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.

Picking Targets tells us:

First, you must pick the target units for the attacks. In order to attack an enemy unit, an enemy model from that unit must be in range of the attacking weapon (i.e. within the maximum distance, in inches, of the Range listed for the weapon making the attack), and visible to the attacker (if unsure, stoop down and get a look from behind the attacking model to see if the target is visible). For the purposes of determining visibility, an attacking model can see through other models in its unit.

Doesn't this mean that I should be getting down behind the head (or other visual apparatus) to get the model's point-of-view for eligible targets? If so, then if it's facing away from a potential target then it can't attack the target.

Note that it says to look from "behind the attacking model", so you need to establish the difference between "front" and "back" - might be hard for some monsters???? This also implies some sort of "forward arc" of, say, 180 degrees.

I like the idea of preventing models attacking units behind them, but hate the idea of getting out my protractor to see if there is a LOS.

Anyone else been down this particular rathole?

This is not a rat hole you want to go down. The game has neither facings nor fields of vision. Facings are one thing, but fields of vision are quite another.

If you go this route, you'll get people saying things like...

"Well, your horse's rider only has a 180 degree field of vision (assuming better than average peripheral vision), but the horse has a wider field of vision since it's prey animal and has eyes on the side of its head. You can attack with the horse, but not the rider."

Realistically, assume the models can see 360 degrees. This is represented in game by not having a facing requirement. This is represented in fluff by the fact that a warrior would probably look around for targets as he rampages forth and stabs with his spear.

I agree Kriswall, but wanted to explore the possibility that they might have been being subtly specific in the way they wrote the rule.

Snapshot wrote:
I agree Kriswall, but wanted to explore the possibility that they might have been being subtly specific in the way they wrote the rule.

I think the went the vague, common sense route for this rule set. I.e., work it out with your friends in a way that makes sense and if you have fun, you made the right call. For organized play, a TO or judge will make the decision for you if you can't agree.