Librarium Online Forums banner

Allowed to check LOS at any time?

2K views 39 replies 15 participants last post by  KhlauKolash 
#1 ·
Hi,

In a game I played recently I wanted to check LOS to an Eldar Falcon from a spot on the board before I moved my Carnifex to that location. I have read it in a few places that this is a good way to avoid conflicts; to measure Line-Of-Sight a little now and then and also asking the opponent if he/she agrees that this or this is a valid LOS. However, my fellow Eldar player didnt agree, his opinion was that you are only allowed to check LOS after picking a target in the shooting phase, much like when you are allowed to measure the distance. I didnt argue, and we continued to play.

The way we normally do is that you are allowed to LOOK for LOS but not allowed to MEASURE the LOS until the actual shooting. It speeds the game up and I guess its an ok way to play it but I would like to try how a game goes when you are allowed to measure LOS all the time.

How do you guys play? Has anyone found a rule in favor or against the "measure LOS all the time"-practice?

/ Rippars
 
#2 ·
Hi Mate,
on page 18 in the BG you will find the "Shooting Process Summary," and it states that you must choose a target first, then check LOS not the other way around.

But having said that there is nothing within the rules that will prevent you from having a sticky beak from time to time before you start your turn.

I think that once your turn has started though it could be frowned upon.

Cheers.
 
#3 ·
Hi,

In a game I played recently I wanted to check LOS to an Eldar Falcon from a spot on the board before I moved my Carnifex to that location.
As WW said, LOS is done *after* choosing a target. Choosing a target is (technically) only done *after* the Movement Phase; obviously you can plan ahead to take out Target "X", but you have to go by your judgment for the LOS you are likely to have once you've moved, rather than establishing it for certain *before* you move. The ACTUAL verification of an existing LOS can only be done in the Shooting Phase, and is then subject to the Shooting Process on P.18 BGB.

E.
 
#4 ·
wait, so you two are saying that you can not lookaround the board and see if one unit is able to see a location untill the shooting phase? That sounds completly wrong. no where in the book does it way that in the movement phase you can not tell if the model can see something. where in rules does this state or am i interpreting these posts wrong?:?
 
#5 ·
Hi,
Like we said, there is a procedure to follow within the game and there really is nothing to stop you having a “lookaround the board” before your turn starts.

But pre-checking anything before the event is most definitely frowned upon, again see page 18 for the shooting process summary.

I do see where you are coming from though with checking LOS at the end of movement but consider this, its nowhere in the rules as an allowed action and 40K is a game of permission not omission.

You need written permissions to do anything reasonable in the game and it’s the weakest logic to say “I can because it does say I can’t.”

Sorry if this comes off a bit harsh but this little nugget of wisdom is the cornerstone of the game.

Cheers.
 
#6 ·
while you definitly can't pre-check in any sense, but you can pre-estimate... guess how far your carnifex can move, then pretend you have moved it there and crouch down and use (imaginary) models eye view to decide.

it's kind of like guess range weapons in fantasy: theres a reason you have to fire them before other shooting other things, however it's common to see people measuring 1 foot sections within their hands...
 
#7 ·
It'll always be a bit of a grey area. The consensus around here seems to be that it's ok to tweak some movement a little bit looking down from above but crouching down along the table during movement is frowned upon. The practice of using an unmarked straightedge to check fire lines clean across the board during movement advocated in a very popular thread on daemon hunters is right out =). There's a lot of social aspect to it and it will depend on who you're playing with.


<warning interpretation and house rules to follow!>
For example I don't really mind If someone checks if their own minis are 6" inside terrain in their own movement. A trooper ought to be able to tell if he can see out of the building yet or not! However if you move them, check, then move them somewhere else entirely, that's not cool. So they ran over, couldn't see out the window, then double timed it back to somewhere else in the other direction for a total of triple their allowed movement? Same with a vehicle, it's fine that a crew would be able to tell when their target is in sight and stop without exposing themselves to more enemies. It's not fine if they go someplace and check then haul arse 18" somewhere else if they don't see anything.
 
#8 ·
As stated, BTR (by the rules), you declare targets first, then check LOS, then range. If your target is out of LOS or Range, they may not be fired upon, but your unit counts as having fired.

A very easy way around this is to put your head down, look around the board and see what can and can't be seen.

Never should you break out the back side of a tape to check LOS UNLESS you have declared a target, as some will 1-take this as premeasuring. 2-the rules don't say you can.

All that said, remember, no shooting limbs, guns, banners or the such. LOS is drawn to model BODY, from MEV in all cases EXCEPT shooting over area terrain and CC. Then you use size classes. And remember, so long as you can see a SPECK of a vehicle (besides guns (excluding mounts) and banners, and antenas), it is a valid target. Chances are, they will get obscured target, but take the shot.
 
#13 ·
I played a game with my Eldar over the weekend and came into a situation where a friend of mine and I were someone trying to figure out the following situation:

Setting:
I have my Dark Reapers in a building on a balcony (2nd story), below them on ground level was my friends squad of Terminators (about 2 to 3 inches away). My Farseer is on ground level about 18 inches away.

Shooting target/priority:
He wants to shoot at my Farseer. We ran into a bit of confusion because you can fire upon a independent character unless they are closest valid target. The key word being valid...we did LOS first before his shooting and he couldn't see the Dark Reapers, even though they were closer. They weren't a valid target due to his termis not able to see them (balcony blocking LOS), or at least that's how he understood the rules.

If we followed the rules outlined above he would have targeted the Dark Reapers since they are the closest, but would have not been able to fire on them due to not being able to see them (ie: saving my Farseer from the rain of Assualt cannon shots). The IDC rules said you can fire upon them if no valid target was available...well the Dark Reaper aren't valid target if you can't see them right or wrong? Gah...sometimes I just want to smack the folks who wrote the rules due to confusion and vagueness.

Sorry if I got to detailed on the rules since I know there is a rule against posting copy righted material. I wasn't sure how else to explain the situation. Any help would be appreciated. D:
 
#9 ·
So, most of you are saying that its ok to estimate LOS but not measure. Ok, thats fine. But are you saying you are only allowed to check LOS before you begin moving, not during?

I think you should be able to check LOS to several possible targets before choosing a target though. Why would a group of soldiers try to fire at a target they cannot see? It doesnt make sense. However, I guess I could estimate the LOS before choosing a target. But you are saying this is not acceptable?

/ Rippars
 
#10 ·
you atre mistaking estimating for knowing - "If I move to that hill top I should be able to see the tank", you ge there and find there is something in the way! these things happen

you can look at where your guys are and gues if they have LOS to several targets, but that is best estimate, think of your sgt trying to figure out if everyone can see something before he gives an FCO
 
#11 ·
Just keep your eyes closed during movement - that way there is no question.

Seriously though, we always play that it's okay to look, you just can't use a tool of any sort (i.e. tape measure, string, straight edge, etc.) until you declare a target. But getting down to the level of the table is fine. If it's not, well... I have a bad back and I can't stand up straight for too long so I have to bend over and stretch every now and then, and keeping my eyes closed during stretching can cause a loss of balance and possible injury. Not even the BGB can tell me that stretching my herniated discs is against the rules - if they say it is I have a good discrimination lawsuit brewing!

;Y

.
 
#12 ·
The way we have always played it is that you are free to look around the board at any time as much as you want, but you are only allowed to put something on the board to actually “measure” at the times that the rules state. This counts for using an unmarked stick (I prefer string) to prove that there is LOS, or actually measuring distance with a tape measure.
 
#20 ·
Hi,
The Night fight Rules only deal with range not LOS so this argument is a deflection away from the topic.

Anyway Night Fight rules are not the same as the normal Shooting Process but a variation on the theme based on a restricted range and done so “after” achieving the valid selection of a target.

And you are quite right, the stated steps are –

1-choose target
2-check LOS
3-check range

But this only part of what is written as point 2 must be valid for point 1 to even be considered.

If you have no LOS then you could not have seen or chosen a target (page 20 Line of sight) and the whole processes stalls until you do find a valid target or voluntarily forego shooting for that unit.

Now I ask you is their any rule for “Shooting, did not make it?” just like for assault?
Of course not as shooting either targets or it doesn’t, not attempts to target and therefore forfeits the right to try again because of it.

Do you see that the unit that wants to fire sweeping the battlefield with their targetters, spotting something and only then firing? I certainly do and don’t count sweeping the battlefield as a one time usage for that turn.

Interestingly, you play it the way I describe but support the opposite.
 
#21 ·
Hi,
The Night fight Rules only deal with range not LOS so this argument is a deflection away from the topic.
Sorry, ww, but I've just checked with the BGB, and the Night Fight rule is about checking if a unit can see a target (BGB p84, 2nd sentence of the Night Fighting rule). Now this means that we roll to determine how far they can see (that has nothing to do with the range of their weapons : you may have a heavy bolter able to shoot at 36", but you only see up to, say, 15"...). Now, GW has muddled this issue by using the word "range" in the 4th sentence of the night fighting rule, and referring to weapons rather than to the guys using them ! But the rule itself is about being able to see your target, i.e. LoS.

Do you see that the unit that wants to fire sweeping the battlefield with their targetters, spotting something and only then firing? I certainly do and don’t count sweeping the battlefield as a one time usage for that turn.

Interestingly, you play it the way I describe but support the opposite.
I fully agree with you, and I think tarzen does too... But I understand tarzen's point about RAW.
 
#24 ·
FWIW we house rule it that you can pre-measure with the back of a tape.

It's far too unrealistic to shoot at something you can't see for us to abide by that rule. Range we do abide by - foolish choice to shoot at something you can see, but that is too far away.

BUT the whole notion of selecting a target, checking LoS, not being able to SEE it, and going "oooops haha you fired" is too irrational for our house rules to follow. I mean, seriously, how can a unit have fired at something it could never see in the first place? ;)
 
#26 · (Edited)
It's far too unrealistic to shoot at something you can't see for us to abide by that rule. Range we do abide by - foolish choice to shoot at something you can see, but that is too far away.
you are falling into the trap of assuming real life is a series of start stop itterations known as turns, you know soemthing is there yo utry and get into a possition when you think you can see it, you keep truying till you manage or give up, this doesnt always take the same ammount of time
BUT the whole notion of selecting a target, checking LoS, not being able to SEE it, and going "oooops haha you fired" is too irrational for our house rules to follow. I mean, seriously, how can a unit have fired at something it could never see in the first place? ;)
having been in a war, it is damn realistic, 99% of combat is confusion, and the other 1% you dont know what is going on, most of winning is about deciding a possitive course of action and persuing it as hard as you can, often what that course of action is is a mute point

If you live in the UK watch Black hawk down on sunday night, it is the closes film I have seen to real life combat
Edit: ok so you are American, that probably explains it ;)
 
#27 ·
So what your saying Cheredanine is that in a heated battle, your told you enemy is aroung the corner, but you turn the corner and all you see is a wall where that enemy should be, but you catch another enemy out of the corner of your eye and yet you still shoot at the wall? (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm from America too and will probably never see a battlefield because I can't think like that)

As to our local house rules, we we've given the whole board the equivilent of targeters, a 'give or take a half inch' view, and ignore morale for shooting and last man standing (unless we're playing with one of the two rules lawyers at our card shop). Its makes for fun/heroic times, like a basic squad of catachan poking two holes in a greater daemon, or a lone sgt. who runs across half the board to melta bomb a dreadnought. We've got special rules with walkers too, but that's a whole nother story.
 
#29 ·
So what your saying Cheredanine is that in a heated battle, your told you enemy is aroung the corner, but you turn the corner and all you see is a wall where that enemy should be, but you catch another enemy out of the corner of your eye and yet you still shoot at the wall? (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm from America too and will probably never see a battlefield because I can't think like that)
it is called suppresive fire and is the basic of infantry tactic
 
#31 ·
As was I, and apology accepted. I recognize you intended humor, but I see a lot of genuinely ignorant references to dumb Americans (or, on the other hand, to ignorant Europeans) on various boards and would for my own part not see them even in jest ... we are all drawn together by common love of a hobby entirely uninfluenced by the politics of our world, and seeing even a humorous reference to a genuine stereotyping makes me uncomfortable ... simply b/c I don't want to see it brought here.

The long and short is that in the confines of the game, separate of the acronyms you refer to (and for wahtever it is worth, I work in the defense contracting industry, with peers who range from former special forces to former f-16 pilots ... these things are not hidden terms).

In effect, applying these terms and concepts to the game of 40k is a misnomer ... almost NOTHING about the game applies to real war, most especially GW's design. I mean, jesus look at the armor on a Landraider ... it's designed horribly, might as well invite penetrating fire. In any event, rather than debate the concepts of suppressive fire, firing for effect, etc. all of which are nice and pleasant, they aren't even really present in 40k except when represented by things like pinning attacks. Yay, there's your suppressive fire.

I'm not going to drag it out; as long as your move is finished, my gaming group maintains a house rule that lets you back-tape los draw the target you want to shoot at, and if your unit can't see it your unit can't shoot at it or target it to begin with. You certainly gain no advantage from drawing a bead on / aiming at your target, or firing for effect, so we're hardly going to punish people for pretending that's what their unit is doing either. It's a game, and we find 40k is better played allowing los to be checked before targetting, again presuming the movement phase is finished.
 
#32 ·
As was I, and apology accepted. I recognize you intended humor, but I see a lot of genuinely ignorant references to dumb Americans (or, on the other hand, to ignorant Europeans) on various boards and would for my own part not see them even in jest ... we are all drawn together by common love of a hobby entirely uninfluenced by the politics of our world, and seeing even a humorous reference to a genuine stereotyping makes me uncomfortable ... simply b/c I don't want to see it brought here.
:) I spent time attached to SEALS operating ahead of 2nd US marine Div out of Fort LeJeurne mate, your own troops do you no favours on this score, at some point I must PM you my experiances :)
The long and short is that in the confines of the game, separate of the acronyms you refer to (and for wahtever it is worth, I work in the defense contracting industry, with peers who range from former special forces to former f-16 pilots ... these things are not hidden terms).
erk, wasnt trying to hide anything, they are standard infartry training terms, for elaboration:
FCO - Fire Control Orders which are taught using the mnemonics:
GRIT - Group, Range, Indication, Type of Fire
and
CLAP - Clear, Loud, As an order, With Pauses
In effect, applying these terms and concepts to the game of 40k is a misnomer ... almost NOTHING about the game applies to real war, most especially GW's design. I mean, jesus look at the armor on a Landraider ... it's designed horribly, might as well invite penetrating fire. In any event, rather than debate the concepts of suppressive fire, firing for effect, etc. all of which are nice and pleasant, they aren't even really present in 40k except when represented by things like pinning attacks. Yay, there's your suppressive fire.
agreed suppresive fire is essentially what causes pinning although pinning in game terms doesnt accratley reflect it
I'm not going to drag it out; as long as your move is finished, my gaming group maintains a house rule that lets you back-tape los draw the target you want to shoot at, and if your unit can't see it your unit can't shoot at it or target it to begin with. You certainly gain no advantage from drawing a bead on / aiming at your target, or firing for effect, so we're hardly going to punish people for pretending that's what their unit is doing either. It's a game, and we find 40k is better played allowing los to be checked before targetting, again presuming the movement phase is finished.
Hmm, ok well not real gripe, not advocating you drop your house rules or I will send the boys round, just the way we play is- I move this squad, if I am intending to shoot something, I move to a point where I think I can see it, and lets be fair 99 times out of 100 this is do-able, I then fire at it, if I have made a mistake and I dont have LOS, then frankly I get what I derserve, this seems to be the way the rules are written and cant see the justification for any change
 
#33 ·
I completely agree that's the way the rules are written.

In terms of stories, I work with enough Euros to've known some truly idiotic ones, who are typically arrogantly assured of their intellectual superiority regardless. Parts of the whole, my friend ... all societies are full of idiots and brilliants.
 
#34 ·
There's something of a social contract you enter into with people when using these sorts of house rules. I am content to let people change targets if they have no LOS based on 'why would they fire at something they can't see.' However, if someone is going to use these kinds of 'realism' arguments it's got to go both ways. Don't move your tank to every imaginable position within 12" looking for the ideal placement before settling on one and then expect such leniency! 'Realism' can go both ways. Maybe the driver hit the brakes too hard and the gunner had already committed to the shot expecting to turn the corner?
 
#37 ·
Ok, this is how I intend to convince my gaming group to play:

1. You are allowed to estimate line-of-sight at any time. Including during your own movement. So moving a model back and forth to optimize what you estimate is the best LOS is allowed. (Because making this illegal would be too tedious to enforce, leading too much room for dispute.)

2. You are allowed to measure LOS, only after selecting a target. (Since you have estimated that you have LOS, the troops should at least have a gotten a glimpse of where the targe is.) If the unit you wish to fire upon is clearly out of sight, then the shot is a miss. (Suppressive fire)

3. Unclear LOS. The LOS is considered to be unclear if takes more than 5 seconds for the players to establish whether LOS exists or not. If the LOS is uncear, a 4+ save should be applied to each shoot that scores a hit after rolling to hit and before rolling to wound or armour penetration. This In-The-Way Save should be in addition to any other save the defending unit may benefit from and is also rolled when firing on a vehicle. (So the vehicle could have both the In-The-Way save and the hull down "save", the ITW save makes the shoot a complete miss, and the hull down save converts penetrating to glancing)

The third rule is just an extension of the normal "rule-dispute rule". I do think that by using rules 1 and 2, LOS-conflicts will be numerous. By agreeing to rule 3 before the game starts, and agreeing to use it liberaly, the game will flow better.

So what do you think about this?

/ Rippars
 
#38 ·
I think that so long as EVERYONE playing is aware of how YOU (or your group) plays, EVERYTHING is A OK!

That said, Wicky, you know I'm right on this one, and just want to argue it from a common sense point. If step 1 can't happen until step 2, why is it step 1? because the rules say so. Warmachine is similar in its rules about freestrikes. If you move out of melee range, they get a free swing at you, but how can they as you are now out of melee range? Because the rules say so;)

It's akin to the rules for moving into difficult terrain. If you are 2 inches away, and declare you are moving into terrain, you roll 2d6, and take the highest. If you roll 2 1's, you won't even make it into the terrain, but you may only move the 1" you rolled, even if you move away from it, as thems the rules.
 
#39 ·
Hi Mate,
We must had a transmission loss, sorry for the delay.

Perhaps its best to restate our claims here so that we are on the same page and I really don’t want to prove anyone “wrong” here, just play and understand the game the best way.

I have always held that the game is played using a “birds eye view” except for checking LOS for shooting and terrain, in this case” models eye view” is used (MEV).

Now I think that it’s the timing of this “MEV” I believe that’s in question in the original post and you are adding the question of “Does the act of targeting lock in the choice of target?”
Is that right?

Anyway talk to you soon.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top