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.

This came up in a game last week with DeathReaper. During my infiltrate placement I wanted to place a genestealer unit 100% out of LOS 12 inches away from a unit of Gray Hunters but I was visible to a allied Wave serpent 20 inches away. I ended up not placing there, but was the placement illegal?

Yes. If any model can see you, you must place more than 18" away.

That's what we thought.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes. If any model can see you, you must place more than 18" away.

I thought you could meet both requirements: be more than 12" away from any model that cannot see you as well as 18" away from a model that does have LOS.

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

No - if anyone can see you you cannot deploy at 13".

Yonush wrote:
This came up in a game last week with DeathReaper. During my infiltrate placement I wanted to place a genestealer unit 100% out of LOS 12 inches away from a unit of Gray Hunters but I was visible to a allied Wave serpent 20 inches away. I ended up not placing there, but was the placement illegal?

Well your genestealer unit was not visible to the wave serpent with the guns facing forward, but if they were turned they could have seen your models.

Does this matter is the question, I have not been able to find the answer in the rules for this.

well, if the model could NOT see the unit when as it was and required a movment to be bale to see, then he would have been fine to deploy where he was.

if any unit can draw LoS to the position then it needs to be set up more than 18".

it is one of the lesser complicated rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Yonush wrote:
This came up in a game last week with DeathReaper. During my infiltrate placement I wanted to place a genestealer unit 100% out of LOS 12 inches away from a unit of Gray Hunters but I was visible to a allied Wave serpent 20 inches away. I ended up not placing there, but was the placement illegal?

Well your genestealer unit was not visible to the wave serpent with the guns facing forward, but if they were turned they could have seen your models.

Does this matter is the question, I have not been able to find the answer in the rules for this.

You have no allowance to alter the LOS of the models on the field when you set up infiltrators, so it does matter - if the vehicle is position such that it did NOT have LOS, then you would be able to set up using the 12" rule.

In this case though it doesn't matter, the serpent's turret "sees" 360° around. Or should the position the gun have matter?

Bob, that is the crux of the dilemma.

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:
In this case though it doesn't matter, the serpent's turret "sees" 360° around. Or should the position the gun have matter?

No, LOS is traced along the barrel. Cite permission to alter the LOS of the vehicle outside of the shooting phase.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:
In this case though it doesn't matter, the serpent's turret "sees" 360° around. Or should the position the gun have matter?

No, LOS is traced along the barrel. Cite permission to alter the LOS of the vehicle outside of the shooting phase.

Just look at BRB pg. 72, turret weapons always have a 360 LoS.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:
In this case though it doesn't matter, the serpent's turret "sees" 360° around. Or should the position the gun have matter?

No, LOS is traced along the barrel. Cite permission to alter the LOS of the vehicle outside of the shooting phase.

Just look at BRB pg. 72, turret weapons always have a 360 LoS.

No. Page 72 shows the example having a 360 degree Arc of Sight.
That is not the same thing as Line of Sight. Page 72 specifies that Line of Sight is determined by drawing a line along the weapons barrel when shooting.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:
In this case though it doesn't matter, the serpent's turret "sees" 360° around. Or should the position the gun have matter?

No, LOS is traced along the barrel. Cite permission to alter the LOS of the vehicle outside of the shooting phase.

Just look at BRB pg. 72, turret weapons always have a 360 LoS.

No. Page 72 shows the example having a 360 degree Arc of Sight.
That is not the same thing as Line of Sight. Page 72 specifies that Line of Sight is determined by drawing a line along the weapons barrel when shooting.

Your point is? It says you can turn the weapon to get line of sight. Nowhere does it say you can only do that in the shooting phase. If they couldn't, what about tau vehicles with the upgrade that allows them to overwatch.

Enter argument that I don't have to be more than 12 inches away of I don't see any of the enemy models eyeballs...

 d-usa wrote:
Enter argument that I don't have to be more than 12 inches away of I don't see any of the enemy models eyeballs...

You can turn the models...
Or:
But.. but.. tau can't shoot because their helmets don't have eyes, only flashy lights.

See



Also, this is too good not to post. LEGO Tau!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:
In this case though it doesn't matter, the serpent's turret "sees" 360° around. Or should the position the gun have matter?

No, LOS is traced along the barrel. Cite permission to alter the LOS of the vehicle outside of the shooting phase.

Just look at BRB pg. 72, turret weapons always have a 360 LoS.

No. Page 72 shows the example having a 360 degree Arc of Sight.
That is not the same thing as Line of Sight. Page 72 specifies that Line of Sight is determined by drawing a line along the weapons barrel when shooting.

Your point is? It says you can turn the weapon to get line of sight. Nowhere does it say you can only do that in the shooting phase. If they couldn't, what about tau vehicles with the upgrade that allows them to overwatch.

The point is that Arc of Sight is NOT the same thing of Line of Sight. And you only have permisison to alter your Line of Sight by pivoting the turret during shooting - is this shooting?

Cite permission.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:
In this case though it doesn't matter, the serpent's turret "sees" 360° around. Or should the position the gun have matter?

No, LOS is traced along the barrel. Cite permission to alter the LOS of the vehicle outside of the shooting phase.

Just look at BRB pg. 72, turret weapons always have a 360 LoS.

No. Page 72 shows the example having a 360 degree Arc of Sight.
That is not the same thing as Line of Sight. Page 72 specifies that Line of Sight is determined by drawing a line along the weapons barrel when shooting.

Your point is? It says you can turn the weapon to get line of sight. Nowhere does it say you can only do that in the shooting phase. If they couldn't, what about tau vehicles with the upgrade that allows them to overwatch.

It doesn't say that?

page 72 wrote:When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them at the target and then trace line of sight from each weapons' mounting and along its barrel

It says exactly that. It says when firing, move them. You've asserted that similar permission exists for any other purpose - cite it. Prove your statement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Yonush wrote:
This came up in a game last week with DeathReaper. During my infiltrate placement I wanted to place a genestealer unit 100% out of LOS 12 inches away from a unit of Gray Hunters but I was visible to a allied Wave serpent 20 inches away. I ended up not placing there, but was the placement illegal?

Well your genestealer unit was not visible to the wave serpent with the guns facing forward, but if they were turned they could have seen your models.

Does this matter is the question, I have not been able to find the answer in the rules for this.

You have no allowance to alter the LOS of the models on the field when you set up infiltrators, so it does matter - if the vehicle is position such that it did NOT have LOS, then you would be able to set up using the 12" rule.

That is what I had thought. Thanks for confirming.

The interpretation that vehicles' LoS during infiltration is the fixed forward sight of their weapons is horribly inconsistent and RaW impossible. You're all using a quote that's contingent on shooting to draw Line of Sight at all and claiming that this restriction applies to moving the weapon but not to sighting along it.

If you can sight down the barrel, you can point the barrel; it's the exact same permission structure, being literally two subsets of the same clause.

(Arguably, you'd best model your vehicles with crew if you want them to have LoS when not shooting.)

Isn't LOS recriprocal by definition?

From Webster's:
1: a line from an observer's eye to a distant point

2: the line between two points; specifically: the straight path between a transmitting antenna (as for radio or television signals) and a receiving antenna when unobstructed by the horizon

If a unit can see something, it can also be seen in return. Now there are instances where terrain can mask a weapon to make the return shooting impossible (i.e. when you can see the hull of a vehicle but the turret is blocked by a wall) but the vehicle and unit would still be in LOS of each other. RAI, I believe there is a clear intent that the infiltrating unit is supposed to be completely obscured from enemy forces to benefit from the closer deployment distance.

No, panzer, not at all. A hammerhead can draw LOS to a unit while not being able to be shot back at, because of where you can draw LOS to - if the hull is obscured completely then no LOS to the hull, but the barrel can see.

Pyrian - then vehicles have no LOS at all during set up.

Pyrian wrote:
If you can sight down the barrel, you can point the barrel; it's the exact same permission structure, being literally two subsets of the same clause.

Sure - vehicles cannot draw LoS other than to fire. I can agree with that interpretation.

(Arguably, you'd best model your vehicles with crew if you want them to have LoS when not shooting.)

Cite permission to draw LoS with them and I'd agree!
(hint: there is no such permission and you're inventing rules)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, panzer, not at all. A hammerhead can draw LOS to a unit while not being able to be shot back at, because of where you can draw LOS to - if the hull is obscured completely then no LOS to the hull, but the barrel can see.

Pyrian - then vehicles have no LOS at all during set up.

Nos, that's still a recripocal LOS. The barrel can see the unit, the unit can see the barrel. I also accounted for the possibility of parts of the model being obscured and that limiting fire (see the reference to turret obscured, hull visible above) that achieve masking effects on fires.

PanzerLeader wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, panzer, not at all. A hammerhead can draw LOS to a unit while not being able to be shot back at, because of where you can draw LOS to - if the hull is obscured completely then no LOS to the hull, but the barrel can see.

Pyrian - then vehicles have no LOS at all during set up.

Nos, that's still a recripocal LOS. The barrel can see the unit, the unit can see the barrel. I also accounted for the possibility of parts of the model being obscured and that limiting fire (see the reference to turret obscured, hull visible above) that achieve masking effects on fires.

Actually is not reciprocical LOS, because barrels are neither hull nor turret (see page 70). The rule even explicitly mentions that vehicle's gun barrels are ignored and seeing only them is not enough to draw LOS.

So Nos is correct on this one.

Luide wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, panzer, not at all. A hammerhead can draw LOS to a unit while not being able to be shot back at, because of where you can draw LOS to - if the hull is obscured completely then no LOS to the hull, but the barrel can see.

Pyrian - then vehicles have no LOS at all during set up.

Nos, that's still a recripocal LOS. The barrel can see the unit, the unit can see the barrel. I also accounted for the possibility of parts of the model being obscured and that limiting fire (see the reference to turret obscured, hull visible above) that achieve masking effects on fires.

Actually is not reciprocical LOS, because barrels are neither hull nor turret (see page 70). The rule even explicitly mentions that vehicle's gun barrels are ignored and seeing only them is not enough to draw LOS.

So Nos is correct on this one.

Not quite. The unit can still see the barrel and thus has LOS to the barrel. However, the vehicle is not an eligible target unless they can see the turret or hull itself. The full quote is "When a unit fires at a vehicle, it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.)." Thus, you can have LOS to a vehicle but not be eligible to shoot at it. Which brings me back to my base RAI point, which is I believe that there is a clear intent that if you can see the vehicle (especially if it would be something you can normally target like the hull), you count as being in its LOS and cannot benefit from the closer infiltrate difference.

Which, of coure, has nothing to do with the rules.

There is no "reciprocal" LOS here; you CANNOT target thte vehicle as you HAVE NO LOS. You do not have LOS to the vehicle. Thus, LOS is not reciprocal.

You agree but then state disagreement. Weird.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which, of coure, has nothing to do with the rules.

There is no "reciprocal" LOS here; you CANNOT target thte vehicle as you HAVE NO LOS. You do not have LOS to the vehicle. Thus, LOS is not reciprocal.

You agree but then state disagreement. Weird.

You can see the vehicle, but you cannot see the parts required to target the vehicle. Two different statements. LOS is by definition an unobstructed line from the observer to a point. The rules place additional restrictions on what you must be able to see to target a vehicle (i.e. the hull or the turret). It does not mean that you do not have LOS if you can see the antennas, barrels, etc.

To help explain what I'm talking about, look at the attached image. A vehicle in the "hide" position is the equivalent of being completely out of line of sight. A vehicle in the "turret down" position is in LOS, but not an eligible target for shooting (i.e. because the hull/turret are not visible). A vehicle at "hull down" is the equivalent of a vehicle being 25+% obscured and receiving a cover save. The entire section you're looking at does not use the term LOS once. It is titled "Shooting at Vehicles" and makes a requirement to see a specific part of the model for it to be an eligible target (the hull or turret). That is not the same as being completely out of LOS. A unit that can see the heavy stubber and crew member on top of a Leman Russ behind a hill certainly has line of sight to the Leman Russ. However, it is not an eligible target because they cannot fulfill the required targeting requirements of specifically seeing the hull/turret. In the same sense, if the Leman Russ does not move it would not be able to shoot back because the turret would still remain masked by the same hill.

Back to the OP, I think there is a clear intent that LOS to a vehicle (especially if its an eligible target) precludes you from benefitting from the infiltrate rule's closer deployment option.

Incorrect.

p8 in the actual rules wrote:Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying.In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings and tails, and antennae even though they are technically part of a model's body.

So if that's all you can see, you do not have LoS as the model is not visible.

p73 wrote:When a unit fires at a vehicle, it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.).

Similar to the above rule, if you can only see a gun barrel, it's ignored and the model is not visible.

Yay for actual rules.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

PanzerLeader wrote:
To help explain what I'm talking about, look at the attached image.

Your problem is that you're attaching real world concepts to a game defined term.
Stop doing that. Follow the rules.