically necessary) to interpret the rules in such a way that the issue never crops up.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

There a quote for that? An example picture is just that; an example. You will never be in the same situation as the example; there will always be differences. Being in a different situation than the example doesn't really mean much.

What I'm pointing out here is that interpreting this line as a limitation is ridiculous, because it doesn't actually limit anything. The LOS rules are quite clear; LOS starts at your model's eyes and ends at the target. There is no third point, and there is no place for the eyes of the player to be involved. That being so, if you stand three feet behind your model, and there's an enemy model between you and it, it's entirely possible for you to draw LOS between your model's eyes and the enemy model. Remember, your model does not block its own LOS; no-one has yet refuted this point except by arguing that looking from behind your model makes drawing LOS through the model itself impossible, which is exactly what I just pointed out is not true. This is entirely legal, even following the 'requirement' that you look from behind your model, because there is no distance requirement and no requirement for LOS to begin at or even include the eyes of the player.

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.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Happyjew wrote: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?

I never said that. You are quoting the wrong person.

Happyjew wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Happyjew wrote: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?

I never said that. You are quoting the wrong person.

Yep, it was Chaos_Destroyer. Sorry about that.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Remember, your model does not block its own LOS; no-one has yet refuted this point except by arguing that looking from behind your model makes it impossible, which is exactly what I just showed is not true. This is entirely legal, even following the 'requirement' that you look from behind your model, because there is no distance requirement and no requirement for LOS to begin at or even include the eyes of the player.

You actually showed that looking from behind can make it possible to see things behind you - not that it is always possible to look from behind and see things behind the model.
In other words, if you put your head immediately behind the model, you cannot see the hormagaunt 12" away behind the model. If you put your head 3 feet behind the model, you can see the hormagaunt 12" away behind the model. (Not that I agree with you, just explaining what you showed).

The "more difficult" pertains to the obviously blocked vs obviously not blocked possibilities of the rule. Using a laser pointer/thread is similar enough to putting your head behind the model, as long as you're starting from the eyes of the model.

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.

rigeld2 wrote:Except that quote states that it matters for Infantry.

Haven't we gone over counts-as before? Every unit type except Vehicles follows the same Shooting rules as Infantry, with a few listed exceptions. Since none of those exceptions involve LOS, those unit types use EXACTLY the same rules as Infantry, which includes this one. It is phrased a bit oddly, but there's still a reason for it to exist even if it makes no difference for Infantry.

So, that quote states that it mattes for Infantry, but it really only matters for everything but Infantry. Yes, other unit types use the same LoS rules - why are Infantry exempt from the rule that specifies Infantry?

You are permitted to draw LOS to a target unit, starting from the eyes of the model drawing LOS. Yes or no?

Yes.

Those things which stop you from drawing LOS are specifically noted. Yes or no?

By implementing TLOS, yes.

LOS is specifically not blocked by members of the same unit. Yes or no?

I think you're misreading that sentence.

BRB wrote:
Firing models can always draw line of sight
through members of their own unit (just as if they were
not there), as in reality they would take up firing
positions to maximise their own squad’s firepower.

That sentence reads, to me, as "through [other] members".
Your way reads "through [all] members [including themselves]".

A model is a member of its own unit. Yes or no?

Yes

So yes, that means that non-vehicle models can in fact draw LOS, beginning at their eyes, passing through the backs of their own heads as well as any other members of their unit which are in the way, to something which is directly behind them.

So they have eyes in the backs of their heads, but they

page 11 wrote:lack your own god-like knowledge that there are no enemies around

. I already said why I disagree with your interpretation.

The reason I read it this way is that it's a constant requirement; the only reference it gives you is "the movement phase". If it said "the start of the movement phase" then I'd agree that it was a one-time check, but since at every single point throughout the entire movement phase you are not allowed but actively required to move towards the closest visible enemy unit, it does seem to say that you have to check constantly; or, rather, it says nothing about when you MUST check, but tells you that you're ALLOWED to check at any time, and also tells you that you are not allowed to, at any point in the phase, NOT move towards the closest visible enemy unit; which effectively means that you must check constantly.

So how often do you check? Every millimeter? Every inch? Every 2 inches? Every tenth of an inch? Why that distance?

rigeld2 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Remember, your model does not block its own LOS; no-one has yet refuted this point except by arguing that looking from behind your model makes it impossible, which is exactly what I just showed is not true. This is entirely legal, even following the 'requirement' that you look from behind your model, because there is no distance requirement and no requirement for LOS to begin at or even include the eyes of the player.

You actually showed that looking from behind can make it possible to see things behind you - not that it is always possible to look from behind and see things behind the model.
In other words, if you put your head immediately behind the model, you cannot see the hormagaunt 12" away behind the model. If you put your head 3 feet behind the model, you can see the hormagaunt 12" away behind the model. (Not that I agree with you, just explaining what you showed).

That's what I said. . . I said that it's not impossible. Didn't I?

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

rigeld2 wrote:Except that quote states that it matters for Infantry.

Haven't we gone over counts-as before? Every unit type except Vehicles follows the same Shooting rules as Infantry, with a few listed exceptions. Since none of those exceptions involve LOS, those unit types use EXACTLY the same rules as Infantry, which includes this one. It is phrased a bit oddly, but there's still a reason for it to exist even if it makes no difference for Infantry.

So, that quote states that it mattes for Infantry, but it really only matters for everything but Infantry. Yes, other unit types use the same LoS rules - why are Infantry exempt from the rule that specifies Infantry?

The quote doesn't state it matters for infantry. As I said; it's oddly phrased, but it still makes perfect sense. Infantry aren't 'exempt' from anything; it's just that, for them or anything else on a perfectly round base, turning to face your target changes how LOS is drawn only very slightly; that is, it shifts the LOS you can draw just a little, because the eyes of the model rotate around the center of the base when you turn it. My stating that it "doesn't matter" was imprecise; I should have said it "barely matters".

For things on a non-round base, it makes a more obvious difference.

rigeld2 wrote:

You are permitted to draw LOS to a target unit, starting from the eyes of the model drawing LOS. Yes or no?

Yes.

Those things which stop you from drawing LOS are specifically noted. Yes or no?

By implementing TLOS, yes.

LOS is specifically not blocked by members of the same unit. Yes or no?

I think you're misreading that sentence.

BRB wrote:
Firing models can always draw line of sight
through members of their own unit (just as if they were
not there), as in reality they would take up firing
positions to maximise their own squad’s firepower.

That sentence reads, to me, as "through [other] members".
Your way reads "through [all] members [including themselves]".

A model is a member of its own unit. Yes or no?

Yes

So yes, that means that non-vehicle models can in fact draw LOS, beginning at their eyes, passing through the backs of their own heads as well as any other members of their unit which are in the way, to something which is directly behind them.

So they have eyes in the backs of their heads, but they

page 11 wrote:lack your own god-like knowledge that there are no enemies around

. I already said why I disagree with your interpretation.

I'm not misreading the sentence. It doesn't say "Firing models may always draw line of sight through other members of their own unit"; if it did I would agree with you, but it doesn't, and adding in that word changes the meaning of the sentence. it says "members of their own unit". That includes the model itself.

For that matter, it makes perfect sense to me that "[taking] up firing positions to maximise their own squad’s firepower" would include scanning for enemies in all directions. There's nothing particularly illogical about 360-degree LOS, and the models don't need to have eyes in the backs of their heads; it's simply a game mechanic which, like many other game mechanics, represents the fact that in a game of 40k the models represent a dynamic and constantly-moving situation. Their necks are not welded in place.

rigeld2 wrote:

The reason I read it this way is that it's a constant requirement; the only reference it gives you is "the movement phase". If it said "the start of the movement phase" then I'd agree that it was a one-time check, but since at every single point throughout the entire movement phase you are not allowed but actively required to move towards the closest visible enemy unit, it does seem to say that you have to check constantly; or, rather, it says nothing about when you MUST check, but tells you that you're ALLOWED to check at any time, and also tells you that you are not allowed to, at any point in the phase, NOT move towards the closest visible enemy unit; which effectively means that you must check constantly.

So how often do you check? Every millimeter? Every inch? Every 2 inches? Every tenth of an inch? Why that distance?

BeRzErKeR wrote:No, I didn't ignore it, it's just not quite correct. I'll explain it again in my response to rigeld, below.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Your opponent can absolutely claim you don't have LOS, but there's no way they can claim that YOU can't tell if you do or not; and that means that YOU are never required to check LOS in the described manner. There are no rules on how you're required to clarify LOS for your opponent. Remember that we're talking about strict RAW. Nothing, anywhere, says that every time I check LOS I have to check it in this manner, it only mentions that if "it [is] more difficult to tell if line of sight is blocked or not" then you determine it this way. Well, if I can shine a laser pointer or stretch a piece of string along a straight line from my model's eyes to the body of a target model, with allowance for whatever models of my own unit are in the way, how is that "more difficult"? Seems pretty easy to me. The language is so vague that it actually ends up not doing anything.

At the point when it becomes "difficult" to determine if a model has LOS to the enemy (which includes after having used a laser pointer, birds eye view, piece of string, whatever) then the rules say you have to get a model's eye view. "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." The rules say "players" check, so that doesn't limit it to just the shooting player. I may think my opponent doesn't have LOS to my unit because his models are behind a piece of terrain that seems to tall for them to see over. Placing a laser pointer on top of their head doesn't determine LOS because the laser pointer is higher than the models eyes. Stretching a piece of string from one model to another still doesn't do it because it isn't taking into account the height of the blocking terrain they are behind. So in that case the players have to stoop down and get a models eye view, in which case as the owner of the target unit I am going to get a model's eye view just as well to verify that my opponent does indeed have LOS. You originally said that the rules said that players "may" get a models eye view, and if the rules actually say they "must" use this method when it is difficult to determine to LOS, then your conclusion 3 is partially falsified and thus Raging units can ignore Rage by moving backwards. The rules say players have to use this method when it is difficult to determine LOS otherwise. Have to. As in obligated. Therefore your conclusion 3 is partially falsified and therefore Raging units can moonwalk their way towards the enemy. Unless you are going to say "well the rules don't use the word "must" so I am still right." At which point I am just going to have to face palm.

Remember, your model does not block its own LOS; no-one has yet refuted this point except by arguing that looking from behind your model makes drawing LOS through the model itself impossible, which is exactly what I just pointed out is not true.

Really? I do recall posting this on page 3:

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."

According to the rules and your logic, if a model tries to draw LOS through itself, it disappears from the battlefield and thus can't draw LOS, because the rules say that the models "are not there." So how can a model draw LOS through itself when it isn't physically there?

BeRzErKeR wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So how often do you check? Every millimeter? Every inch? Every 2 inches? Every tenth of an inch? Why that distance?

Well, constantly. Same kind of concept as infinity; you are not required to check at any specific interval, but you can be required to know at any given point, and given allowance to check any time during the phase.

So can I take this to mean that when you move your models (specifically those with rage since that is what this whole thing deals with), you have your head right down to where they are so you can "see what they see" the entire time you are moving them?
Also at what point do you deem another (closer) enemy to be in LOS, the moment you can see the first model? The first models hand? The tip of the first models finger?

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:
At the point when it becomes "difficult" to determine if a model has LOS to the enemy (which includes after having used a laser pointer, birds eye view, piece of string, whatever) then the rules say you have to get a model's eye view. "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." The rules say "players" check, so that doesn't limit it to just the shooting player. I may think my opponent doesn't have LOS to my unit because his models are behind a piece of terrain that seems to tall for them to see over. Placing a laser pointer on top of their head doesn't determine LOS because the laser pointer is higher than the models eyes. Stretching a piece of string from one model to another still doesn't do it because it isn't taking into account the height of the blocking terrain they are behind. So in that case the players have to stoop down and get a models eye view, in which case as the owner of the target unit I am going to get a model's eye view just as well to verify that my opponent does indeed have LOS. You originally said that the rules said that players "may" get a models eye view, and if the rules actually say they "must" use this method when it is difficult to determine to LOS, then your conclusion 3 is partially falsified and thus Raging units can ignore Rage by moving backwards. The rules say players have to use this method when it is difficult to determine LOS otherwise. Have to. As in obligated. Therefore your conclusion 3 is partially falsified and therefore Raging units can moonwalk their way towards the enemy. Unless you are going to say "well the rules don't use the word "must" so I am still right." At which point I am just going to have to face palm.

You're right; I did originally say that, and you are correct in that the rule uses the words "have to", which are imperative. It is thus a requirement, in the situations which the rule specifies. That is important to remember.

That doesn't change the fact that there is no definite start point. How does stretching a piece of string fail to account for terrain? If you can make the string straight, you have LOS. If it's bent around something, then you don't. Following the rules, to do this you ignore the models in your own unit. How does using a laser pointer fail? If you're worried about it being higher than the model's head, just hold it level with their eyes; parallax displacement on this tiny scale is easy to correct for. Hell, GW itself sells a laser crosshair for exactly this purpose.

Furthermore, see my response to rigeld2 just above; it doesn't matter in the slightest, because there are no restrictions other than "behind the model". You can still draw LOS to any legal targets, with a 360-degree arc; if you follow this requirement strictly, all it does is require you to occasionally crouch awkwardly while you do so.

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:

Remember, your model does not block its own LOS; no-one has yet refuted this point except by arguing that looking from behind your model makes drawing LOS through the model itself impossible, which is exactly what I just pointed out is not true.

Really? I do recall posting this on page 3:

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."

According to the rules and your logic, if a model tries to draw LOS through itself, it disappears from the battlefield and thus can't draw LOS, because the rules say that the models "are not there." So how can a model draw LOS through itself when it isn't physically there?

BeRzErKeR wrote:The quote doesn't state it matters for infantry. As I said; it's oddly phrased, but it still makes perfect sense. Infantry aren't 'exempt' from anything; it's just that, for them or anything else on a perfectly round base, turning to face your target changes how LOS is drawn only very slightly; that is, it shifts the LOS you can draw just a little, because the eyes of the model rotate around the center of the base when you turn it. My stating that it "doesn't matter" was imprecise; I should have said it "barely matters".

For things on a non-round base, it makes a more obvious difference.

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 (although dramatically
facing off against their foes is traditional).

That rule says that facing does matter for Infantry models. I'm not sure how you can read anything else from that statement.

Well, constantly. Same kind of concept as infinity; you are not required to check at any specific interval, but you can be required to know at any given point, and given allowance to check any time during the phase.

That being so, as a practical matter I would simply check whenever I suspected that another unit might have become visible. If I was moving a Raging unit along a wall that totally blocked half their vision, and I knew there were no enemy units on their side of the wall, I'd check once at the beginning of the move just to be sure and then not again, unless my opponent thought they could see something. If they were moving out from between two pieces of terrain with enemy units on both sides, then I'd check much more carefully.

I understand where you're coming from with this, but that's a horrendously clunky mechanic in my opinion.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Furthermore, see my response to rigeld2 just above; it doesn't matter in the slightest, because there are no restrictions other than "behind the model". You can still draw LOS to any legal targets, with a 360-degree arc; if you follow this requirement strictly, all it does is require you to occasionally crouch awkwardly while you do so.

Except in context of the rules, models don't have a 360 degree arc.

For the last part, about models disappearing; it doesn't actually say they disappear, it says you can draw LOS through them "as if they are not there". That means that for the purpose of determining whether LOS is blocked they are treated "as if" they are not there; essentially, you can treat them as transparent. It doesn't say anything about the actual existence or position of the model. For all purposes EXCEPT determining whether LOS is blocked (and yes, that does include determining the starting point of the line), they're still there.

The rules don't say models become transparent, it says they "are not there." If I am in the U.S. and you are in the U.K., I am "not there" with you in the U.K. If we are both in the U.K., but you are invisible standing right next to me, then you are still "there" but I just can't see you. Same applies here. If model A is in front of model B and they are in the same unit, then model B can see through model A because he is considered to physically not be in front of model B. If model B tries to draw LOS through himself, then he is no longer physically "there" and thus can't draw LOS to anything as he has momentarily teleported away from the battlefield. The rules, in context, mean that models in their own unit move out of each others way so that they can all fire at the target, not that they can suddenly see through the backs and sides of their skulls.

BeRzErKeR, what about how the game defines True Line of Sight:
"You take the positions of models and terrain at face value, and simply look to see if your warriors have a view to their targets."

Chaos_Destroyer wrote:

The rules don't say models become transparent, it says they "are not there." If I am in the U.S. and you are in the U.K., I am "not there" with you in the U.K. If we are both in the U.K., but you are invisible standing right next to me, then you are still "there" but I just can't see you. Same applies here. If model A is in front of model B and they are in the same unit, then model B can see through model A because he is considered to physically not be in front of model B. If model B tries to draw LOS through himself, then he is no longer physically "there" and thus can't draw LOS to anything as he has momentarily teleported away from the battlefield. The rules, in context, mean that models in their own unit move out of each others way so that they can all fire at the target, not that they can suddenly see through the backs and sides of their skulls.

The rule says, and I quote,

page 16 wrote:Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit (just as if they were not there. . .)

Relevant portion bolded for emphasis. Please note the use of "as if". The models ARE, in fact, physically there, and continue to be there; for the purpose of drawing line of sight through them and for that purpose only, they are ignored. This in no way prevents a model from drawing LOS through itself, since you are not ignoring the model for the purpose of determining the starting point of the line; in fact, this is what allows you to do so.

Happyjew wrote: BeRzErKeR, what about how the game defines True Line of Sight:
"You take the positions of models and terrain at face value, and simply look to see if your warriors have a view to their targets."

That's an abstraction. It must be for two reasons; first, little plastic men can't see anything at all, and secondly, we already know that exceptions are made in the interest of having a simpler and slightly more abstract game system, for instance ignoring members of your own unit.

But you don't have to actually move the models that you're ignoring for LOS purposes; and, similarly, you don't actually have to spin your model around to represent the fact that it's watching what's happening around it. The 'view' that model has is 360 degrees, according to the rules which define the process of checking LOS. This is a system of simulation, and the rules allow you to simulate soldiers moving around, watching their own and each other's backs, moving out of each other's lines of fire and etc. without actually having to push the models around to represent every single motion. That's why (IMO) the rules are written the way they are.

rigeld2 wrote:I understand where you're coming from with this, but that's a horrendously clunky mechanic in my opinion.

Eh, I don't really think so. In most cases it isn't a problem; most of the time it's easy to tell what unit is closest, and even if it does change that's usually pretty obvious. Most terrain isn't very complex, and LOS is usually pretty easy to determine. You might get a fringe case sometimes that would require extra care, but not often, and unless you're playing a high-stakes tournament game for money or something, approximating won't hurt anything anyway.

Page 11:
Infanty models can also be turned i nthe Shooting phase, so don't worry about which way they are pointing at the end of their Movement phase

Page 16:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of hte enemy - they must be able to see their foe...Of course your models are made of plastic or metal so hey can't tell you what they can see - you'll have to work it out for them.
...a 'model's eye view'. 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'.
Line of sight must be traced from the eys of the firing model to any part of the body...
Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit, as in reality they would take up firing positions...

Warhammer 40,000 uses what we call 'true line ofsight' for shooting attacks. This means that you take positions of models and terrain at face value and simply look to see if your warriors have a view to their targets...We have chosen true line of sight because it makes the game feel much more cinematic and 'real'. There's nothing quite like getting 'a model's eye view' to bring the game to life.

Page 75: Infiltrate:
Infiltrators may be set up anywhere on the table that is more than 12" from any enemy unit, as long as no deployed unit can draw line of sight to them.

Page 76: Rage:
Whilst falling back, embarked on a transport, or if no enemy is visible, they ignore this rule.

Happyjew wrote:Page 11:
Infanty models can also be turned i nthe Shooting phase, so don't worry about which way they are pointing at the end of their Movement phase

Page 16:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of hte enemy - they must be able to see their foe...Of course your models are made of plastic or metal so hey can't tell you what they can see - you'll have to work it out for them.
...a 'model's eye view'. 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'.
Line of sight must be traced from the eys of the firing model to any part of the body...
Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit, as in reality they would take up firing positions...

Warhammer 40,000 uses what we call 'true line ofsight' for shooting attacks. This means that you take positions of models and terrain at face value and simply look to see if your warriors have a view to their targets...We have chosen true line of sight because it makes the game feel much more cinematic and 'real'. There's nothing quite like getting 'a model's eye view' to bring the game to life.

Page 75: Infiltrate:
Infiltrators may be set up anywhere on the table that is more than 12" from any enemy unit, as long as no deployed unit can draw line of sight to them.

Page 76: Rage:
Whilst falling back, embarked on a transport, or if no enemy is visible, they ignore this rule.

Yep, I know all this. I'm not sure what your point is; although bringing up Infiltrate certainly is an interesting point. Without 360-degree LOS, you could infiltrate right up to 12" away from an enemy Infantry unit, so long as the models were pointed in a different direction.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Please note the use of "as if". The models ARE, in fact, physically there, and continue to be there; for the purpose of drawing line of sight through them and for that purpose only, they are ignored. This in no way prevents a model from drawing LOS through itself, since you are not ignoring the model for the purpose of determining the starting point of the line; in fact, this is what allows you to do so.

Yes, the models are physically there, but when you draw LOS to the enemy, you count the models in your own unit as not being physically there, which is what I have been saying the whole time. Except you seem to want to take it a step further and out of context and give models the ability to see through the backs and sides of their skulls. So when a model attempts to draw LOS through itself, it counts itself as not being physically there, (not transparent or invisible, but actually not there) and if the model attempting to draw LOS through itself is counted as if it is not there, then it can't draw LOS to anything because it is not physically there on the battlefield anymore. Again, in context, the rule is simulating models getting physically out of the way of other models in their unit so that they can all fire at the enemy. Context is everything...

But you don't have to actually move the models that you're ignoring for LOS purposes;

Right, because in context, the rules simulate them ducking, kneeling, taking a prone shooting position, etc., and not being in the way of other models in their unit.

and, similarly, you don't actually have to spin your model around to represent the fact that it's watching what's happening around it.

Except that you do. The rules say draw LOS from the models eyes, and you are allowed to pivot models in the shooting phase in order to face your target. There's no need for those rules if models have a 360 degree arc and can see through themselves...

A non-vehicle model has no defined facing. They can turn to face in any direction at any time in the Movement and Shooting Phases. This gives them a 360 degree field of vision.

To say it is anything less then a 360 degree field of vision, is then saying each model can not turn to face in any direction. Which, we know they can.

To check if a model can see what's behind it, you simple turn the model. In fact, if a rule is asking to check if something is closest to it, that is in its LOS, and the model can turn in any direction at any time, you must check every direction to determine what is in fact closest to it, that it has LOS to. Which means, 360 degrees.

ToBeWilly wrote:To check if a model can see what's behind it, you simple turn the model.

Only in the shooting phase can you do this. You are not allowed to pivot non-vehicle models in the movement phase until movement has begun. "As you move the models in a unit, they can turn to face in any direction, without effecting the distance they are able cover." So a unit with Rage would check its LOS from the eyes of the models in the direction they are facing at the start of the movement phase. Enemy units behind it (and thus out of LOS) would be ignored.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Enemy units behind it (and thus out of LOS) would be ignored.

Not correct, as models can draw LoS through their own heads giving them a 360 degree vision.

DeathReaper wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:Enemy units behind it (and thus out of LOS) would be ignored.

Not correct, as models can draw LoS through their own heads giving them a 360 degree vision.

Erm, what?

DeathReaper wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:Enemy units behind it (and thus out of LOS) would be ignored.

Not correct, as models can draw LoS through their own heads giving them a 360 degree vision.

It's like you didn't bother reading the thread... do you have something to offer rules-wise to contribute to the discussion, or are you just spouting words with no support?

Did I bother reading the thread?
Like when I posted on page 1, or 5 times on page two, or three times on page three etc....

I already contributed the rules, but I guess I will have to restate them:

DeathReaper wrote:Models have a 360 degree LoS according to the 'models can always draw LOS through members of their unit' clause.

I will include berzerkers quote as well.

BeRzErKeR wrote:You are missing something, however; models can always draw LOS through members of their unit.

LOS is drawn from the eyes of the model; models can always draw LOS through members of their unit. Models are always members of their own unit, by definition.

DeathReaper wrote:Did I bother reading the thread?
Like when I posted on page 1, or 5 times on page two, or three times on page three etc....

I already contributed the rules, but I guess I will have to restate them:

DeathReaper wrote:Models have a 360 degree LoS according to the 'models can always draw LOS through members of their unit' clause.

I will include berzerkers quote as well.

BeRzErKeR wrote:You are missing something, however; models can always draw LOS through members of their unit.

LOS is drawn from the eyes of the model; models can always draw LOS through members of their unit. Models are always members of their own unit, by definition.

So why does Infantry facing matter again? And it does - page 11.

rigeld2 wrote:
So why does Infantry facing matter again? And it does - page 11.

That's been answered, repeatedly. It makes a very, very small change in where LOS is drawn from, shifting the line a very, very small distance.

For infantry, the difference will only matter in fringe cases because their eyes don't move far when they rotate. For larger models it can and does make a larger difference. Please do recall that these rules were written not only for Infantry but also for all other non-Vehicle Unit Types; the word 'Infantry' is used because Infantry is the most common Unit Type and the 'default' state, not because Infantry are being specifically called out.

You don't measure inch by inch and check LOS each time. You check LOS then move, so your model does not have to turn down an alley that it is passing by that may have a enemy that is closer than the one it could see when it began its move.

We all know its 360. Infantry do not have any 'facing' or 'arc of fire' like vehicles and dreadnaughts. Unfortunately the rulebook assumes a certain level of intelligence to play this game.

I think the best rules lawyer reply is, models can see through their own unit, which includes themselves, so draw LOS from the models eyes even backwards. (Sorry, but when you pick apart the wording sometimes the exact explanation can seem strange when you try to match it up with fluff).

DeathReaper wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:Enemy units behind it (and thus out of LOS) would be ignored.

Not correct, as models can draw LoS through their own heads giving them a 360 degree vision.

Except to do that you have to remove the model from the table, meaning you can no longer draw LOS from their eyes to the target model.

No, infnatry cannot see through their own heads, or if you try to you are incapable of then drawing LOS at all, to anything.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:Enemy units behind it (and thus out of LOS) would be ignored.

Not correct, as models can draw LoS through their own heads giving them a 360 degree vision.

Except to do that you have to remove the model from the table, meaning you can no longer draw LOS from their eyes to the target model.

No, infnatry cannot see through their own heads, or if you try to you are incapable of then drawing LOS at all, to anything.

Do you have any proof of this?

I'd love to play my death company in any tournament that would allow this where the Rage USR is so easily circumvented. They're stuck attacking a drop pod? No problem just face them the other way!