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.

It has often been the case when I will have a long "conga line" of conscripts across the entire table.  All 50 of them.  Then one unit will get into h2h with them on say the far left table edge.  Then the opponent will claim that the entire unit is h2h and therefore anything behind them cannot shoot through the "combat" even though only a few models are actually engaged.

When speaking with one of my buddies he said that was BS I said what to you mean Ive been playing over a year and that is what everyone tells me?  He said check this out.  He opened the book to page 20 and quoted:

MODELS engaged or locked in close combat through them up to the hieight of the PARTICIPATING MODELS.

 

End of story.  Only the MODELS  that are acutally participating in the combat block line of sight.  It does not say unit it says models.  READ 'EM and WEEP. 

 

THoughts?  Comments?  

One thought is that you if your Conscripts did not break and run, then they and the other unit that began the assault would have to pile in. That is basically up to 12" of movement counting both units trying to get in b2b with each other. I don't see how you would still have a 'conga' line after the initial assault.

BTW, after seeing your two posts on YMTC, I can now see why you are not happy with demonbombs. A big Conscript unit is a sure fire way to allow the demons to get into assault the turn they are summoned.

First of all.  My line of conscripts is 6 feet across.  So 12 incches does not matter.  The rules clearly say, that ONLY MODELS PARTICIPATING in the combat block line of sight.  Not the UNIT.  So next time I play I will shoot through anyone that is not within the 2 inch threat zone or PARTICIPATING in the combat AS THE RULES SAY.  I will not move foward in the game and if the oponnent refuses then I will take it as a forefit.  Unless someone can prove to me somewhere else that models NOT participating in the combat block line of sight.  Even though it says MODELS not unit in the rules. 

Let me also add that I put commissar Gaunt in my conscript platoon of 50 so they will NEVER run until you kill all 50. 

The people you play with are cheats.

Have you only just read the rulebook? You should buy/borrow a copy.

...until you kill all 50 or kill commissar Gaunt by allocating attacks on him (since he is an independent character).

Play the game, not the rules.  You shouldn't need gimmick squads and special characters to win.

Actually, you answered your own question when you posted the rule. Models engaged or locked block LOS. Even if only 6 of those conscripts are fighting on the turn they get charged, the entire unit is locked until one side is massacred or falls back. Read the assault rules pertaining to being locked if you still need clarification.

Why are you making a conga line anyway? Most armies fail their priority tests only like once out of every 30 tries, so are those conscripts really drawing away enough fire from the rest of your army to justify their points? I could see if you wanted to use them as a HTH unit, but spreading them out like that dilutes their attacks to the point that they would no longer do anything but die horribly.

Posted By Doctor Thunder on 11/04/2006 8:49 AM
Why are you making a conga line anyway? Most armies fail their priority tests only like once out of every 30 tries, so are those conscripts really drawing away enough fire from the rest of your army to justify their points? I could see if you wanted to use them as a HTH unit, but spreading them out like that dilutes their attacks to the point that they would no longer do anything but die horribly.

Isn't that waht Guardsmen do anyway? Do nothing but die horribly?

Smart Alex- Umm, ok. So, are you dictating to us (total strangers) how you are going to behave towards others who don't agree with your rulings? Why are you even posting in YMTC if you already have all the answers and refuse to hear anyone else's interpretations of the rulings? Wait a minute, did you used to post on the GW forums?

...until you kill all 50 or kill commissar Gaunt by allocating attacks on him (since he is an independent character).

That’s why I don’t put him in b2b so he cannot be targeted.

You shouldn't need gimmick squads and special characters to win.

Secondly I do not need special characters to win I have only used him once but plan to do so for now on.  If I did need SC I would play marines or chaos.

Actually, you answered your own question when you posted the rule. Models engaged or locked block LOS. Even if only 6 of those conscripts are fighting on the turn they get charged, the entire unit is locked until one side is massacred or falls back. Read the assault rules pertaining to being locked if you still need clarification.

The assault rules say that unit is locked in hand to hand .  However why then do they not say units locked in hand to hand in the line of site section?  I think this leaves a loophole in the rules that is subject to interpretation.  I would expect most people to say they do block line of site because most people play armies who would benefit from that.  So it seems like warhammer 40 K is a numbers game after all.  The highest number of players with a specific style control the rules.  If you are in a room full of marine or chaos players (Unless they are designed to be shooty) and say this they will gang up and say the asssault section is correct but the LOS section is wrong.  After all ive only been playing a little over a year, what do I know?

Why are you making a conga line anyway? Most armies fail their priority tests only like once out of every 30 tries, so are those conscripts really drawing away enough fire from the rest of your army to justify their points? I could see if you wanted to use them as a HTH unit, but spreading them out like that dilutes their attacks to the point that they would no longer do anything but die horribly

If they are fearless they will tie up their assault units for a while.  Leaving them spread out means less can die on a charge than if they are all bunched together.  I’ve only really spread them across like 3 or 4 times.  It worked ok.  Usually I bunch them together to maximize attacks like you said.  Its only since I started using gaunt that I really want to give the conga line idea a go. But I have yet to try it with gaunt since I just started using him.

Posted By smart_alex on 11/04/2006 4:32 PM

The assault rules say that unit is locked in hand to hand .  However why then do they not say units locked in hand to hand in the line of site section?  I think this leaves a loophole in the rules that is subject to interpretation.  I would expect most people to say they do block line of site because most people play armies who would benefit from that.  So it seems like warhammer 40 K is a numbers game after all.  The highest number of players with a specific style control the rules.  If you are in a room full of marine or chaos players (Unless they are designed to be shooty) and say this they will gang up and say the asssault section is correct but the LOS section is wrong.  After all ive only been playing a little over a year, what do I know?

 

This is not the way to ask for people's help. Here at Dakka we go by RAW, not personal gain.

I now see that they do block LOS.

"The assault rules say that unit is locked in hand to hand" (your words). So the whole unit is locked.

"Models engaged or LOCKED in close combat through them up to the hieight of the participating models" (from the rulebook, quoted by you).

So units locked in close combat block LOS. Is there anything there you disagree with?

If only we could get GW to open the forums again...

if only you knew that conscript platoons are made up of several squads, each maxing out at 10 men.

you should use a better example of a large squad...like a squad of chosen that can be over a hundred models.

Next tme dont use such A big squad, you seem to want all the adv of Conscripts but none of the disadvantages.

Or your fighting serpahim or raptors who hit and run away at the end of your turn...locked is a realative term.

Alex,

You are, in a way, correct because of the mention of 'models' but not 'units'. Units are considered to be 'locked' and models are considered to be 'engaged', and your quoted rules mention only 'models that are locked or engaged' (meaning there is no such thing as a 'locked model'), so I can see where you are coming from. Though I daresay that the intention here is far clearer than other grey areas in the rulebook: if the model is part of a locked unit, they block line of sight.

Reminds me a bit too much about the Pete Haines quote about easter eggs, though.

what was that pete haines comment out of curiousity?

"As a rule of thumb, the designers do not hide "easter eggs" in the rules. If clever reading is required to unlock some sort of hidden option, then it is most likely just a result of wishful thinking."

As discussed, the reference to "models engaged or locked in combat" is pretty clear. It could have been clearer, since it's usually units which are spoken of as being "locked", as opposed to individual models, but it's not exactly a stretch to deduce that models in a locked unit are locked themselves.

Remember its supposed to be a swirling mellee so the figures be they engaged or locked are supposed to be moving around. what I meen is that all are involved.

This is a ridiculous argument that cannot be supported through a logical argument. The term "locked model(s)" is used several times in the rulebook.

While the definition of "locked' is indeed directed only at the unit level, it is a natural progression to say that the models in a locked unit are also considered "locked" (as in, they are "locked in combat" .

This would be like saying since only "units" become "pinned" the actual models in a pinned unit aren't considered to be "pinned". . .which is rubbish. Models in a pinned unit are also considered pinned.


Similarly, the models in a locked unit are also locked models.

This would be like saying since only "units" become "pinned" the actual models in a pinned unit aren't considered to be "pinned". . .which is rubbish. Models in a pinned unit are also considered pinned.


Similarly, the models in a locked unit are also locked models.

I dont think its the same thing. If a unit is pinned it cannot move or perform any other action. If a model is locked then it it blocks line of sight. I belive this is the wording. The UNIT is pinned. Although I might be wrong.

If people would stop for a second and actually visualize what is going on on the battle field does it make sense to say there is combat going on when only a few models 3 feet away are engaged. What combat? where I don't see any? What at the far/opposite end of the table? Even if what you are saying is true it would be a rule that makes no sense. So then are we saying it was the intention of GW to make this the case.

Why then are people saying that models means unit in the LOS section. Why not use the opposite and say unit means models in the Assault section.

1. If one or more models in a unit is engaged in close combat, the entire unit is said to be locked. "The assault rules say that unit is locked in hand to hand". Your quote.
2. The unit means all the models in the squad, so the whole unit block LOS, as the rules state that "models engaged or locked in close combat through them up to the height of the participating models". The rulebook quote.
3. There are lots of things in this game that don't make sense, but we're talking about a fantasy world with orks, daemons, and space elves. So deal with it. We cannot say what the designers intended, only what they have written. And in this case, RAW state that any unit with at least one model engaged in combat blocks LOS.

1. If one or more models in a unit is engaged in close combat, the entire unit is said to be locked. "The assault rules say that unit is locked in hand to hand". Your quote.

I would suppose so but I still do not understand why they said MODELS in the line of sight section. It's like a bunch of different people wrote the rulebook and didn't read what each other was writing.

Even if this is this case which by the way is how I was always told to play it, it is a broken rule. I am unsure. Ill email GW about it.

They said 'models' in the LOS section because it is the models that block LOS, not the unit. That's just the way LOS works.

Posted By smart_alex on 11/06/2006 4:15 PM
1. If one or more models in a unit is engaged in close combat, the entire unit is said to be locked. "The assault rules say that unit is locked in hand to hand". Your quote.

I would suppose so but I still do not understand why they said MODELS in the line of sight section. It's like a bunch of different people wrote the rulebook and didn't read what each other was writing.

Even if this is this case which by the way is how I was always told to play it, it is a broken rule. I am unsure. Ill email GW about it.

Who cares why? You can spend years of your life wondering why something was written the way it was. The fact is, it *was* written that way.

By indicating locked "models" it means you can still theoretically draw LOS in between the models locked in combat as opposed to saying the locked "unit" blocks LOS which would mean drawing LOS in between the individual models in a unit would be a no-no.

 

Posted By smart_alex on 11/06/2006 4:15 PM
1. If one or more models in a unit is engaged in close combat, the entire unit is said to be locked. "The assault rules say that unit is locked in hand to hand". Your quote.

I would suppose so but I still do not understand why they said MODELS in the line of sight section. It's like a bunch of different people wrote the rulebook and didn't read what each other was writing.

Even if this is this case which by the way is how I was always told to play it, it is a broken rule. I am unsure. Ill email GW about it.

How is it in any way broken? GW won't tell you any different than what we have. There's no point in making an issue over a different word, because it doesn't affect the way the game is played, and the rule has been working for two years.

smart alex said: "I still do not understand why they said MODELS in the line of sight section."

Posted By yakface on 11/06/2006 5:47 PM

By indicating locked "models" it means you can still theoretically draw LOS in between the models locked in combat as opposed to saying the locked "unit" blocks LOS which would mean drawing LOS in between the individual models in a unit would be a no-no.

 

I have an answer for you smart_alex, and yakface is incorrect in the above quotation.

Page 38:  Models in b2b or within 2" of b2b are ENGAGED, the unit those models belong to are LOCKED.

Page 20:  "Models engaged or locked in close combat block line of sight through them up to the height of the participating models.  This is where the model's height matters (see page 7).  If the model doing the spotting, or the model being spotted, is taller than the tallest model in the close combat then the line of sight is not blocked."

Page 7: There are three sizes of models--1) small, 2) standard, and 3) large.  Almost everything is a standard target, but rippers and scarab swarms are examples of small, monstrous creatures and vehicles are large.  It continues: "Initially, virtually every model you use will fall into the middle [size 2] category.  Be aware though that when you want to see over some terrain features or an ongoing close combat, these heights will become relevant." 

Smart_Alex:  Unanswered question:  is a given unit of anything always composed of models of the same height category?  I think so.  Under what circumstances can a unit with mixed height characteristics be formed (a size 3 Independant Char joins a unit of size 2 troops)?  I can't think of any.  BUT:  If my unit of spinegaunts (size 2) is partially on top of a size 3 hill then the MODELS that are on the hill count as being size 3 themselves.  If the CC is spread out over such terrain then the CC will involve models of different heights, and THEREFORE it is not the entire generic locked unit that blocks LOS but only the certain models of certain height categories.  (Reference the rulebook FAQ online, under SHOOTING.)

Yakface:  you can NOT draw LOS through any windows that open between individual models of units locked in CC.  The CC is "a swirling melee of troops leaping, spinning, hacking and slashing at one another (p. 38)."  It is closed off on the horizontal plane.  It is effectively a piece of area terrain of height equal to the height of the tallest model in the CC.  It is however possible to see OVER the CC (just like you can see over some area terrain), in circumstances described above.

Respectfully submitted --Ferro

Posted By Ferro on 12/05/2006 9:14 PM
Unanswered question:  is a given unit of anything always composed of models of the same height category?

A close combat doesn't always involve only  unit from each side...

Posted By Ferro on 12/05/2006 9:14 PM
 THEREFORE it is not the entire generic locked unit that blocks LOS but only the certain models of certain height categories.  (Reference the rulebook FAQ online, under SHOOTING.)

This is incorrect, I'm afraid. Rulebook, page 20, models in a close combat block LOS up to the height of the participating models.

If there is a Size 3 model in the combat, all of the models in the combat block LOS as Size 3.

Posted By Ferro on 12/05/2006 9:14 PM   
Yakface:  you can NOT draw LOS through any windows that open between individual models of units locked in CC.  The CC is "a swirling melee of troops leaping, spinning, hacking and slashing at one another (p. 38)."  It is closed off on the horizontal plane.  It is effectively a piece of area terrain of height equal to the height of the tallest model in the CC.

An assumption that is not actually backed up by rules. Can you find a rule that states that a 'swirling melee' blocks LOS?

Page 20 again: "Models engaged or locked in close combat block LOS..."

Not "The close combat blocks LOS"... just the models. Which DOES allow you to shoot between them, regardless of the fluffy descriptions given of what the combat would look like if the toy soldiers could move.