Rage and a Local Guys View

[SamaNagol]

It says 'closest visible enemy'. Which is very vague.

[player21]

So if I a make little boxes and put them on the DC heads, they can't see anything? Then rage doesn't effect them?

[Pcm979]

Well yes, but then they walk in little circles and trip over each other while snarling incoherently. Better to take a transport for the same price.

[Lithanial]

There is a reason the rulebook is hardback - "creative" rules interpretation gets met with a weighty tome to the face.

[Polonius]

The RAW is essentially meangingless, if interpreted with too much precision. First off, the rule says "enemy",

not "enemy unit," meaning I could argue that a squad with rage would move towards my actual opponent. Secondly, the wording for "closest visible" does not coincide with any mechanic for determining visibility. Shooting relies on TLOS, but there is no real way of telling what we're supposed to do under hyper literal RAW. contrast this to the rules for infiltration, which specify that you can only deploy within 18" if "no deployed enemy unit can draw line of sight" to the infiltrating unit.

 

If I were a TO I would rule that a unit with rage would move towards the closest enemy unit that the raging unit could draw LOS to as if it were shooting. I think it fits the intent of the rule (to penalize certain troops by forcing them to go after the closest thing, rather than be disciplined), and works within existing mechanics.

 

I'm not a fan of Hyper-RAW, ask any lawyer you know what gets done to literalistic interpretations of statutes. RAW is the basis of the rules, and a great start, but there are more grey areas than most people realize.

[SamaNagol]

No, it isn't as cut and dry as that I am afraid.

 

There really isnt anything in the rules which states, or illustrates that models can fire at things behind them, other than the fact you can make a free pivot move but that is optional. Even the 'choosing a target and determining line of sight' rules say you measure a line directly from the models' "eyes".

 

It is really poorly worded. It doesn't even say anywhere that infantry have a 360' fire arc as far as I can see.

[Brother Jim]

;)

[Spacefrisian]

Real rage can be quite effective if some jerk wants to pull this trick off. I bet they wont like that kind of rage directed towards them. (hardcover comment comes to mind)

[Legatus]

I don't know about that guy, but when I stand in one place (not moving from my position and keeping both feet at the ground) I can watch all 360 degrees around me. That's probably because I have a neck. And turnable torso and hips. Infatry is not static and "facing forward". They don't have a front facing like vehicles do. That would be horrible for assembling your mdoels in dramatic poses. "Nope, your Captains head is turned to the side, he cannot see my unit, so he cannot shoot at them."

[shatter]

Vader wearies of this non issue.

[Hellios]

Nahh, firing weapons has extra specific constraints mentioned under shooting. These are not mentioned under rage. And, (drawing line of) sight/visibility are not a GW terms. They're merely used in a few places. It's common English. The guy trying to cheat believes (line of) sight/visibility is a universal rule in 40k as it's utilized by shooting.

 

Seriously, go read the rage rule and tell me where it says to use a weapon arc line of sight or reference to any part of shooting rules.

 

The rule book defines a models LoS (for infantry) as what it can see from it eyes (go chaos marines with eyes modelled on the armour!) it has nothing to do with weapon arc in this chaos :< although I do argue that a vehicles line of site is determined by it's weapon arc... or this is what I think in regards to the chaos dreadnought...

 

Sooo running backwards actually works... although yes... not really in the spirit of things...

[stinkenheim]

this was brought up in the other rage thread on this very forum.

 

people saying that 'models eye view' means what the model is looking at rather than what they can see from their perspective doesn't hold up. there are many models without 'eyes' that also have guns. wraithlords and wraithguard spring to mind. Does this mean that they cannot shoot as they cannot see anything??

 

closest visible is pretty simple to understand. if the model has LOS to it then it is visible, if it doesn't then its not.

 

if the Rage rules required the model to be facing the enemy unit then it would spell it out very simply. if nothing in the rules mentions if a unit is visible except LOS rules then clearly that is how you determine what is visible to a model. if nothing in the Rage rules defines what arc of vision they are considered to have then they have no restrictions.

its a permisive rules set, if there are no caveats or exceptions then adding in your own is wrong.

[Isiah]

this was brought up in the other rage thread on this very forum.

 

people saying that 'models eye view' means what the model is looking at rather than what they can see from their perspective doesn't hold up. there are many models without 'eyes' that also have guns. wraithlords and wraithguard spring to mind. Does this mean that they cannot shoot as they cannot see anything??

 

closest visible is pretty simple to understand. if the model has LOS to it then it is visible, if it doesn't then its not.

 

if the Rage rules required the model to be facing the enemy unit then it would spell it out very simply. if nothing in the rules mentions if a unit is visible except LOS rules then clearly that is how you determine what is visible to a model. if nothing in the Rage rules defines what arc of vision they are considered to have then they have no restrictions.

its a permisive rules set, if there are no caveats or exceptions then adding in your own is wrong.

 

Agreed. Saying a model must be physically looking at their rage target (or not) does not hold up at all I'm afraid.

[Red Fury]

Red Fury, in my mind part of the point of rage is you may have to go towards something you can't hurt, like a Land Radier or a Wraithlord. Just because you've been charging full out towards one enemy, when another appears closer, the raging unit will veer off to deal with it.

Oh I totally agree. I just find it out of character for them to hit the breaks and do a full 180 because a new target is now behind them but 1mm closer than the squad in front. Weather the squad is a LR, wraithlord, or a silly speed bump like a scarab. But I consede that this is not how it should be played with the existing rules, just what I would have liked to see it work.

 

The problem is that there is no RAW here, checking for visible enemies has no written rule. So all we can do is take the closest existing rule (los for shooting) and apply it here. This brings up the next problem which is the mandatory vs optional pivoting of the models to gain LOS. Considering if they wanted to shoot them (and that is the rule set we are using to judge by) they could, so applying this result to the rage rule, they are visible and must be moved towards.

 

For dreads, we have to apply the same rule set and consequently they would only see the front 180 degree arc. Apparently the adeptus mechanicus lost the technology of back up cameras sometime in the 39th millennium.

 

-Fury

[Hellios]

this was brought up in the other rage thread on this very forum.

 

people saying that 'models eye view' means what the model is looking at rather than what they can see from their perspective doesn't hold up. there are many models without 'eyes' that also have guns. wraithlords and wraithguard spring to mind. Does this mean that they cannot shoot as they cannot see anything??

 

closest visible is pretty simple to understand. if the model has LOS to it then it is visible, if it doesn't then its not.

 

if the Rage rules required the model to be facing the enemy unit then it would spell it out very simply. if nothing in the rules mentions if a unit is visible except LOS rules then clearly that is how you determine what is visible to a model. if nothing in the Rage rules defines what arc of vision they are considered to have then they have no restrictions.

its a permisive rules set, if there are no caveats or exceptions then adding in your own is wrong.

 

True... but they do have Wraithsight... which I know wouldn't solve this RAW but they shows how they feel/see their enemies psychic presence rather than see them. They do have equivalents... from that etxreme I could also argue any marine with a helmet... as we can't see his eyes... you just assume they are behind the lenses...

[shatter]

*snip*

 

So all we can do is take the closest existing rule (los for shooting) and apply it here.

 

*snip*

-Fury

 

Rubbish. Shooting rules contain constraints regarding how weapons point, not just the model's awareness of the battlefield. Adding this constraint is above and beyond the request of rage rule. Shooting rules include a distinction: Los from a weapon. Rage just asks for the model's los with no statement of facing. This is, therefore in the simplest sense, all encompassing. Any line drawn.

 

For example, I like to call points on pedestrians, especially old ladies. If my car isn't pointed at them, it doesn't stop me knowing they're there... and in a crazy word, I'd turn around. I'm pretty sure dreadnoughts have fantastic sensor suites. Better than my several thousand year old mirror technology.

 

(I'm kidding about old ladies... teenagers with pants around their knees and askew baseball caps, maybe not)

[thade]

Agreed. Saying a model must be physically looking at their rage target (or not) does not hold up at all I'm afraid.

 

We've addressed this a few times before; the argument always ends the same way.

 

Infantry models do not have a "Facing"; you trade LOS from their *head*, not their *eyes*.

 

I would not play games with anybody who tried to treat Rage that way. =P

[Red Fury]

Rage just asks for the model's los with no statement of facing.

If a dread can only draw line of sight to objects in the front 180 during the shooting phase then why do you think it is different in the movement phase? There is no presedence in any of the books to drawing LOS to the back of a walker, they don't have rear view mirrors or backup cameras or side windows to look out from, just a small peep hole up front and arguably targeting arrays for weapons. It'd be more like driving down the street in your car while only looking through a TP roll with blacked out side/rear windows.

 

-Fury

[Grey Mage]

this was brought up in the other rage thread on this very forum.

 

people saying that 'models eye view' means what the model is looking at rather than what they can see from their perspective doesn't hold up. there are many models without 'eyes' that also have guns. wraithlords and wraithguard spring to mind. Does this mean that they cannot shoot as they cannot see anything??

 

closest visible is pretty simple to understand. if the model has LOS to it then it is visible, if it doesn't then its not.

 

if the Rage rules required the model to be facing the enemy unit then it would spell it out very simply. if nothing in the rules mentions if a unit is visible except LOS rules then clearly that is how you determine what is visible to a model. if nothing in the Rage rules defines what arc of vision they are considered to have then they have no restrictions.

its a permisive rules set, if there are no caveats or exceptions then adding in your own is wrong.

 

True... but they do have Wraithsight... which I know wouldn't solve this RAW but they shows how they feel/see their enemies psychic presence rather than see them. They do have equivalents... from that etxreme I could also argue any marine with a helmet... as we can't see his eyes... you just assume they are behind the lenses...

A guy in my gaming group said much the same thing, but frankly it holds no water.

 

There is no reference to how a Wraith uses Wraithsight to see for shooting, the only rules that are actually stated are that if a psycher isnt close enough you have to roll to see if theyre useless that round.

[Hellios]

this was brought up in the other rage thread on this very forum.

 

people saying that 'models eye view' means what the model is looking at rather than what they can see from their perspective doesn't hold up. there are many models without 'eyes' that also have guns. wraithlords and wraithguard spring to mind. Does this mean that they cannot shoot as they cannot see anything??

 

closest visible is pretty simple to understand. if the model has LOS to it then it is visible, if it doesn't then its not.

 

if the Rage rules required the model to be facing the enemy unit then it would spell it out very simply. if nothing in the rules mentions if a unit is visible except LOS rules then clearly that is how you determine what is visible to a model. if nothing in the Rage rules defines what arc of vision they are considered to have then they have no restrictions.

its a permisive rules set, if there are no caveats or exceptions then adding in your own is wrong.

 

True... but they do have Wraithsight... which I know wouldn't solve this RAW but they shows how they feel/see their enemies psychic presence rather than see them. They do have equivalents... from that etxreme I could also argue any marine with a helmet... as we can't see his eyes... you just assume they are behind the lenses...

A guy in my gaming group said much the same thing, but frankly it holds no water.

 

There is no reference to how a Wraith uses Wraithsight to see for shooting, the only rules that are actually stated are that if a psycher isnt close enough you have to roll to see if theyre useless that round.

 

Hence why I said this wouldn't solve it raw... although I have old wraithlords that have ocular devices built into its big ol dome... don't know if the new ones have it...

[nurglez]

I do find all this rather silly, remember seeing all the fuss when some people decided you could use this to stop chaos dreads from shooting your own guys, and the pivot part to me would imply that they have all round los, how else could they spin 180 to attack something that has deepstriked behind them (yeah, yeah, someone could yell "hes behind you" but i digress).

 

For me, and how my small gaming group play it, los is all around, unless otherwise stated.

[stinkenheim]

+EDIT+ disregard this post

[Master of the Shields]

Whether an object is visible or not isn't dependent on whether you're looking at it...

 

If I'm stepping through a field with my bolter and a predator is rolling behind

me, in plain sight, then it is visible from my position. I can turn and look at it. Same thing if I'm in a dread. I turn and look, boom a predator, the pred is visible. Now if the predator takes a short cut around a mountain, and disappears from view, it is no longer visible from my position.

 

As for the dreads firing arc. We all know dreads can turn around and fire but I'm fairly confident that the restricting firing arc are there for 2 reasons: 1) to imply that the dread is clumsier than infantry, and 2) a way to make armor facing impact your choice of targets. If a dreadnaught had a 360 degree firing arc, i know that we'd be sitting here reading a topic about how this local guy is always shooting behind his back to keep his rear armor protected.

 

When they say 'nearest visible enemy' I'm 99% sure they mean nearest

enemy to the unit that isn't on the other side of a bleedin' mountain.

 

To say visible is implying firing arc or Los or whatever is pretty presumptuous to me.

[Red Fury]

Page 72. A walker can pivot in the shooting phase to see it's target. If it can pivot to shoot, it can pivot to draw los.

 

I stand corrected, both infantry and dreads should be subject to rage in a 360 circle of visibility.

 

My arguement is that we only have shooting rules to govern rules of visibilty and need to use them to govern visibilty for rage. I don't know where the 180 degrees of visibility for dreads came from because that is not correct even in the shooting phase...probably a previous ed carryover or something I guess.

 

-Fury