Line of Sight

[ashmie]

My 2 bob on rules in wargaming. When I got back onto 40k in 2009 I played at different clubs in Nagoya, Kyoto and Osaka. No two clubs played the game the same due to interpretation. This made me look like I didn't know the rules. I've read the new rules and they are very simple. The key is to play the same people who have a similar understanding and also reading the current rules saves a lot of time.
Anyway, sounds like a good weekend, glad everyone enjoyed.

[Admiral-Badruck]

I was the one that brought it up. We use line of sight in the game and the rules tell us how to use them. And could you fire at someone that snuck up behind you. No you couldnt. Now I didn't just pop this out of the blue in the game. I read the rule book and it clearly states this rule. I wasn't trying to be sneaky. It simply makes sense. Yes, now the issue of having eyes comes up and such. There were many rule changes in the new edition that had players surprised. There is no reason to be upset by them. We adapt or talk to the opponent before hand about using or ignoring said rules. But in a tournament, these rules should be stated. I'm new to these rules and figured that the other more experienced players at Nagoyahammer would already know them. Thus our team kept a model looking sideways. As with "instant death". I'm not used to this rule and forgot to apply it in our first battle and thus forgot that I killed belial by causing one wound with a str10 thunderhammer. The other player didn't say anything and that's life. Oh well. It's a new rule I have to get used to using. just as challenges are worked out differently now. And that any model can accept it and they can refuse it. I didn't get upset, either did prime, he read it and it state, trace a line from its eyes to where you want to shoot. This makes sense. Now if a model has no eyes etc and you want to argue they can't shoot, that makes no sense. Now if it has multiple eyes and should see all around, that makes sense. One of the rules mentioned about facing is in the movement area and not shooting. And why do vehicles have facings and such to fire but infantry shouldn't. That makes no sense at all. I agree with this rule since it is realistic. And it mattered not, the overlord made quick work or my marines and even had one butcher my sergeant himself much to my chagrin. Bottom line for me is thus, experienced players forgot rules that strongly influenced two of my teams games outcomes. One would have been a win and the other up for grabs. Both having to do with instant death. Jould a person be more angry at that or at a person for using the actual rules that resulted in nothing happening? But that's life. You live and learn and this is one rule in the new edition to learn or before a game make sure to agree upon.

This is a good point just because I have played a rule one way for years does not mean that it is the rule. If you look in the book an it has a new rule in it you are stuck with that rule. Pointing it out to someone anyone is not a bad thing you should be happy the rule has been brought to light.

[Spevna]

Unlike Spev and M_i_J, I wouldn't walk off just because someone insisted that facing was important. I would walk away if they dragged out the discussion, though.

Having thought about it, My thinking is more in line with AGP's.

If I was playing a game, and my opponent insisted on playing the game that way though, I would indeed be off for my lunch (be it first, second or, on tough day, even third lunch!!).

[Admiral-Badruck]

But one can hardly ignore the rules in the brb like I said the LOS rules are stupid. But at the end of the day what else can we do. Walking away seems like more obtuse than pointing out a rule in the BRB.

[Primarch]

...this is one rule in the new edition to learn or before a game make sure to agree upon.

Hence this thread.
I'm not upset about the way the game went, the rule had a minimal impact on how things played out. I figured it would be better to just play things through with the minimum of arguing and get on with the game. Having checked 5 different forums (Warseer, Dakka Dakka and BoLS to name a few), it appears there is no common consensus on this rule.
By itself, the rule on page 8 is straightforward enough and that is how you played it. I'm not claiming that anyone is wrong or cheated, just that I disagree. With the other rules listed I think that there is sufficient evidence to argue that models can see/shoot 360 degrees. Yes, the rules on model facing are in the movement section. This is because the movement phase is when you will actually position models. The rule in the flying monstrous creature section is also not on the LoS page, but says that 360 is the way to go. It is also worth pointing out that this rule will also impact your own shooting phases as well. Having models watching the flanks/rear means they cannot shoot targets the rest of the unit can see.
Again, I'm not saying who is right or wrong here. The rules have changed and not always in ways that everyone expected. I don't like having arguments at game tables, especially over something that is not easily resolved. As evidenced by some of the more direct responses in this thread, this is one of those topics that people are likely to get all fired up about. Until an FAQ comes along and lays things out it's probably better for everyone to work out our own answer and play that way for the time being.

As for opponent's not mentioning rules, it is very difficult to decide whether they forgot or whether it was a deliberate omission. Normally I would err on the side of them having forgotten about it, especially if I don't know how much they have played or when their last game actually was. Unfortunately there are times when you will walk away from a game and realise "Hang on a minute, that wasn't right!" My last two games at Joshin I forgot to take Jink saves for one of my skimmers which resulted in it being blown up. These things happen. It is best to just make a mental note of it and learn from what happened. If an opponent is only calling you on things that directly benefit them and ignoring things when it doesn't (hard to prove, but it does happen sometimes), then there is definite cause for complaint.

[Primarch_Vanguard]

I think getting upset over a new rule solves nothing. Even though many people are saying its been this way forever, it wasn't always thus. And now it has changed. It states it plain as day. Like it or not. And it doesn't favor one army or another, it's a rule that affects everyone. If it was bad for one army, I could see being upset, but still in the end, it is the new rule. I play space marine online and when I jump pack behind a guy and cut him open, he doesn't have a chance to fire. When another player sneaks up behind me and shoots me to pieces in the pc game, I don't complain. You got me, nice one. Not sure why so many people are up in arms about this rule. It really makes sense. And remember now, by jumping behind the other player to negate his overmatch, I did have to forego my hammer of wrath attack. So not all good. And if we can put any new rule to a vote, then what good is a rule book. We will have to come out with a nagoyahammer rule book to give all new players entering. Maybe not such a bad idea. Thus I have emailed GW about this rule to put it to rest. Usually those that see a rule and start trying to find a way around it or a loophole are frowned upon where I come from. I didn't change this rule, GW did. And if you would walk away froma game because a player wants to use the rule in the book, then he could do the same over every other rule and we'd all just end up in an empty room. I hate the new cover save rules. Detest them. I prefer the cover saves from way back. Did I walk out or give up this hobby, nope, I adapted and trudged on. One other player at the tournament brought up the rule of firing through other models as mobs do and how he hates it and it's not realistic at all. But it's in the rules and we have to use it. I agree with him. So until a ruling comes from Gw on this, the rule states, line of sight, not shoot anything in range. Even the title is in agreement. I don't agree with lots of the rules or even armies units that don't make sense why one has this and another does not but that's the game. Like it or not. and voting on it doesn't do a thing. If this is the way, we need to put up every rule to a vote. Let's iron everything out. We can't just pick and choose. That's biased towards the few. Let's start with a vote about GW (which I'm sure will be lopsided and go for there ) and then all the rules thereafter. But I've read the rules and I'm not interpreting them. And now I'll go for breakfast because the rule makes sense and is there in black and white and color because they have pictures.

[Mike the Pike]

@PV: I honestly don't think it's as cut and dried as you believe.

As Prim mentioned above, if you look at page 10, "Turning and Facing", it states"Whilst the direction a model is facing won't impact it's ability to shoot or charge into combat later in the turn, it's always better to have it facing towards the enemy..."

The flying Monstrous creature rules also seem to go against your interpretation. "Flying Monstrous Creatures can shoot all around, just like other non-vehicle models"

These rules are contradictory to drawing LOS from the eyes of a model. The first rule here states that facing is NOT an issue, facing the enemy is added at the end only as a suggestion. The second indicates that models CAN shoot all around. Which takes precedence?

This is not a new rule "plain as day", which we should get used to, please don't patronize us like that. It is a poorly written rule that is contradicted by other rules elsewhere in the same rulebook. It is very much open to interpretation until FAQed or amended by GW.

Also, I was being facetious in my earlier post but why apply RAW to this 'eyes' issue but then switch to a RAI interpretation to include those models, such as Wraithguard, which clearly don't have eyes.

Finally, talking about what happens in video games and reality is not valid in this situation. They are not the tabletop game of Warhammer 40,000. They might offer common sense suggestions for sticky rules issues, but when you are arguing RAW, as you seem to be, then you can't bring in ideas from other sources.

[ashmie]

Complete change of topic but still in the realm of rules interpretation. Did MiJ and I get the assault phase wound allocation correct? MiJ?

[me_in_japan]

@ash - see the separate thread I made about that exact question. To summarise: yes we did. It has also been officially FAQd to clarify, btw.

@PV - as mike says, this is not anything like as cut and dried as you suggest. Those of us who are disagreeing with your opinion are not "getting upset over a new rule", we're disagreeing with your taking one (admittedly badly written) line from the book and using it to overrule a number of clearly contradictory lines in the same rulebook, as well as your picking and choosing when you apply it (vis a vis Wraithguard et al.)

[YellowStreak]

I agree it's not cut-and-dried. As someone only recently returning to 40K, when reading the rules pre-NH I came away with the impression facing did not matter for infantry (as opposed to WFB).