LOS for Infantry!

[CuznP]

So... I'm thinking about LOS a bunch lately... and I'm checking out my rulebook.

 

I'm sure this must have been discussed in the past as it is kinda important.... but I can find the info.

 

It seems that Infantry models only have LOS to the things that are in front of them.

Up until now I'v been playing that infantry have a 360˚ LOS to pick a target... but I think that's just a holdover in my brain from 4th.

 

Looking at the rulebook it clearly says on page 16 (second column under the CHECKING LINE OF SIGHT & PICKING A TARGET section, 13th line down) that you get down to eye level of the model and see what it can "see" by looking from behind it.

 

So facing plays a big part in what Infantry can do yeah?

 

At the moment I am of the opinion that I, and everyone I play with is playing the game a little wrongly due to 4th ed. mental corruption.

[Arikel]

So... I'm thinking about LOS a bunch lately... and I'm checking out my rulebook.

 

I'm sure this must have been discussed in the past as it is kinda important.... but I can find the info.

 

It seems that Infantry models only have LOS to the things that are in front of them.

Up until now I'v been playing that infantry have a 360˚ LOS to pick a target... but I think that's just a holdover in my brain from 4th.

 

Looking at the rulebook it clearly says on page 16 (second column under the CHECKING LINE OF SIGHT & PICKING A TARGET section, 13th line down) that you get down to eye level of the model and see what it can "see" by looking from behind it.

 

So facing plays a big part in what Infantry can do yeah?

 

At the moment I am of the opinion that I, and everyone I play with is playing the game a little wrongly due to 4th ed. mental corruption.

 

edit: hah forgot to write something and just posted the quote. At work at the moment so don't have the book in front of me but I'm pretty sure in the shooting phase you can turn a model any which way you like to take you're shot, as pivoting in place is not movement and can be done at any time on your turn.

[LPetersson]

Page 11 of the BRB under the heading 'Turning and Facing' it says that you can turn your models on the spot before they shoot...

[thade]

Page 11 of the BRB under the heading 'Turning and Facing' it says that you can turn your models on the spot before they shoot...

 

Thus, they effectively do not have a "facing" and thus can trace LOS 360 degrees around themselves, Q.E.D. =) Rejoice!

[CuznP]

Page 11 of the BRB under the heading 'Turning and Facing' it says that you can turn your models on the spot before they shoot...

 

Thus, they effectively do not have a "facing" and thus can trace LOS 360 degrees around themselves, Q.E.D. =) Rejoice!

 

I was about to rejoice... and then I read the rule on Page 11. What it actually says is that Infantry models can be turned to face their targets in the shooting phase. Therefore, a target must be selected before you can turn to face it.

 

SO we go to selecting target rules on page 16 and we find that to select a unit as a target, at least one model from the firing unit must have LOS to at least one model in the target unit.

 

Furthermore, it says that we draw LOS by looking from BEHIND the firing model.

 

QED Infantry have a facing.

[thade]

Page 11 of the BRB under the heading 'Turning and Facing' it says that you can turn your models on the spot before they shoot...

 

Thus, they effectively do not have a "facing" and thus can trace LOS 360 degrees around themselves, Q.E.D. =) Rejoice!

 

I was about to rejoice... and then I read the rule on Page 11. What it actually says is that Infantry models can be turned to face their targets in the shooting phase. Therefore, a target must be selected before you can turn to face it.

 

SO we go to selecting target rules on page 16 and we find that to select a unit as a target, at least one model from the firing unit must have LOS to at least one model in the target unit.

 

Furthermore, it says that we draw LOS by looking from BEHIND the firing model.

 

QED Infantry have a facing.

 

You are (fortunately for you, and us all) mistaken. ;)

 

Read the "Turning and Facing" section *very carefully* on page 11.

 

"Infantry models can also turn during the Shooting phase, so don't worry about which way they are pointing at the end of their Movement phase." (Bold-face mine.)

 

Why might we need to worry? Well, we'd have to worry if facing was an issue. As facing is not an issue, we need not worry.

 

I've never seen nor heard of facing being an issue for infantry in 40k. This thread will steadily be filled with people all saying "Facing is irrelevant" or something very much like it. You'll notice that the Vehicles chapter's Shooting Section pays a great deal of attention to facing and firing arcs...but the Infantry Shooting section does not. ;)

 

So you may rejoice after all, man. There is no infantry facing in 40k. You may spin your model round and round, for free, anytime at all.

[CuznP]

Page 11 of the BRB under the heading 'Turning and Facing' it says that you can turn your models on the spot before they shoot...

 

Thus, they effectively do not have a "facing" and thus can trace LOS 360 degrees around themselves, Q.E.D. =) Rejoice!

 

I was about to rejoice... and then I read the rule on Page 11. What it actually says is that Infantry models can be turned to face their targets in the shooting phase. Therefore, a target must be selected before you can turn to face it.

 

SO we go to selecting target rules on page 16 and we find that to select a unit as a target, at least one model from the firing unit must have LOS to at least one model in the target unit.

 

Furthermore, it says that we draw LOS by looking from BEHIND the firing model.

 

QED Infantry have a facing.

 

You are (fortunately for you, and us all) mistaken. ;)

 

Read the "Turning and Facing" section *very carefully* on page 11.

 

"Infantry models can also turn during the Shooting phase, so don't worry about which way they are pointing at the end of their Movement phase." (Bold-face mine.)

 

Why might we need to worry? Well, we'd have to worry if facing was an issue. As facing is not an issue, we need not worry.

 

I've never seen nor heard of facing being an issue for infantry in 40k. This thread will steadily be filled with people all saying "Facing is irrelevant" or something very much like it. You'll notice that the Vehicles chapter's Shooting Section pays a great deal of attention to facing and firing arcs...but the Infantry Shooting section does not. ;)

 

So you may rejoice after all, man. There is no infantry facing in 40k. You may spin your model round and round, for free, anytime at all.

 

But on Page 11 it doesn't say that... it says that models can "be turned to face their targets in the Shooting phase"

Target selection comes before the turning.

 

I sounds to me like, your models can face any which way in the movement phase, but then in the shooting phase, you select a target (one that you have LOS to from any single model) then turn the rest of the army to face that target.

 

 

Also, why would there be a need for a "Facing" section in the Infantry rules if models have no facing.

 

I am confounded.

[Grey Mage]

Well heres the thing- if Im on one side of the table, looking at their target... I am on the other side of the models... ie Behind them. If I go look at another target, from the other side of the table, and walk around to again be opposite the unit from them... I am still "behind" the models in comparison to their new target.

 

That does not however mean I am staring at the models "behinds" wich is a totally different story.

[Isiah]

Turning infantry models to 'face' their intended shooting target is not required. You check infantry LOS by getting down behind the model to see what he might see, and as you know where both his head and eyes are all this means is that you duck down to behind the models head and you look in the direction that the model wants to shoot. So the 'behind' refers to the postion of the owning players head relative to the firing model, not the facing direction of the model itself.

 

One can of course turn firing infantry models to face if you want – but this really is only for dramatic table-top realism purely because it looks better :D – but is not needed from a firing/rules point of view as infantry have no facing pe se.

 

With turret and sponson guns and vehicles in general this issue of facing becomes critical due to weapon arcs of fire etc, often necessitating turning a model to face it's indended shooting target. Not to mention the armour facing differences when targetting an AV model.

 

Cheers

I

[pingo]

On p. 16 it says that if a unit doesn't have line of sight it must select another target. Therefore, if facing was an issue, they could not select another target.

[Hfran Morkai]

I can imagine it now:

 

Sergeant calling to heavy bolter marine:

 

"Brother Clyde! (random name FTW!) Ork horde at three o' clock! Engage!"

 

"Brother Sergeant, I'm facing the wrong way!"

 

*Insert choice of expletives here*

 

I also imagine: "I cannae do it cap'n!"

[Isiah]

On p. 16 it says that if a unit doesn't have line of sight it must select another target. Therefore, if facing was an issue, they could not select another target.

 

Yes indeed and if infantry facing was an issue than infantry would be allocated an arc of fire just like vehicles.

[thade]

On p. 16 it says that if a unit doesn't have line of sight it must select another target. Therefore, if facing was an issue, they could not select another target.

 

Yes indeed and if infantry facing was an issue than infantry would be allocated an arc of fire just like vehicles.

 

That's my position as well.

 

Facing for infantry is irrelevant. <3 Enjoy it.

[gil galed]

not to mention what is 'behind' a unit. If you look at an enemy from the models point of view you are behind it in a physical sense even if you are not looking from its back :(

 

It could be facing you but you are still behind it in terms of what you are targetting

[CuznP]

Everyone is saying many things... yet nobody is supporting their opinions with rules.

 

I have read rules that indicate facing matters for infantry and thus far I have read nothing that says that infantry have this 360˚ LOS.

[Grey Mage]

Is this still going on?

 

Everyone is saying many things... yet nobody is supporting their opinions with rules.

 

I have read rules that indicate facing matters for infantry and thus far I have read nothing that says that infantry have this 360˚ LOS.

I dont need to- youve produced no rules stating their LOS has a specific arc of any kind, and Ive provided logic.

 

To quote:

Well heres the thing- if Im on one side of the table, looking at their target... I am on the other side of the models... ie Behind them. If I go look at another target, from the other side of the table, and walk around to again be opposite the unit from them... I am still "behind" the models in comparison to their new target.

 

That does not however mean I am staring at the models "behinds" wich is a totally different story.

 

To reiterate:

If you are on the opposite side of the unit that is firing from the enemy then you are "behind" your unit in relation to that enemy and thus can decide if LOS is established based on intervening terrain and models.

 

Your overthinkin it mate. And to date, youve produced nothing that says they have any particular arc of sight- so unless you can disprove my point, or start really supporting yours, drop it for the sake of your own, and our own, sanity.

[rat of vengence]

I've been playing this game of toy soldiers since '94 or so; no single on foot model I can think of (ok, dreadnaughts are on 'foot' ;)) has EVER had to worry about facing. If you want facing, try Fantasy, you actually have to think harder in the movement phase in that one.

 

:)

 

RoV

[Morticon]

Is this still going on?

 

Everyone is saying many things... yet nobody is supporting their opinions with rules.

 

I have read rules that indicate facing matters for infantry and thus far I have read nothing that says that infantry have this 360˚ LOS.

I dont need to- youve produced no rules stating their LOS has a specific arc of any kind, and Ive provided logic.

 

To quote:

Well heres the thing- if Im on one side of the table, looking at their target... I am on the other side of the models... ie Behind them. If I go look at another target, from the other side of the table, and walk around to again be opposite the unit from them... I am still "behind" the models in comparison to their new target.

 

That does not however mean I am staring at the models "behinds" wich is a totally different story.

 

To reiterate:

If you are on the opposite side of the unit that is firing from the enemy then you are "behind" your unit in relation to that enemy and thus can decide if LOS is established based on intervening terrain and models.

 

Your overthinkin it mate. And to date, youve produced nothing that says they have any particular arc of sight- so unless you can disprove my point, or start really supporting yours, drop it for the sake of your own, and our own, sanity.

 

 

GK - he has.

 

Hes provided rules that state, very clearly, that LOS is traced from a units eyes and that to do this you must be behind the model. (both on page 16)

This gives us the infantry arc of fire.

 

I dont necessarily think its the way its supposed to be played, but hes raising an argument that people are not thinking about or dismissing because of the fact that its never been considered before as opposed to them disproving his argument.

So, for the sake of "his own, and our own sanity" as you put it- why dont we all try find something in the rules to try disprove his argument.

 

RatofVengeance -did you miss 2nd Ed or Necromunda where facing (of infantry too) always mattered?

[The Trickster]

Hi all.

 

My question is:

If you have get behind the model to see what he/she/it can see, you would have to have a rule saying how many degrees the model can see.

 

Otherwise you have to imagine how wide the eyes can see depending on the exact model.

Now that is bad news for Tau as they only have 1 eyehole.

And where are the eyes on the Dark Eldar Talos? :D

 

All I am saying is that GW would have made a rule about how many degrees a model would be able to se, like they have done in other of their editions/games.

[thade]

So let me get this straight. Are there those among us who actually use FACING in 40k for their infantry? ...Weird.

 

I provided evidence in the rules, thus:

 

A precedent: Vehicles have facing. Vehicles have an entire section of their rules devoted to arc of fire.

 

Thus, any model which has a facing will have rules describing their arc of fire.

 

Infantry shooting rules do not have this. Therefore, infantry models do not have facing, QED.

 

How about a Proof by Contradiction?

1. Assume Infantry has a facing.

2. Models which have a facing have an Arc of Fire entry in the BRB.

3. Infantry do not have an Arc of Fire entry in the BRB.

4. CONTRADICTION, thus our assumption must be false. Therefore, Infantry do not have a facing.

 

If you are looking for each and every rules conundrum to be addressed succinctly by one and only one clear line in the rulebook, you are going to find yourself disappointed....but then you'll realize "Hey, that's why B&C has an Official Rules forum!"

[CuznP]

Look. There are rules for the facing of infantry on BRB p. 11

 

There are rules for selecting targets and LOS of Infantry on BRB p. 16

 

Let's use a proof by contradiction.

 

1. Let's assume that Infantry don't have a facing

2. Aw crap, there is a facing section for Infantry on page 11 of the rulebook

3. CONTRADICTION! It seems there are rules written for the facing of Infantry. Our assumption is false, therefore they must have facing.

Q E D

[alloyslayer]

the way i see it, you can turn your models to face the enemy unit you wan't to shoot, at the end of your movement phase before actually choosing them as a target in the shooting phase.

 

does that make sense?

[Isiah]

Look. There are rules for the facing of infantry on BRB p. 11

 

There are rules for selecting targets and LOS of Infantry on BRB p. 16

 

The physical process of turning them is irrelevant as infantry don't need to worry about a firing arcs in the same way that vehicles do. Also there is no limiting field of vision specified for infantry either – for instance how would turning their heads and torsos effect their LOS? Would it be easier to swing a pistol around or a lascannon? Would races with longer more flexible necks have a greater field of vision? We don't know because it doesn't matter. For this reason infantry facing isn't important from an LOS point of view as it is for vehicles and walkers. Turn them by all means (and please make sure that they are indeed ALL looking the right way otherwise the ones that aren't can't fire :lol:).

 

Cheers

I

[rat of vengence]

RatofVengeance -did you miss 2nd Ed or Necromunda where facing (of infantry too) always mattered?

Really?! I started in 2nd ed, but I will be the first to admit that my memory isn't... um.. where was I?

 

:lol:

 

Probably one of those slow rules we forget when we think back to the old days.

 

RoV

[SeattleDV8]

Okay, Infantry may have a facing , but as quoted above it really doesn't matter as the models can change facing in the shooting phase.

Cuznp assumes that LOS is determined before the pivot. This is mistaken as shown in the rules for walkers.

BRB pg.72 [Walkers Shooting] "When firing a walkers weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target (.....) then measure the range from the weapon itself and Line of Sight....."

Infantry would be the same.