LOS for Infantry!

[CuznP]

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.

 

I am not assuming anything, I am simply stating the rules found in the rulebook. LOS must be determined before any pivoting, turning, twisting... whatever.

"models can also be turned to face their targets in the Shooting phase" p. 11

 

The first step of the shooting phase is Checking LOS and picking a target.

 

Then once we HAVE a target we turn to face it.

 

The same is true for walkers, as per the quote quoted above... "pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target" p. 72

"The target"

If you haven't chosen a target yet, then you have nothing to pivot towards.

 

5th Ed. Has very specific rules as to what constitutes a target (found on page 16) You use "true" LOS from behind the models' heads for Infantry (also on p. 16) or for walkers we use the weapons' firing arcs (found in the Vhehicle Rules section)

[thade]

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

 

You have not proven that which was to be proven. Your above literal proof is valid (properly formed) and sound (a true premise leads to a true conclusion), but the implied proof (that facing = firing arc) is neither valid nor sound.

 

The LOS rules speak about objects intervening and blocking the view of models. It never mentions facing. "Line of Sight" can be traced from the model's eye-level to anywhere on the table. As everybody in this thread (other than yourself) has said, you may turn your models for free at any time, as facing is irrelevant. The BRB does state it's traditional to face your models towards their foes, but nothing more.

 

40k units are more akin to Skirmishers in WH Fantasy in that they can trace LOS all around them. This distinction is drawn very clearly between Skirmishers and normal units in WHFB because it's clearly stated that standard units in WHFB can only trace LOS within their Firing Arc (which is 45 degrees, if I remember correctly). The standard in Fantasy is that units have a Firing Arc and the exception are Skirmishers. In 40k,the reverse is true. Units are presumed to be able to draw LOS all around them, and the exception is vehicles, which have a defined Firing Arc. Infantry do not have a Firing Arc.

 

You roll yourself into a tournament ANYWHERE and try to convince the people who've been playing 40k since it's inception that their infantry have a firing arc restricted to a facing and see how far that gets. Possibly telling them all that they've been totally wrong all these years will get your point across, but I don't believe so.

[Frosty the Pyro]

I think you have your order wrong.

 

Chose target.

pivot. (as you have a target)

check los (if los fails you may pick another target)

check range

roll hits wounds etc

[thade]

I am not assuming anything, I am simply stating the rules found in the rulebook. LOS must be determined before any pivoting, turning, twisting... whatever.

"models can also be turned to face their targets in the Shooting phase" p. 11

 

The first step of the shooting phase is Checking LOS and picking a target.

 

Then once we HAVE a target we turn to face it.

 

The same is true for walkers, as per the quote quoted above... "pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target" p. 72

"The target"

If you haven't chosen a target yet, then you have nothing to pivot towards.

 

5th Ed. Has very specific rules as to what constitutes a target (found on page 16) You use "true" LOS from behind the models' heads for Infantry (also on p. 16) or for walkers we use the weapons' firing arcs (found in the Vhehicle Rules section)

 

I think I see the way to a solution here.

 

Let's say now that I agree with you (that models can only fire the way they are looking); that they effectively DO have a firing arc.

 

Now, I want to pick a target to shoot at. I consider the alternatives, and wouldn't you know, there are two units behind my marines that I would like to shoot at. If I choose one NOW and turn my guys, I have to shoot at whatever I've faced them at.

 

However, before I do so, nothing in the rules says I can't get behind my boys and IMAGINE they are facing a certain direction, checking what their line of sight WOULD BE were I to turn them.

 

I see that, even if I turned them to face that way, they couldn't trace LOS to one of the units, but they could to the other.

 

I turn them and measure range to them. Once I have measured range, I have to fire at that unit. If they're out of range, I auto-miss, and I can't choose any other targets. If they are in range of some/all of my models, I bring to bear whatever firepower that is in range against that unit. Now I move on to my next unit to shoot with.

 

And their we are. =)

[Morticon]

As a quick disclaimer, Id like to point out that I think Cuz is engaging in a thought excercise based on the rules at hand. People should therefore bare that in mind and not get too wound up and vie for blood if they think its the craziest argument since the 4th ed "Termies dont wear termy armour".

As said before, lets find somethin in the rules to disprove it.

 

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

 

definitely not i think!! I wont let Cuznp play that way either :rolleyes: :lol: (Luckily he doesnt need to demand it since no-one else plays that way either).

But, regardless its an interesting thought excercise.

 

 

AlloySlayer said:

 

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?

 

Makes sense what you've written, but its not what the rules say.

 

Isiah said:

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.

You need a rule to back that statement up.

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.

We don't know because its irrelevant to the rules presented because the rules (as we think or as Cuz thinks) work without those added aspects of fluffy realism.

Yes, you could model your mini with his head turned, which would give him a different LOS based on you being behind him, tracing LOS from his eyes. But you've drawn a conclusion that does not follow your premises.

and please make sure that they are indeed ALL looking the right way otherwise the ones that aren't can't fire ).

That statement right there Isiah is actually why CuzNp believes that the "dont worry about facing" clause was added.

Not because you can move them before you select your target, but because after you select your target you can move every model to face the selected target.

[Morticon]

However, before I do so, nothing in the rules says I can't get behind my boys and IMAGINE they are facing a certain direction, checking what their line of sight WOULD BE were I to turn them.

 

eep !! ><; Thade i was hoping you had come to a great conclusion to end the silliness :rolleyes: but, no - 40k doesnt work like that. Its a permissive rules set remember. The rules dont tell you what you cant do- they tell you what you can do.

 

To use your logic to exlpain that.. "nothing in the rules says I can't pick up your models and pack them up in my bag therefore disallowing them to shoot".

 

The simplest way to combat this (if you can see the argument laid out) is to have at least one model lookin in another direction. Since you can turn to face them all at the target when youve chosen it- its all good.

[thade]

eep !! ><; Thade i was hoping you had come to a great conclusion to end the silliness :rolleyes: but, no - 40k doesnt work like that. Its a permissive rules set remember. The rules dont tell you what you cant do- they tell you what you can do.

 

I got a good laugh reading that. =)

 

I had tried to use the "they tell you what they can do" angle and, having that fail grandiosely here, I tried a radical angle. Sorry to go rogue there. :lol:

 

I can't assure you I won't go rogue again (haha <3) but I do appreciate you setting me straight when I do. =)

[Duke Corwin]

The answer to this issue can be found on Pg 11 of the rule book under turning and facing. The relevant statement says "Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the shooting phase, so don't worry about which way they are pointing at the end of the movement phase(1)

 

I have bolded the important part. If you can't pivot the models before selecting a target than why does it say not to worry about which way they are pointing? I think this is proof that a model can be pivoted toward a potential target in the shooting phase before checking LOS, otherwise you most certainly would have to "worry about which way they are pointing"

 

 

(1)Source: Warhammer 40,000 rule book, page 11, copyrite Games Workshop Ltd (2008), quoted for educational purposes only.

[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.

 

 

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?

I call bull:cuss. Wether its a thought exercise or not makes no difference- this is one of those things for wich the rules of the game cant function in that interpretation.

 

Why? Because as an Eldar player I have two units who do not have eyes of any form whatsoever.

 

My wraithgaurd do not lose line of sight to the entire board because they do not have eyes.

 

Nor do my friends converted flamers of Tzeentch, who look like living bonfires.

 

Tau Battlesuits, despite the 'headlike" peice on top, have no visible "eyes".

 

But, that aside if you really want a RAW written answer:

There is one important exception to the rules for line of sight. Firing models may always trace line of sight through members of their own unit (just as if they were not there), as in reality they would take up firing positions to maximise their own squad's firepower.

 

A model is a member of its own unit, and thus ignores all peices of itself for line of sight purposes. For those at home, this means that they can see through the back, sides, bottoms, and tops of their own heads, helmets, or whatnot.

[rat of vengence]

Other than that, which is good, where does it tell us what arc of vision a Space Marine has? Is it different to a Vespid, since they have loads of eyes? How about some of those Chaos mutants, a few of them have eyes everywhere! Or none...

 

Intellectual discussion or not, it is pretty much a pointless one. NOONE plays that way, and the rules do not support it, as much by the extra rules omitted as the ones quoted by others above.

 

RoV

[Morticon]

Wether its a thought exercise or not makes no difference- this is one of those things for wich the rules of the game cant function in that interpretation.

 

Why? Because as an Eldar player I have two units who do not have eyes of any form whatsoever.

 

My wraithgaurd do not lose line of sight to the entire board because they do not have eyes.

 

Nor do my friends converted flamers of Tzeentch, who look like living bonfires.

 

Tau Battlesuits, despite the 'headlike" peice on top, have no visible "eyes".

 

GM - personally i think this is the best/strongest argument against so far :lol:

[Niiai]

The game is designed to be fun. Turning all he units the right way is not fun. Neather is GW (or we) interested in writing books on what count's as eyes, who has psycick powers that negate sight etc.

[pingo]

I'd just like to re-iterate a point I made earlier, which I think helps things a lot:

 

On p. 16 it says that if a unit does not have line of sight to a potential target it must select another target.

 

If facing was an issue, and could only be 'set' once, then a unit could not select another target, unless that target was also in it's current line of sight.

 

Further to this, since no arc of view is stated in the rulesbook, only a line of sight, we have to assume (surely?) that this is indeed a line: i.e., it has an arc of 0 degrees. If a model in a unit was not looking directly at any model in another unit, by this interpretation of the rules it could not even see that unit, and could not fire at it. So if the model's facing was off by even a little bit, then sorry, but you can't fire at that unit. But then you can't select another target either, since you can't change facing, even though the rules say you must select another target.

 

The OP has a valid question (after all, who amongst us knows every single nuance of all the rules?), but I hope that this point clears things up a bit. At least, this is the way I see it. Feel free to contradict me, as I'm no rules guru.

[thade]

I sort of think GM trounced this one. =)

 

A pity. Now I can't tell my buddy his Wraithlord can't trace LOS since it has no eyes. :tu:

[OwlandMoonGuy]

The problem with this issue is that it expects that there is an explicit rule stated for all cases. It’s a basic failing in trying to take RAW to the level of legal documentation. The exact phrase we are looking for just isn’t there. Therefore, the Turning and Facing rules on pg. 11 needs to be reconciled with the TLoS rules on pg. 16.

 

I believe the argument becomes clear when you compare these rules to those found for vehicles on pg. 58, Vehicle Weapons and Line of Sight. For vehicles, LoS tracing becomes more complicated than basic infantry:

 

When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them against the target and then trace the line of sight from each weapons ' mounting and along its barrel, to see if the shot is blocked by terrain or models.

It later goes on to define specific kinds of weapon mounting and the limitations imposed to their specific “arc of sight,” pg 59. None of these rules are required for infantry because the rule on pg. 11 stated that Turning to Face isn’t relevant for infantry. They are never defined as having an “arc of sight” which is just another way of saying that infantry can shoot in 360o.

 

Now, if you really want to spin this argument what rules should apply to dreadnoughts? Do they trace LoS like infantry or like vehicles?

 

-OMG

[ArmouredWing]

I've never seen anyone play using this principle for infantry LoS and if I did it would be the begining of the end for me playing this game I'm afraid. 360 LoS for infantry is a fundamental rule, something that gets put to rest in the very earliest stage of learning to play (e.g. "Does it matter which way my soldiers are facing?" Answer "No, they can shoot in any direction you want them to as long as they have range" and then you move on to the next question).

 

Please, someone close this thread and put this idiocy to rest!!!

[Morticon]

I've never seen anyone play using this principle for infantry LoS and if I did it would be the begining of the end for me playing this game I'm afraid. 360 LoS for infantry is a fundamental rule, something that gets put to rest in the very earliest stage of learning to play (e.g. "Does it matter which way my soldiers are facing?" Answer "No, they can shoot in any direction you want them to as long as they have range" and then you move on to the next question).

 

Please, someone close this thread and put this idiocy to rest!!!

 

ArmouredWing - theres no reason to close this thread. Its not broken any rules. Its a perfectly legitimate debate on the wording of rules.

Cuznp has stated that he doesnt play this way and is wanting to discuss accordingly.

Not divorcing ourselves from how we feel the rule is played vs. what is written makes us all the poorer in arguing rules that eventually do have major contention.

Thankfully GM offered the clearest and best counter for this and I think has put it to rest.

 

Your assumption is not supported in the rules which is the point Cuz was making. I dont play like that, he doesnt play like that. But what was being pointed out was the fact that the rules are in fact poorly worded.

 

Why ive been playing devils advocate is because I understood the argument that was being made. I dont believe thats how it should be played at all- but i want to be able to use the rules to catagorically conclude that there is no area of contention. Too many people here immediately discounted the implication of the rule and its inherent stupidity (which, lets not kid, it is) without considering the argument that was being presented.

 

The OR forum is all about discussing rules as they are written -stupid or otherwise- if you want rules as they are played go have a chat in Amicus.

 

My thoughts on the matter.

[ArmouredWing]

I've never seen anyone play using this principle for infantry LoS and if I did it would be the begining of the end for me playing this game I'm afraid. 360 LoS for infantry is a fundamental rule, something that gets put to rest in the very earliest stage of learning to play (e.g. "Does it matter which way my soldiers are facing?" Answer "No, they can shoot in any direction you want them to as long as they have range" and then you move on to the next question).

 

Please, someone close this thread and put this idiocy to rest!!!

 

ArmouredWing - theres no reason to close this thread. Its not broken any rules. Its a perfectly legitimate debate on the wording of rules.

Cuznp has stated that he doesnt play this way and is wanting to discuss accordingly.

Not divorcing ourselves from how we feel the rule is played vs. what is written makes us all the poorer in arguing rules that eventually do have major contention.

Thankfully GM offered the clearest and best counter for this and I think has put it to rest.

 

Your assumption is not supported in the rules which is the point Cuz was making. I dont play like that, he doesnt play like that. But what was being pointed out was the fact that the rules are in fact poorly worded.

 

Why ive been playing devils advocate is because I understood the argument that was being made. I dont believe thats how it should be played at all- but i want to be able to use the rules to catagorically conclude that there is no area of contention. Too many people here immediately discounted the implication of the rule and its inherent stupidity (which, lets not kid, it is) without considering the argument that was being presented.

 

The OR forum is all about discussing rules as they are written -stupid or otherwise- if you want rules as they are played go have a chat in Amicus.

 

My thoughts on the matter.

Maybe, maybe not but how many times have we seen this type of thing snowball from a 'what if?' to god knows what?

 

If abuse is not the aim then why ask the question? There's very, very little merit in running with this even as an academic exercise. We know the rules are often written poorly, it's a given and in this case there's more than enough evidence to support the fact that 'model eye point of view' means getting down to table level to see for yourself as apposed to whether each model is facing in the right direction. If you get down to that then it comes back to what the fire arc (or direct straight line?) for infantry is. I'm surprised that no-one has even considered that a unit has the possibility to have members facing in opposite directions, what does that throw into the mix? More importantly does it matter?

 

As I said this is a fundamental rule, it's what's used when blueshirts (not widely regarded as the most reliable of sources but in this case can they be so wrong?) run demo games and it's what we all use. More importantly it's this type of discussion that the developers probably look at and use to justify ignoring the forums whilst holding their heads in their hands.

 

Sorry if this seems a bit brusque but when I see this type of thing I think "play more, read less" because there's more than enough grey areas without going far out of the way to find more!!!

[thade]

No worries if it snowballs. <3 That's what mods are for.

 

Still, I can see your point. You are worried that the only reason people would want to discuss such a thing is in an attempt to find a way to exploit it. I think it's okay to discuss it nevertheless, as it will uncover the exploit for us all to see, then really who could use it once we're all aware? :D

[Grey Mage]

Its kind of like the thread I put up about Chapter tactics a year ago.... no harm intended, I just wanted to see the justification and debate and have some thoughts percolate.

[Isiah]

Well generally if no forum rules have been broken there's no reason to close a topic simple as that – issues of taste, approprieteness or sensibility etc are more subjective.

 

BTW I don't see anyone trying to "abuse" a rule in this topic – they're merely asking a question that they have every right to. My advice: if you don't like the topic then don't read it :P.

 

However, this is being closed simply because it's now going so far off topic after the original question has been satisfactorily answered.

 

So... fun's over.

 

 

Cheers

I