NagoyaHammer.com

So, a rules debate cropped up at NagoyaHammer between myself and another player. Before I get into the details of it, I want to briefly cover two very important points: RAW and RAI.

RAW means Rules as Written. It is a strict way to apply the rules. You follow the rules to the letter without inferring or implying anything.
RAI means Rules as Intended. It is a liberal way to apply the rules. You try to determine what the writers wanted a particular rule to do.
Both methods have merits and flaws. RAW works because it means that everyone is on the same page, but at the same time it only works if the writers and the English Language are infallible. RAW is responsible for such classics as players arguing that Combi-bolters could fire an infinite number of times in a turn back in the old 4th ed. Marine Codex and from the same book the fact that Marine Terminators did not actually have Terminator Armour.
RAI works because it tries to find the best way to play when the (often) contradictory rules don't work properly. However, it assumes that any given player knows what the writers wanted from the rules and results in many differences of opinion.

With that out of the way, let's get on with the matter at hand.
In a game at NagoyaHammer my Necrons were facing off against some assault marines and shot at them. In the marine's turn, they used their jump packs to jump over the necrons. In the assault phase they declared a charge against the necron unit and the claim was made that because the necrons were not looking at the assault marines, they couldn't fire overwatch.

This comes from the main rule book, Page 8, top of the second column.
"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from it's eyes to any part of the target's body."

So, by RAW, you can only shoot at models you are directly facing/looking at.

Now, as things stood at the event, after a quick discussion I figured that the impact on the game wouldn't be that great and just went ahead and gave up my overwatch fire. End result the Necrons wiped the floor with the assault marines and went on to storm over to the objective and contest it. However, I can see this coming up again in the futre so I want to talk about it and find a solution that everyone is happy to work with.

The rest of page 8 gives some more information which I think should be added to the debate.
The last paragraph of the second column says "Firing models can always draw line of sight through their own unit just as if they were not there. This assumes that the soldiers shift their stances to open firing lanes in order to maximise their own squad's firepower." The second sentence is most relevant. There is an assumption written into the rules that the models are not as static as they might appear to be. Elsewhere on the same page it makes a point that the miniatures are plastic and resin and cannot therefore communicate with the players. (Also by strictest RAW at that point, Metal models cannot be used in the game).

On page 10 we get the following from the 'Turning and Facing' section: "...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, just as it would on a real battlefield."

on page 49 we get the following from the section 'Swooping Hunters': "...Flying Monstrous Creatures can shoot all around, just like other non-vehicle models."

Finally, in the vehicle section we get the following from the section on 'Vehicle Weapons and Line of Sight': "...On some models, it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled or because the gun has been glued in place."

The vast majority of models don't have an option to change pose mid-game and applying the rule would result in some strange situations where models have to be positioned to fit in a space provided, but were assembled looking in a different direction (bike models being the obvious example). Strict RAW also means that Wraithguard, Wraithlords, Zoanthropes and Hive Guard can never fire any weapons as they don't actually have any eyes. The rule also results in some strange differences between units. E.g. Imperial Guard have very limited vision due to their helmets whilst Termagants which have eyes on the sides of their heads can probably claim to be able to see 270 degrees or more. It also raises the question of where the model's eyes are looking.

My own view on it is that non-vehicle models have a 360 degree line of sight and that the "measure from the eyes" rule simply tells us where on the model we should start from. E.g. you can't measure from the top of the model's banner pole. The rule book gives examples of models being unable to move due to the way they are assembled and makes allowances for that.

Anyway, there are the relevant sections of the rulebook laid out for you. There are threads on most of the major 40K forums discussing this and none of them can reach an absolute consensus. So, until GW gets around to providing an FAQ for this, lets work out our own answer.

Thoughts and comments below guys.

Models have 360LOS. [EDITED] Sorry for the rather confrontational stance, but 40k has always been clear that a model's facing is irrelevant. To suggest otherwise is a clear violation of the spirit of the game, the rules of the game, and frankly if someone pulled that on me mid-game I would pack up my minis and go get lunch.

In my opinion, facing is not an issue. It doesnt take a massive leap of logic to assume that the model in question turns and fires.

I also think that the rules/sentences you referenced support this.

To claim otherwise is grasping at straws.

And as MiJ just wrote, I would be on my way to an early lunch too.

me_in_japan wrote:Models have 360LOS. [EDITED] Sorry for the rather confrontational stance, but 40k has always been clear that a model's facing is irrelevant. To suggest otherwise is a clear violation of the spirit of the game, the rules of the game, and frankly if someone pulled that on me mid-game I would pack up my minis and go get lunch.

Plus one in principle, although since this is an actual person that came out to the NH event I might not phrase it quite so strongly myself. But yeah, "models have 360 degree LOS" has been one of the fundamental points of 40K for a very long time.

RAW RAW RAAAAAW!

Since none of our plastic/resin/metal models have actual 'eyes' but only sculpted approximations of them I shall not be allowing anyone to shoot in my next game of 4OK.

@MiJ/Spev: But what if you're playing an afternoon or evening game? Two lunches is excessive by even my standards.

I feel the implication of the rule is you use the head height as your point of reference, not just assuming your model can just look straight forward as you posed his head. It might be said that also 40k has never had facings for infantry models (well, I should edit that to 3rd +; I have no idea about 1st and 2nd), so this would have to be brand new.

Otherwise, this is going to be great for Tzeentch sorcerers who have extra eyes in their palms.

I'd like to also say that two lunches is perfectly fine. Having just come back from France I can say I enjoy the idea of eating all the more.

I hate the true LOS rules but I can see (pun intended) where there is room for debating it... 40k BRB LOS is clear I might point out that non of the tau wearing helmets actually have eyes on the model. It would be much better if the rules gave models a clear firing arch but it does not.


My feeling is it should work like terrain talk it over with the person you are playing before the game and stick to it. Certainly do not try to take shooting oppertunies away from your opponent over a small technicality.


I liked 4th ed terrain rules much better than 5th and 6th ed. but we are stuck with them.

Mike the Pike wrote:@MiJ/Spev: But what if you're playing an afternoon or evening game? Two lunches is excessive by even my standards.

But which is M_i_J?

Just to make things totally clear. This thread was intended purely to discuss the rules, not the attitudes of players. Let's keep things polite and constructive.

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.

2nd edition was, IIRC, the last edition in which facing was important.

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.

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.

As to why vehicles have a facing but infantry don't; abstraction. 40k is slowly moving away from 1st and 2nd editions where the important thing was individual models to a state where the squad is the important thing; individual miniatures are there only as "wound counters" and an indication of the ground controlled by that squad. Also, the time taken up by a turn is rather fluid; you can consider that the soldiers represented by your miniatures are always looking around them (or have sensors and the like incorporated into their equipment) so are generally aware of what's happening all around them. Sure, you could mandate that a player should position flank guards and a rearguard facing in appropriate directions as would happen in real life, but it's easier to just assume that the squad leader and his men are competent and are doing this anyway. As a company or regimental commander, it's not your role to remind individual privates to look behind them. Vehicles are clumsier and have more limited awareness, so that is represented by a restricted firing arc.

As examples, Necromunda focuses on much smaller-scale conflicts and is more detailed, so players of that game do need to worry about what way the models are facing. in contrast, in Epic, the abstraction, level of command and time scale is such that the facing of vehicles and even super-heavy war engines is irrelevant.

* depending on your definition of "matters", of course. I've never been that desperate to get a box set that I'll risk losing friends over it. the Magic World Championship would be a different matter.