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:
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.

I quoted that rule on page 73 above. You have no reason for implying that I didn't quote it or make an RAI argument based off it. Page 8 places general restrictions on LOS (i.e. parts that might be visible, but do not count for game purposes). You can argue that those restrictions also apply to vehicles which is fine. Especially considering that I've said my whole argument is RAI from the beginning.

So lets say you see the exposed legs of a space marine model. That model is considered in LOS for all purposes, yes? So if you see the hull of a vehicle, that vehicle is in LOS for all purposes as well. Vehicle weapons draw LOS from the mount and along the barrel. How does the vehicle hull draw LOS? Its not defined in RAW. So by RAI, I'd argue that if you have LOS to a vehicle, it has reciprocal LOS to you and you cannot benefit from the Infiltrate rules 12" deployment and must instead be outside 18" of the enemy models.

Here's a perfect solution, go and play a game in which you claim that you can infitrate 12" away from a vehicle that you can see and, if it turned it's turret, it can see you. Now see what you opponent, and probably every other person in the store, says about that.

PanzerLeader wrote:
[I quoted that rule on page 73 above. You have no reason for implying that I didn't quote it or make an RAI argument based off it. Page 8 places general restrictions on LOS (i.e. parts that might be visible, but do not count for game purposes). You can argue that those restrictions also apply to vehicles which is fine. Especially considering that I've said my whole argument is RAI from the beginning.

You said that LoS is reciprocal by definition. The rules disagree.

So lets say you see the exposed legs of a space marine model. That model is considered in LOS for all purposes, yes? So if you see the hull of a vehicle, that vehicle is in LOS for all purposes as well. Vehicle weapons draw LOS from the mount and along the barrel. How does the vehicle hull draw LOS? Its not defined in RAW. So by RAI, I'd argue that if you have LOS to a vehicle, it has reciprocal LOS to you and you cannot benefit from the Infiltrate rules 12" deployment and must instead be outside 18" of the enemy models.

Vehicle hulls don't draw LoS. Ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Here's a perfect solution, go and play a game in which you claim that you can infitrate 12" away from a vehicle that you can see and, if it turned it's turret, it can see you. Now see what you opponent, and probably every other person in the store, says about that.

And that has what to do with the actual rules?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Here's a perfect solution, go and play a game in which you claim that you can infitrate 12" away from a vehicle that you can see and, if it turned it's turret, it can see you. Now see what you opponent, and probably every other person in the store, says about that.

And that has what to do with the actual rules?

My point is that this a rule lawyer to the highest degree, and no one will want to play with you. It can't even be definitively proven that you are correct.

Edit: Also, where does it say that you can't turn the turret at any time?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Here's a perfect solution, go and play a game in which you claim that you can infitrate 12" away from a vehicle that you can see and, if it turned it's turret, it can see you. Now see what you opponent, and probably every other person in the store, says about that.

And that has what to do with the actual rules?

My point is that this a rule lawyer to the highest degree, and no one will want to play with you. It can't even be definitively proven that you are correct.

Actually it can be proven I'm correct, according to the rules. I've done that.
And who cares? We're discussing a rule. What people houserule is irrelevant.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Here's a perfect solution, go and play a game in which you claim that you can infitrate 12" away from a vehicle that you can see and, if it turned it's turret, it can see you. Now see what you opponent, and probably every other person in the store, says about that.

And that has what to do with the actual rules?

My point is that this a rule lawyer to the highest degree, and no one will want to play with you. It can't even be definitively proven that you are correct.

Actually it can be proven I'm correct, according to the rules. I've done that.
And who cares? We're discussing a rule. What people houserule is irrelevant.

No, you have yet to definitively prove that you can deploy within 12" of a vehicle when their is clear LoS.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Here's a perfect solution, go and play a game in which you claim that you can infitrate 12" away from a vehicle that you can see and, if it turned it's turret, it can see you. Now see what you opponent, and probably every other person in the store, says about that.

And that has what to do with the actual rules?

My point is that this a rule lawyer to the highest degree, and no one will want to play with you. It can't even be definitively proven that you are correct.

Actually it can be proven I'm correct, according to the rules. I've done that.
And who cares? We're discussing a rule. What people houserule is irrelevant.

No, you have yet to definitively prove that you can deploy within 12" of a vehicle when their is clear LoS.

There is no LoS. I've cited when vehicles are permitted to draw LoS and you have cited nothing that allows it at another time, despite being asked.

Since there is no permission to draw LoS except when firing, it cannot be done. It's almost like rules matter or something. Nah, that can't be it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Here's a perfect solution, go and play a game in which you claim that you can infitrate 12" away from a vehicle that you can see and, if it turned it's turret, it can see you. Now see what you opponent, and probably every other person in the store, says about that.

And that has what to do with the actual rules?

My point is that this a rule lawyer to the highest degree, and no one will want to play with you. It can't even be definitively proven that you are correct.

Actually it can be proven I'm correct, according to the rules. I've done that.
And who cares? We're discussing a rule. What people houserule is irrelevant.

No, you have yet to definitively prove that you can deploy within 12" of a vehicle when their is clear LoS.

There is no LoS. I've cited when vehicles are permitted to draw LoS and you have cited nothing that allows it at another time, despite being asked.

Since there is no permission to draw LoS except when firing, it cannot be done. It's almost like rules matter or something. Nah, that can't be it.

So infantry draws LoS from their eyes to the target when firing. By the same logic should we be able to infiltrate 12 inches behind infantry models if they are all facing the other direction?

Models can "see" through members of their own unit. So, no, you can't infiltrate behind a non vehicle like that.

Co'tor - eh, it has been proven, as no permission for a vehicle to draw LOS has been shown, outside of shooting. So it can't draw LOS for this purpose.

Panzer - your mistake was in assuming the rules are missing a rule allowing the hull to draw LOS. You then base your "RAI" claim on that flawed assumption. Oh, and when you say "by definition" I assumed you meant in game definition, as that's what we're discussing. Please be more clear next time, as it avoids duscussions about made up rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Models can "see" through members of their own unit. So, no, you can't infiltrate behind a non vehicle like that.

What if they are all facing the same way? Or a single crisis suit is facing that away?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Models can "see" through members of their own unit. So, no, you can't infiltrate behind a non vehicle like that.

But they cannot turn to draw LoS outside of the shooting phase. So as long as I don't have a single eyeball looking at me I can deploy within 12 inches of your unit even if I can see it.

If we are following the vehicle argument...

No, you missed what I was saying. They can draw LOS through their own heads, as you are told members of the same unit do not block LOS.

 d-usa wrote:
But they cannot turn to draw LoS outside of the shooting phase.

Non-vehicle models don't turn to face their targets in this edition. Depending on interpretation, this either means that they draw LOS through their own heads, or they have some undefined firearc to their front.

However, if we're going down the 'permission to draw LOS is in the shooting phase' route, this means that infiltrating models would never have to worry about enemy having LOS...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you missed what I was saying. They can draw LOS through their own heads, as you are told members of the same unit do not block LOS.

They draw line-of-sight from their eyeball. They are not "other members of the same unit". If we let that argument stand then I can take the barrel of the gun on the vehicle and draw LOS back through the vehicle (since members of the same unit don't block LoS) and keep you from infiltrating within 12 inches.

 d-usa wrote:
. They are not "other members of the same unit".

The rules allow them to draw LOS through members of the same unit. Not other members of the unit.

A given model can certainly be considered a member of his own unit.


The issue then comes down to the actual method of drawing LOS telling us to do so from behind the model. So while the rules seem to allow models to draw LOS through their own head, the actual mechanism for doing so makes it practically impossible... which leaves us with infantry models having an undefined arc of sight to their front, with players having to detemine for themselves how much peripheral vision their models would likely have. Which seems to go against the section int he movement rules that tells us that the model's facing won't matter for shooting...


What it boils down to is simply that the current LOS rules are a total mess.

If we let that argument stand then I can take the barrel of the gun on the vehicle and draw LOS back through the vehicle (since members of the same unit don't block LoS) and keep you from infiltrating within 12 inches.

This doesn't hold for vehicles, since vehicles do block their own LOS, even if other vehicles in the same unit don't.

 insaniak wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
But they cannot turn to draw LoS outside of the shooting phase.

Non-vehicle models don't turn to face their targets in this edition. Depending on interpretation, this either means that they draw LOS through their own heads, or they have some undefined firearc to their front.

However, if we're going down the 'permission to draw LOS is in the shooting phase' route, this means that infiltrating models would never have to worry about enemy having LOS...

Where are Infantry restricted to drawing LoS only during shooting?
Certainly not page 8.

rigeld2 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
But they cannot turn to draw LoS outside of the shooting phase.

Non-vehicle models don't turn to face their targets in this edition. Depending on interpretation, this either means that they draw LOS through their own heads, or they have some undefined firearc to their front.

However, if we're going down the 'permission to draw LOS is in the shooting phase' route, this means that infiltrating models would never have to worry about enemy having LOS...

Where are Infantry restricted to drawing LoS only during shooting?
Certainly not page 8.

Where do Infantry have permission to check LOS outside of the shooting phase (step 2: choose a target) and the assault phase (step 1: declare charge)? I don't see anything under "Deploy Forces" that allows you to check LOS for any models/units during deployment.

Infiltrate requires you to check. But vehicles are restricted solely to shooting.

d-usa - as pointed out, vehicles explicitly DO block their own LOS, as stated in the vehicle rules. So no, the same trick does not work, like i've said all along....

rigeld2 wrote:
Infiltrate requires you to check. But vehicles are restricted solely to shooting.

If Infiltrate requires you to check, then it overrules the normal restrictions on when you can check LOS.

Stormbreed wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Infiltrate requires you to check. But vehicles are restricted solely to shooting.

If Infiltrate requires you to check, then it overrules the normal restrictions on when you can check LOS.

No. You have a permission and a restriction. Since there's no conflict, restriction wins.

Even if you were correct, however, that would still not give permission to move the guns and point them wherever you wanted.

What I'm not sure of is where the assumption that explict permission of drawing LoS during shooting phase implies restriction to do so during any other moment comes from. Don't have BRB at hand right now, will browse it later.

Anyways, practical question: does the rule interpretation in question means that vechicles are supposed to have infantry support (acting as "sentinels") as long as their owner don't want to face enemy units infiltrating within 12'?

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Infiltrate requires you to check. But vehicles are restricted solely to shooting.

If Infiltrate requires you to check, then it overrules the normal restrictions on when you can check LOS.

No. You have a permission and a restriction. Since there's no conflict, restriction wins.

Even if you were correct, however, that would still not give permission to move the guns and point them wherever you wanted.

I think this an exception to the normal rules, as infiltrate is a case of a special rule.

The BRB spells out how to handle exceptions.

EXCEPTIONS
While playing Warhamme40k ,you'll occasionally
discover exceptions to the general turn sequence laid out
here.
When
this happens, the exceptional rule will contain all the
information you need to resolve it.

So based on that we know we can ignore that models actually don't have permission to check LOS in the deployment phase, but Infiltrate tells us in this exception they do.

 Barrogh wrote:
What I'm not sure of is where the assumption that explict permission of drawing LoS during shooting phase implies restriction to do so during any other moment comes from. Don't have BRB at hand right now, will browse it later.

Anyways, practical question: does the rule interpretation in question means that vechicles are supposed to have infantry support (acting as "sentinels") as long as their owner don't want to face enemy units infiltrating within 12'?

A restriction should be written as such, a permission to do something at point A without anything else, is not a restriction to be able to do the same at point B. However normally you could not do the something at point B anyway, as there is no permission to do so.

So not having permission to do something at point B, is not arestriction rules wise - just a lack of permission.

However. Arc of fire and vehicle LOS being a totally different concept to models LOS rules wise feels like you should have to litterally trace LOS down the gun. Even checking LOS to Infiltrators doesn't seem to include the permission of altering the LOS of weaponry - which essentially is what you will do. The vehicles LOS is traced from the barrel, moving the barrel changes the LOS. Rotation is more like a 'possible' LOS for the vehicle.

Could someone quote the infiltrate rule quick. I don't have my BRB and I would like to check something.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Could someone quote the infiltrate rule quick. I don't have my BRB and I would like to check something.

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 line of sight
to them. This includes in a building
(see pag e l2l), as long as the building
is more than 12 " from any enemy
unit. Alternatively, they can be set up
anywhere on the table more than 18"
from any enemy unit, even in plain sight.

Stormbreed wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Could someone quote the infiltrate rule quick. I don't have my BRB and I would like to check something.

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 line of sight
to them. This includes in a building
(see pag e l2l), as long as the building
is more than 12 " from any enemy
unit. Alternatively, they can be set up
anywhere on the table more than 18"
from any enemy unit, even in plain sight.

Thanks!

Oh well, I was wrong. I thought it just said withing line of sight of an enemy unit, meaning both people's LoS.

Pg 72 only describes how to draw line of sight when firing the vehicle's weapon. There is no permission or instruction on how determine line of sight from a vehicle when not firing its weapon. The infiltrators rule has us check if an enemy unit can draw line of sight to our models.
You can take this to mean to check as if the vehicle was firing its weapon.

If you do then the weapon can rotate in its arc to face the infiltrator.

If you do not then the vehicle can never draw line of sight during deployment and infiltrators may be set up 13 inches in front of its barrel.