LOS through models, 0 Attack models, No retreatin!

[njm3]

Ok, these came up tonight in a 'ard boys tourney, and as I got called a frackin' retard and other bad things by one of those annoying kibitzers for being *just* so stupid as to not *even know* the *basic rules*, I'll ask here, just to make sure my brain' didn't fall out, which apparently it may have.

 

 

Blue team guy shooting at red team squad. The red team target squad is _completely_ behind an intervening red team (enemy) troop squad. Seriously, unless your laser pointer burns through models, you can't get true LOS to the target squad. No portion of no bodies or nothin'

 

I said "no shot". Everyone else in the store (including the guy running the tournament) responded with "no, only vehicles and monstrous creatures block LOS. You can shoot through squads. That is the games workshop rule. You are an idiot" (among other comments).

 

What?

 

Second question:

 

Mephistion's transfixing gaze. Models in BTB with him get one less attack. Some models with a base 1 attack in BTB with him. "No attacks" I go. "Wrong, you can't have less than one attack" everyone (in a chorus) yelled back at me.

 

What?

 

Third question:

 

Two fearless characters and a fearless squad (all joined together at the beginning of the round/turn/game) assault an enemy squad. The enemy squad wins the fight by X number of wounds. No retreat kicks in. "Roll X saves for each char and for the squad" (three sets of saves... X for the first char, X for the second char, X for the third char). "No" says I, "tis but X wounds for the reformed whole during combat resolution." "You are of questionable parentage" the store replies. Seriously, the whole store.

 

Huh?

 

And a random freebie question:

 

Force weapons now have no special rules against demons of any flavour? Flavor. Flavious... Flavial. Flavioli.

 

Yes, I did some archive searchin' and no, I didn't find any answers. Could be bad search-fu though.

[smhf15]

Ok, here's my take on this.

 

1. They're making this up. All it says on pg 16 of the BRB is that you need to draw true LOS in order to fire. Granted, it's alot easier to not be able to dray true LOS is a take is in the way than if there was an infantry model. If they couldn't see anything, then there should have been no shot. Even then, only the models shooting that could actually see you models would be the only one that could shoot. If 1 guy out of a 10 man squad could see you, only he could shoot, not the whole squad.

 

2. The psychic power in the BA dex says that an enemy model in B2B with Mephistion get's one less attack. It does not say in the FAQ that you may not have less than one attack. It also doesn't say in the psychic power rule that a model will have at least one attack, as is the case elsewhere, the Dire Avengers' defend ability for example. I'd say as a case of RAW, it is 1 less attack regardless, as that is what the psychic power does. Also codex overrides BRB, unless they can show you where it says that a unit may never have less than 1 attack. By the way, on page 6 it doesn't say a model always has at least one attack or may never be reduced to 0 attacks.

 

3. You got hosed. Page 49 BRB, "Once all attacks have been rosolved, these characters are once again treated as normal members of the unit they have joined (from determining assault results onwards)". GW may be guilty of some poor rule writing, but this one is black and white, you don't get triple wounds for combat resolution because they had the chance to allocate wounds directly to an IC. After all, if the IC killed 2 guys and took no wounds, even though your squad lost a total of 4 guys and theirs only lost 3, you wouldn't claim you won combat would you? If you go by their thinking then because your I C is a seperate unit they also lost combat and your IC won.

 

Sorry to hear about what happened. Next time if there's a question, have them show you where in the rulebook their pulling it from. I've found one of the worst problems with 40K is that people tend to either not read all the rules or ,because of a misunderstanding, use the rule improperly, then it becomes ingrained dogma and they can't find where in the rules it justifies what they were saying. The best way to fight this is to have a rulebook handy and have an idea where the rule is so you can whip it out then they have to justify what they're doing rather than you being on the defensive for doing things the right way.

 

Striker

[njm3]

Kinda hard to argue rules in a time limited tournament environment with everyone in the store who regularly plays against each other all playing the same way, and the guy you are playing against is the guy running the tourney ;)

 

Not that my play is perfect, I make a zillion dumb, annoying, and sometimes outright wrong moves since I "book know" the rules but not down-in-the-trenches-when-the-blood-is-up able to back up with a page number know the rules (my job has very little time off to play and the closest game store is 45 minutes away). And (today) I got called a slow player for asking questions anyway, and couldn't call a time out when faced with a mind warping "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" Mugatu moment. Was a generally crummy day anyway, but such is life.

[smhf15]

Yeah, I can understand the pressure to get on with the game. But hey, if it's going to be a big deal for you're game and you think you're right, get it straightened out. There isn't any reason why they should be able to brake the rules because they don't want to do things the right way or help someone to learn the game better if they are correct. Especially when this "delays" that you're bringing up are things that could potentially turn the game drastically against you.

 

As long are you aren't trying to delay the game to keep them from being able to get their stuff done then there shouldn't be any problem. You're simply trying to learn to be a better player and they have all been in a similar position so they shouldn't hold it against you. Besides, there's probably plenty of guys there who still had some stuff from 4th still hanging around in their minds, so every one benefits from further exposure to the rules rather than just winging it.

[maniclurker]

On questions 1 and 3, you were in the right.

 

However, on question 2, I'm sure that it says that a model can have no less than 1 base attack. I can't remember where, and I don't have the book on me. I'll look it up, and try to find this question later.

 

All in all, these are the kinds of problems faced everywhere. The solution is simple. Once you find the answer to any of your problems in the book, mark it with page markers. Also, use the glossary in the back to quickly find the section. Learning what to look for in the glossary takes a little time, because you basically have to learn how to think like Jervis Johnson (or whoever wrote the rules), but it's doable over time.

 

I never, ever, ever listen to what anyone else says about anything. If there is a dispute, I take it to the book. In fact, I hardly trust anyone when they say that this unit can do this, and that unit can do that. It's a very good idea to get intimate with the rulebook, your codex, everyone else's codex, and most of the FAQ's. A working knowledge of all that information will make you a much stronger player; as well as empower you to point out bullcrap and defend your arguments.

[werewolf_nr]

Sorry to hear about the bad game. Take solace in the fact that the winners will be in for a rude surprise in the regionals.

[WarpSpawn]

However, on question 2, I'm sure that it says that a model can have no less than 1 base attack. I can't remember where, and I don't have the book on me. I'll look it up, and try to find this question later.

 

To the best of my knowledge, there is no rule in the BRB that says this. It looks like it is specific to individual special rules. The Tyranid lash whip for example, this explicitly states it is a minimum of 1. Transfixing Gaze includes no such limitation, so it can reasonably be assumed no such limitation exists.

 

 

In fact, the page on characteristics (6 I think) clearly states that a stat can be modified by special rules to any value from 0-10, so 0 is possible.

[King_Pash]

Ok, as a BA player I can easily clear up the second question for you. Memphiston's Gaze only reduces the attacks from ONE enemy model. To quote:

 

"This power is used at the start of either player's assault phase. If successful, then any enemy model in base contact with the Librarian fight with one less attack for the duration of that Assault phase"

 

This was the change in the recent update of our codex and if that guy says otherwise smack him in the face with a fish. People should know their codex off by heart, especially BA players. :teehee:

[TheReclusiarch]

Wait.. so if I line up Squad A infront of Squad B (covering Squad B completely), then the enemy wont be able to shoot through Squad A to hit Squad B?

 

I guess this wont be a very common scenario though, since not even big Warriors can -totally- cover units like gaunts and genestealers behind them.

[njm3]

Memphiston's Gaze only reduces the attacks from ONE enemy model.

 

This was the change in the recent update of our codex and if that guy says otherwise smack him in the face with a fish. People should know their codex off by heart, especially BA players.

 

Uh... before you go hitting people with a fish, read the entry again and tell me what language it is in.

 

"... then any enemy model... fight with one less attack"

 

You read that as singular in all cases. I read it as plural, badly formed, and borderline nonsense, but I don't threaten people with tuna to enforce my reading nor think less of those who disagree with me. That is the whole point of this thread , not to point out how dumb people are, but that perfectly reasonable people can have wildly divergent views based on what they actually and honestly think is the absolute and utter Truth as spoken on High. Well, and the fact that I needed some confirmation I hadn't gone completely insane by taking too many crazy pills.

 

It is only when the fanaticism kicks in, the overblown defense based not on logic or reason, but a perceived attack on core self-worth and values that things get out of hand. Which happens far far too often when those with an over-investment in emotion/time/energy/effort play a game with rules written in somewhat standard and not overly precise english.

 

It isn't that my opponents were wrong (which frankly I felt they were) but that they absolutely would not take any viewpoint or reasoning that differed in any way, period, and anyone who didn't agree with them was, in their view, ignorant and stupid and they would tell you so, using foul language. They didn't use fish though, which was nice.

 

And you didn't answer whether a model with one base attack that is transfixed has 0 attacks, which was the original question anyway :)

 

edit: Also, compare the Gift of Slaanesh Transfixing Gaze wording with that of the BA 'dex. The Daemon Codex is absolutely clear that only one model is affected by the daemon transfixing gaze, by using different wording than the BA codex.

 

Wait.. so if I line up Squad A infront of Squad B (covering Squad B completely), then the enemy wont be able to shoot through Squad A to hit Squad B?

 

Yes. And the fact that is a question is what had me totally suprised and caught off-guard. Think of a double stacked row of terminators and someone shooting at a single nurgling base behind. No laser could draw a line from the attacker's head to the target nurgling.

 

The whole "sharks that can't draw LOS with frickin' lasers from their heads" at the target squad issue is actually not that rare when only one target model is poking around a vehicle or piece of cover and there is a squad between the shark and target. Sure, open field with two squads advancing it would be rather unusual to not be able to draw LOS to some part of at least one fig from one model of the firing squad.

 

edit: And just so I don't seem like an argumentative 5 year old who doesn't have basic language skills and doesn't know what words mean (Inconceivable!), my job, 50+ hours a week, is to argue semantics and language with highly intelligent people with (sometimes) large amounts of money at stake. Seriously, thats what I do for a living. I say that, not to talk down with an aura of authority, but to show I'm not throwing out positions and interpretations just to be a horse's rump. Anyway, back to the B&C! /edit

[WarpSpawn]

I'd have to completely agree with you on the LoS one as well.

 

In my first game of 5th ed, this came up. My opponent was not initially convinced but a quick check of the rulebook and it was pretty clear.

 

And to prove that such an occurance does not have to be all that rare, the blocking unit was simply a mob of ork boyz, I think about 12 strong, standing between 2 pieces of terrain. The modest bulk of the orks bodies, along with all the weapons and limbs sticking out was sufficient to leave no doubt that they blocked LoS.

 

The only exception to LoS, when it comes to intervening models in general, is the shooter's own unit. Other specific exceptions may exist though, like swarms for example.

[Brother Nicolas]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no rule in the BRB that says this. It looks like it is specific to individual special rules. The Tyranid lash whip for example, this explicitly states it is a minimum of 1. Transfixing Gaze includes no such limitation, so it can reasonably be assumed no such limitation exists.

 

Correct 90% of GW stuff now has that limitation on the min of one attack but there are still stuff out there that allows no attacks and unless QA'ed they get no attacks. Also someone had talked about new FAQ.. the FAQ's depend on what GW site you go to becuase not all are compleatly updated some are very much behind the times saddly.

[King_Pash]

njm3 - too many words to try and get your point across. That's why I only answered the BA-related question as I didn't have time to sift through what you said, translate it into a scenario in my head, and figur out how the rules work with that.

 

Anyway, to answer that question, it used to be clearly "any enemy model" (as in singular) takes a Leadership test. Then it got updated to "any enemy model" (still singular) automatically (upon a successful Warp-test) reduces attacks by one. Since there is no limitation on this rule I would play it (as a BA player) as reducing attacks even if it goes to 0. If in doubt, roll-off. It will undoubtedly take less time than arguing or trying to get your opinion across.

 

P.S. It's the English version posted on GW-UK site a month ago or so. -_-

[Praeger]

Simple answer to all of these problems.

 

Turn around and ask them for proof.

 

Since they cant, then they are wrong. If they can, then there you go.

 

But in these cases it looks like they have been thinking of 4th editiong when they made their "remarks"

[Mordekiem]

Simple answer to all of these problems.

 

Turn around and ask them for proof.

 

Since they cant, then they are wrong. If they can, then there you go.

 

But in these cases it looks like they have been thinking of 4th editiong when they made their "remarks"

What if they say the same thing right back atcha? :P

 

And I've had rules that I knew were correct, but could not find the reference until later. And vice versa.

[Praeger]

Like I said, if they can find the rule, then their right, if not, then your right.

[SeattleDV8]

Hmmm I missed this before, did they change Transfixing Gaze? In the PDA I have (2007) it calls for a LD test and if failed no attacks in assault and auto hits on all BTB models?

[King_Pash]

Hmmm I missed this before, did they change Transfixing Gaze? In the PDA I have (2007) it calls for a LD test and if failed no attacks in assault and auto hits on all BTB models?

 

Yeah, they've updated it slightly. Tbh, the only thing changed is Memphy's Gaze. The current version is on the GW-UK site if you eant it but tbh it's not worth the wated paper to print it again just for that. :P

[nighthawks]

Hmmm I missed this before, did they change Transfixing Gaze? In the PDA I have (2007) it calls for a LD test and if failed no attacks in assault and auto hits on all BTB models?

the gaze line states "any model ... attack with" so the verb (to attack) has the wrong tense or number OR the noun (model) is the wrong number.

 

so either "any model" "attack with", or "any model" [will] "attack with", or "any model" "attack with"

 

2:1 it's a single model based on the above, but it's just gramatical observations and badly used statistics, so who knows what GW intended to be correct. the FAQ has a single paragraph in total, unrelated to this...

[SeattleDV8]

thanks as I said I missed the change.

[King_Pash]

No probs buddy, love to help anyone with BA-related questions. :)

[Apogee]

I'd have to completely agree with you on the LoS one as well.

 

In my first game of 5th ed, this came up. My opponent was not initially convinced but a quick check of the rulebook and it was pretty clear.

 

And to prove that such an occurance does not have to be all that rare, the blocking unit was simply a mob of ork boyz, I think about 12 strong, standing between 2 pieces of terrain. The modest bulk of the orks bodies, along with all the weapons and limbs sticking out was sufficient to leave no doubt that they blocked LoS.

 

The only exception to LoS, when it comes to intervening models in general, is the shooter's own unit. Other specific exceptions may exist though, like swarms for example.

 

Really? I was under the impression that intervening models gave a 4+ save - not blocking LoS entirely. IIRC, the cover save list has intervening models (friendly or enemy) listed under the 4+ section, along with rubble and whatnot.

[Cairnius]

This is why you MUST have a rulebook with you at all times.

 

Makes the purchase of Assault on Black Reach very attractive...I love my little rulebook...

 

A friend of mine actually uses little pieces of post-it note, neatly cut, to label the various sections of the book so that he can flip right to where he needs to go. It's a smart idea. Never be afraid to go to the rulebook if someone says something which you know to be categorically wrong. If you don't stop someone dead in the middle of trying to break the rules you'll never get them to stop doing it.

 

The worst thing that can happen to you is you find out that the other guy is right, but now you KNOW he's right because you didn't get it from his mouth, but from the rulebook.

[WarpSpawn]

Really? I was under the impression that intervening models gave a 4+ save - not blocking LoS entirely. IIRC, the cover save list has intervening models (friendly or enemy) listed under the 4+ section, along with rubble and whatnot.

 

Yes, but the overriding rule in 5th edition is you must be able to draw LoS to a part of the "body" or "hull" of at least one model, otherwise you cannot see. The only exception I am aware of, where intervening models are ignored completely, even for LoS purposes, is shooters own unit.

 

All other exceptions I am aware of do no remove the requirement of being in LoS, they only effect the cover save of models that actually are in LoS.

[maniclurker]

Really? I was under the impression that intervening models gave a 4+ save - not blocking LoS entirely. IIRC, the cover save list has intervening models (friendly or enemy) listed under the 4+ section, along with rubble and whatnot.

 

They do give a 4+ save, but only if you can see through them. I pretty sure that it even states something about having to draw LOS in the entry on shooting through units.

 

However, if the shooting unit, the unit shot through, and the target unit are all at ground level, it's going to be quite hard to not draw LOS through something. This is where a laser pointer comes in handy (sadly enough).