Line of Sight

[Primarch_Vanguard]

Best thing is to wait and see what GW says. I'll never understand why they make contradicting rules. Does no one proof read their material? I can see how people read the one section saying movement doesn't affect shooting or charging later but it does say its best to have a facing. Then in shooting it says to be able to shoot, and this is in bold type, you must draw a line from the models eyes to a part of another models body. Of course the side that doesn't like this rule will read into it one way and the other half their way. However, the first part is in the movement rules and which rule should take precedence about shooting, a rule in the shooting section or one in the movement section? And I don't even agree with the rule that only one model must be looking in order for the whole unit to shoot. I think a model must be looking for it to shoot but I didn't make the rules. I'm just following them. And it simply means that you keep on model turned to a side facing. Is that a big deal or hard to do. Not really. Well, we can huff and puff about this till we are blue in the face but nothing will change. Best to agree beforehand on this rule and then get down to having fun.

[Primarch]

Where do you get

...the rule that only one model must be looking in order for the whole unit to shoot.

from?
Every model that wants to shoot needs LoS.

[kojibear]

And I don't even agree with the rule that only one model must be looking in order for the whole unit to shoot. I think a model must be looking for it to shoot but I didn't make the rules.

The miniatures are of course static and so we use our imagination. That is what tabletop games are, static figures that come to life because WE give them life. Of course the back members of the unit would be looking to the rear, or at least I would be, that would be their role, to bring up the rear. 40k imagines that armies are in smaller 'jungle' fighting squads that allows for this to be plausible. Fantasy on the other hand, with the exception of small scouting units, is generally hordes and ranked up units where we can imagine that the message would not travel fast enough to enough of the troops to turn and face the threat behind, so no stand and shoot. Anways, just something to think about and by no means at all, an answer to this issue.

As the starter of this thread requested comments and thoughts, I would like to say first off that no one appears to be getting upset, merely expressing there opinions and for the most part doing it fairly diplomatically. Nagoya Hammer forum style We are a nice bunch. As for my view in regards to the rule itself, I believe models charged in the rear should be allowed to shoot with the already appropriate BS1.

[YellowStreak]

Does this then bring up the question of firing arcs for infantry? 90 degrees? 180 degrees? 45 degrees for miniatures with an eyepatch?

Unless FAQ'd by GW, I intend to play 'see and shoot' 360 degrees. Otherwise we'd be better off basing everything on square bases to properly denote the 'front' of a mini - WFB style.

[Primarch_Vanguard]

Where do you get

...the rule that only one model must be looking in order for the whole unit to shoot.

from?
Every model that wants to shoot needs LoS.

Page 12 under Line of Sight. And it references page 8's line of sight rule.

And I have found the final word on it all. "WIKIPEDIA"! It even states the LOS rule under w40k.

And I have found a lot of people not happy with this rule but they all agree that a model must see another model to be able to shoot. Seems a lot Of people feel the same distaste for this new rule because it is the new rule.

Now I didn't bring this rule up to cause a riot. I simply read it and used it hw it states and not starting at ngoyahammer either. It was a week before and the other players looked it up and concurred. I didnt know people were playing without LOS. I didn't come to that game looking to pull one over on anyone. and there are plenty of errata stating line of sight being used. It doesn't talk about this topic though. I don't know howich proof a person needs but....

I'm done kicking this dead horse either way.

[Admiral-Badruck]

Hummmm looks like there is a consensus in how the rule is interpreted 13 people think it is played in a way that units have 360* firing arcs.... But I still see the rule as ambiguous at best. I think anyone with the nerve to walk away from the table when a rule comes into question no matter how cut an dry it is should real take a chill pill and remember that if a rule is in the rule book it is certainly not your opponent's fault for pointing it out. It certainly is not as bad as chucking models into a case or smashing dice with a hammer.

[me_in_japan]

The difference is that the line in the book about using a model's eyes to establish LOS is simply intended to indicate that the player has to bend down and take a model's eye view. I really don't think it's a rule. It's simply a descriptive sentence, there to indicate that the player shouldn't just assume his model has LOS to something just because it looks like it does from our lofty perch high above the battlefield.

Warhammer 40k is not a tight ruleset, and is in no way designed for competitive/tourney play. There's even a paragraph early on in the book about playing in the spirit of the game, rather than to the letter of the rules. Taking one descriptive line as a set-in-stone rule, moreover one which is directly contradicted in multiple other places in the rulebook (and those contradictory rules all agree with each other) is, to my mind, completely contrary to what 40k is about.

[Admiral-Badruck]

What is 40k about?

The point is in this case the RAW something's are RAW and others are not. Take the Tau codex RAW says the bomber does not have a bomb. And RAW the battle suits can take two plasma rifles they do not have to be twin linked any more. To be honest the latter was FAQed and I was shocked that not only can to take two plasma rifles but you can take one twin linked plasma rifle and one normal plasma rifle. Oucha!

The best way to handle things in the rules is not to walk away from the game. It is to tell your opponent that you disagree with that interpretation of the rule but you are not going to let it ruin the game. And play it that way. This has happened to me quite a bit in the my last few games. But I do not think folks are being rule lawyers with me. They are just interpreting the rules the best way they see fit.

[me_in_japan]

I really dont think this is a RAW vs RAI issue. The line in question isnt actually a rule. tbh I'm somewhat bewildered as to how this is even a discussion. The votes at the top of the page would seem to indicate that most everybody feels the same way (and I have to assume that the 1 vote for "wraithguard et al cant actually shoot" was MtP taking the mickey...). As I mentioned in the post above, my game playing (and indeed all my) time is limited, so I shall bid this particular thread adieu until such times as I have a surfeit of free time and/or it stops being a pissing contest to prove "I was right all along".

[Spevna]

The best way to handle things in the rules is not to walk away from the game. It is to tell your opponent that you disagree with that interpretation of the rule but you are not going to let it ruin the game. And play it that way. This has happened to me quite a bit in the my last few games. But I do not think folks are being rule lawyers with me. They are just interpreting the rules the best way they see fit.

Afraid I disagree mate. It is not a matter of interpretation. As you said, 13 (14 if we include Pikey) believe the rule should be played one way. Continuing to insist that you are right just seems stubborn. If anyone should be the person to concede, it should be the person in the minority in this case.

If Im involved in a game and I think that someone is wrong (intentionally or not), and I have sources to back up my point of view, and other gamers with years of experience between them have read the same rules and come to the same conclusion, why should I be the one to let something slide?