Line of Sight

[Admiral-Badruck]

I don't dissagree with the ruling I just think it is bad form to walk away from a game table for a dissagreement in the rules. I also think it is bad form to insist on a rule too much. Letting things slide is all part of the game. As it has been mentioned before. The rules are not as tight as a drum there is a lot left for interpretation. I would hope that people would be more levelheaded than to just walk away from the table. That is the equivalent of saying " I'm taking my ball and going home because someone grab my arm on the foot-ball pitch." Arm grabbing is specificity against the rules of football but people still do it all the time. More in some countries than in others. Does that mean you walk off the pitch... No what do you do you start grabbing arms as well.

[job]

I think AGP wrote with a great deal of wisdom earlier.

The 40k rules are written from the point of view of two players sitting down together and playing with toy soldiers. This is why the rules are often rather vague in style - it's expected that the players are able to resolve things in a mutually agreeable fashion without resorting to arguments, spending hours cherry-picking quotes from the rulebook or going online to look it up. This is also why 40k isn't a ruleset ideally suited to competitive play; requiring the players to resolve unclear rules in a cooperative manner works fine when you're telling a story through the medium of wargaming, but doesn't work when it matters* who won. It's also worth remembering that just because the other guy disagrees with you doesn't mean he's cheating or his interpretation is wrong - somethings occasionally do need the judge to make a decision. Sometimes it's in your favour, some times it's not.

Otherwise, I think this forum is a great space for working out disagreements about rules and making kind of a community settlement.

As for this particular issue, I think it is best we use the general consensus. 13 people say they think the LOS is 360. If it turns out firing is only from the facing of the eyes itself, then I guess we need to give PV recognition for spotting this very different change in rules.

[Primarch]

I have no issue with a rule that indicates what a model can or can't see. I play enough games where such things are clearly defined in the rules (Warmachine and Cutlass for example). What I do have an issue with is where there are several points in the rulebook which apparently contradict the first rule. You have to give ALL rules equal emphasis, no matter where in the rulebook they appear. Obviously the writers thought that was the correct place to put them at the time they were written. So if GW ever do give us a definitive answer either way, then I will be happy to play the way that is indicated. In the meantime, we as a community need to find a way to reconcile the contradictions in a way that allows us to continue playing the game in a fun and relaxed way. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't need second lunches.
As it stands, the vast majority of people have decided to go one way with the rules we have been given. At any future events I run we will be playing this way should the question come up (unless we get some official response before then). Players in individual games can decide how they want to play on a case by case basis, fully aware of all of the rules.

[AndrewGPaul]

What is 40k about?

Painting toy soldiers and pushing them round a nicely-decorated tabletop, optionally making "dakkadakka!", "WAAAGH!" and "For the Emperor" noises.

The intent of the rules writes has, I think, been made clear over the years. if you don't like a rule, change it. There's nothing sacrosanct about the rulebook. The best games I've ever had were where no-one opened the rulebook during the game - if something unusual happened, we just winged it and got on with things.

I don't dissagree with the ruling I just think it is bad form to walk away from a game table for a dissagreement in the rules.

If the players can't come to an amicable agreement, then why shouldn't you give it up and do something else? For most people, arguing pointlessly over the rules isn't fun, so why not go and do something else that is?

Yes, you probably don't have the option of doing that at a tournament. One of the reasons I think competitive tournaments are a sub-optimal way of playing the game.

[Primarch_Vanguard]

And either way is fine. I'm not going to get stressed over a game rule. I play to relax and not get stressed. I'll just say "trace a line from the models eyes around his head and out the back to the target". And then it has 360 and we can get on with gaming. While I read the rule over and over and still can't understand why they would say it in such a way but want a 360 degree firing arc is beyond me but I could care less. This has come up only twice in many games and done nothing twice. Not a big deal. Don't change the soup at the old folks home. Lol.

[Primarch_Vanguard]

At least GW is fast. They emailed me that a clarification on this rule will be in the next errata/FAQ. So back to gaming and having fun!

[Primarch_Vanguard]

You gotta know when to hold them and know when to fold them. While there hasn't been an errata per se released, I've heard back from two games workshop editors and while they said they are not the experts, they beleive it is 360 degree LOS and the line from the eyes can be traced through the head. They said they have had many questions on this point because it is really unclear. Thus I expect the errata to state the same. Luckily, I'm not a betting man.

Sorry prime that you didn't get to over watch and prematurely obliterate my assault marines. My bad.

[Primarch]

Sorry prime that you didn't get to over watch and prematurely obliterate my assault marines. My bad.

No worries. Like I said, it wasn't a big deal in the game and I wasn't upset about it, but I felt that it did need clarifying as the rules seemed to contradict themselves.

I'm honestly really suprised that they got back to you about it. Well done GW.

[Primarch_Vanguard]

And quickly at that. And I really apologize for screwing up that rule during our game. Nothing bugs me more than people forgetting a rule or using it wrongly. Twenty lashes for this penitent.

[me_in_japan]

Well, I said I wouldn't comment further on this thread, but I have to say my hat is off to PV for taking it on the chin gracefully, and apologising, moreover. Respect to you, sir *doffs hat in PV's direction*

And, credit where it's due - a doff of the hat to GW for a commendably fast response. *smalldoff at GW*