PDA

View Full Version : True line of sight and spells?



Entreri Bloodletter
17-01-2013, 08:33
There are a few spells that require line of sight but not necessarily to be in the front arc. My question is can a character see behind them assuming no other models blocked their view? True line of sight is drawn from the eyes to the target, are you supposed to take into account which way the head is facing? How would I resolve this and how would I convince my opponent that TLOS doesn't require being in the front arc?

Asensur
17-01-2013, 09:32
Which spells are we talking about?

Direct Damage spells: no LOS, yes front arc
Magic Missile: yes LOS, yes front arc
Augment/Hex: no LOS, no front arc
Magic Vortex: no LOS, no front arc (just for the template).

Also, some of the 8th spells who do not have a type:

Penumbral Pendulum: no LOS, no front arc
Gaze of Mork: no LOS, "yes" front arc

Maybe we are talking about 7th spells, but this is a problem of rules update.

The only weird situation i remember when you must use LoS and not front arc is with warmachines (and today it is still not known if front arc is required or not in warmachines)

Efrovius
18-01-2013, 17:36
"Targeting restrictions vary from spell to spell. However, unless stated otherwise the following rules apply: ...Forward Arc... does not need LOS... within the spell's range... cannot target units in CC".
"Some unique spells or spells that are printed in older Warhammer Armies books, do not have a type - their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply." (pg 31 under Choosing A Target)
Sounds to me like it depends on the spell description. If it doesn't have a type, and doesn't have any casting restrictions, then I think the four restrictions listed above apply. As far as LOS is concerned, look at the table on pg 180 and it summarizes which spells need LOS.

Scalebug
18-01-2013, 18:08
The thing that happens though is that the BRB, by the letter of the rule, tells you to, for older books spells without type written out, read the restrictions on each spell, rather than use the ones listed for spells in general...

...which then, as no such restrictions often are not listed, since the text of course counts on the (7th ed) BRB basic restrictions would be in play, has unscrupulous ruleslawyers claiming they can cast into combat etc, when that would not have been possible when the book of the spell list was published...

It's not going to be an issue for much longer though, what have we left operating under previous edition rules now? Warriors, Daemons, Wood Elves and Beasts? Warriors are out next month, daemons after that, nobody uses Lore of the Wild for Beastmen, and nobody plays Wood Elves :p...

belgarath97
18-01-2013, 22:57
The thing that happens though is that the BRB, by the letter of the rule, tells you to, for older books spells without type written out, read the restrictions on each spell, rather than use the ones listed for spells in general...

...which then, as no such restrictions often are not listed, since the text of course counts on the (7th ed) BRB basic restrictions would be in play, has unscrupulous ruleslawyers claiming they can cast into combat etc, when that would not have been possible when the book of the spell list was published...

It's not going to be an issue for much longer though, what have we left operating under previous edition rules now? Warriors, Daemons, Wood Elves and Beasts? Warriors are out next month, daemons after that, nobody uses Lore of the Wild for Beastmen, and nobody plays Wood Elves :p...

High Elves & Dark Elves, some Lizardmen SC have spells.

Entreri Bloodletter
19-01-2013, 07:57
Thanks for the replies, I guess my other question would be: can you have LoS to something other than in your front arc?

Scalebug
19-01-2013, 08:27
High Elves & Dark Elves, some Lizardmen SC have spells.

For some reason I entirely flaked on the elves there, yeah... and skaven... :p

Asensur
19-01-2013, 10:36
Thanks for the replies, I guess my other question would be: can you have LoS to something other than in your front arc?

The big question, nobody knows.

Scalebug
19-01-2013, 13:27
The big question, nobody knows.

Wait, what?

We do know that... Line of sight is based on you actually drawing a line from the eyes of the model (even if they are under bandages, e helmet, etc...) to something. Typically this means 180 and change degrees, even if your wizard is wearing a high collar (like som vampire and Empire wizards often.

Asensur
19-01-2013, 13:59
Wait, what?

We do know that... Line of sight is based on you actually drawing a line from the eyes of the model (even if they are under bandages, e helmet, etc...) to something. Typically this means 180 and change degrees, even if your wizard is wearing a high collar (like som vampire and Empire wizards often.

Where did you take the 180 degrees, an anatomy book?

The rules of true line of sight are so bad and vague-written that they are intended to be used with front arc when applying the limits.

Does shooting use LoS and no front arc? no
Does charge use LoS and no front arc? no
Does the new 8th spells use LoS and no front arc? no

The only place where LoS is mentioned in the new rulebook without an "arc of sight" is in the warmachine section. And these rules are also vague-written, as front arc is not named, but also is not exactly denied (with needs a reaaally huge clarification in the FAQs).

What I really need is examples of when is used LoS and no front arc, to see the problem.

Entreri Bloodletter
21-01-2013, 09:36
Well before they FAQ'd it, and I think this is what originally brought up my question, hexes and augments needed LoS but not to be in the front arc. So that's really confusing but that issue has been resolved so I don't know if there are any other examples of this.

Scalebug
21-01-2013, 19:21
Where did you take the 180 degrees, an anatomy book?

Well, an anatomy book will tell you it is less, I think, and then go on to compare a humans field of vision to a rabbits, a cow and a wolf, the whole predator and prey thing...

But what I was pointing to was the effect of the very clear on page 10 of the rulebook; "
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace an unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the body (i.e. the head, torso, arms or legs) of the target."

which comes out to somewhere between 180 and maybe 225 for a human or similar model, as long as you consider "eyes" to mean "at least one of the eyes" and not "must be both eyes". Imagine, or actually do it, if you are handy, attaching a piece of string to the eye of the model and stretch it out to test around what you can cover without bending it.

Your location is "spain", is this a question of the spanish language book not being as clear?

But in any case, I fully agree that it was not a good decision to implement this over the previous catch-all 180 used before (even before going to skeletons, models with bandages like swordsman Eltharion, one of the gorgers, or I think a few models from the Mordheim range you might want to use for something...)

I understand how they thought it would be a good way of deepening the immersion with the actual models, but just the thing that it makes a big difference if your model is based diagonally or not shows that it was not a good idea, that would really had been caught in playtesting had they done so externally (or, as some negative people will say, at all... :p)

Asensur
21-01-2013, 22:13
Well, an anatomy book will tell you it is less, I think, and then go on to compare a humans field of vision to a rabbits, a cow and a wolf, the whole predator and prey thing...

But what I was pointing to was the effect of the very clear on page 10 of the rulebook; "

which comes out to somewhere between 180 and maybe 225 for a human or similar model, as long as you consider "eyes" to mean "at least one of the eyes" and not "must be both eyes". Imagine, or actually do it, if you are handy, attaching a piece of string to the eye of the model and stretch it out to test around what you can cover without bending it.

Your location is "spain", is this a question of the spanish language book not being as clear?

But in any case, I fully agree that it was not a good decision to implement this over the previous catch-all 180 used before (even before going to skeletons, models with bandages like swordsman Eltharion, one of the gorgers, or I think a few models from the Mordheim range you might want to use for something...)

I understand how they thought it would be a good way of deepening the immersion with the actual models, but just the thing that it makes a big difference if your model is based diagonally or not shows that it was not a good idea, that would really had been caught in playtesting had they done so externally (or, as some negative people will say, at all... :p)

You're trying to give an exact value (degrees, rads.. whatever you want) to an inaccurate rule. The rule is intended to be used with the model's height, not his angular field of view. That's the reason they don't give you a value (even 360).

Front/rear/flank arcs are the ones designed to decide which unit is out of the radius or not.

Step-by-step, games workshop is FAQ'ing all issues when LoS is involved and there is not front arc (although they are too slow and lazy to make it in a single update).

As I said earlier, the only problem with LoS is with warmachines as front arc is neither named nor denied. And maybe some rules of the olds army books (dwarf gyrocopters and organ guns are an example of out-of-date rules)

Scalebug
21-01-2013, 23:00
You're trying to give an exact value (degrees, rads.. whatever you want) to an inaccurate rule. The rule is intended to be used with the model's height, not his angular field of view. That's the reason they don't give you a value (even 360).

Front/rear/flank arcs are the ones designed to decide which unit is out of the radius or not.

Step-by-step, games workshop is FAQ'ing all issues when LoS is involved and there is not front arc (although they are too slow and lazy to make it in a single update).

As I said earlier, the only problem with LoS is with warmachines as front arc is neither named nor denied. And maybe some rules of the olds army books (dwarf gyrocopters and organ guns are an example of out-of-date rules)


I don't see what you think the problem is with warmachines, as they get to pivot before they shoot, and we are told to check visibility from an indicated point on the machine (crossbar/muzzle). They have no front/side/rear arcs for other purposes (e.g close combat).

I didn't say a numerical value was given for the arc of visibility, just that the 180-ish one there is the actual effect of applying the directions given on p.10 to a typical model.

I feel there is something you are misunderstanding with the whole thing, but I can't precisely see what.

Asensur
22-01-2013, 12:03
I don't see what you think the problem is with warmachines, as they get to pivot before they shoot, and we are told to check visibility from an indicated point on the machine (crossbar/muzzle). They have no front/side/rear arcs for other purposes (e.g close combat).

I didn't say a numerical value was given for the arc of visibility, just that the 180-ish one there is the actual effect of applying the directions given on p.10 to a typical model.

I feel there is something you are misunderstanding with the whole thing, but I can't precisely see what.

You're forgetting some words from the warmachine rules which are the origin of the issues with warmachines.

Issue 1, page 109, shooting warmachines

"before you fire the war machine, pivot it to face your chosen target"

It is not stated if target requirements (LoS, distance, etc) need to be met before or after pivoting the warmachine.

Issue 2, page 110, warmachines and front/rear/flank arcs

"A war machine does not have any flanks or a rear for the purposes of combat result"

It is stated that a warmachine does not have flank or rear arcs only for combat result purposes. There is no mention about other cases (like what happens with the little waaagh! signature spell). So, this unique statement does not negate entirely front/flank/rear arcs on the warmachine.

Issue 3, page 109, warmachines: base or not?

"War machine models do not normally have bases, and so the usual convention of measuring to the model's base cannot be used. When measuring to and from the war machine, measure to or from the body of the machine"

page 80

"That said, some models aren't supplied with a base. In these cases you should feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size, or simply pretend that the model is on a suitably sized base."

Here we have a conflict between two rules. And both these rules are from the same category (rulebook and advanced rules). Yes, distance measurements have beeon solved within the rules, but front/flank/rear arcs are not named in this case.

Issue 4, pages 111-115, different warmachines, different shooting requirements

Bolt Thrower: use normal rules of shooting (this includes both LoS and front arc)
Cannon: use LoS (front arc is neither named nor denied), grappleshots use normal rules of shooting (this includes both LoS and front arc)
Flamethrower: use LoS (front arc is neither named nor denied)
Stonethrower: optional use of LoS (front arc is neither named nor denied)

Another few examples from some 8th empire warmachines with their own rules

Empire Helblaster: use normal rules of shooting (this includes both LoS and front arc)
Steam Tank/Steam Gun: it says it uses a 360 arc of fire
Steam Tank/Steam Cannon: can only be fired directly ahead.
Other ones: use cannon/stonethrower rules when choosing target.

There is also the issue with the banshee's Ghostly Howl, with uses Line of Sight but doesn't name front arc. Also, Banshees are not warmachines, and so the "there is no base" statement can't be made when choosing target. So, which is her field of view?

All these issues haven't been FAQ'd by Games Worshop yet, and usually are source of conflict inside gaming groups. The main problem of Line of sight is that it has not an arc of view specified (I still want to see where is the 180 arc value in the rulebook).

What I say is, there is no official value of what can a model see within Line of Sight when front arc isn't involved. Every gamer could respond a "value", but it is just an agreement within their gaming groups, as there is no official response yet.

Scalebug
22-01-2013, 13:08
This is absurd!


For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace an unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the body (i.e. the head, torso, arms or legs) of the target.

It is there! What is is you don't understand about it? Do you think that it has to say 90, 180, 225 or whatever to be an arc?

This is not about the rules being unclear, it is about you don't understanding them.

Asensur
22-01-2013, 13:31
This is absurd!



It is there! What is is you don't understand about it? Do you think that it has to say 90, 180, 225 or whatever to be an arc?

This is not about the rules being unclear, it is about you don't understanding them.

"Typically this means 180 and change degrees, even if your wizard is wearing a high collar (like som vampire and Empire wizards often." This is from one of your responses. I still want to know where did you take that exact value.

As I said earlier, line of sight is meant to be used with the model's height, not his field of view.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore. Line of sight has always been since 8th a common issue in these forums and each one has a different understanding of the rule (have seen values of 90, 180 and 360 in these forums from different people).

The only thing that is exact is that it needs FAQs, either in the line of sight rules, or in the specific cases where it is used without other restriction.

Scalebug
22-01-2013, 13:48
"Typically this means 180 and change degrees, even if your wizard is wearing a high collar (like som vampire and Empire wizards often." This is from one of your responses. I still want to know where did you take that exact value.

OK, this is you not understanding what that meant, then. I see.

I did not say this was a quote of somewhere, I said this is the result of doing what we were instructed to do.




As I said earlier, line of sight is meant to be used with the model's height, not his field of view.


No. I would guess you have gotten this idea because line of sight also comes into play when dealing with models obscured by terrain or other models, but add this to things you have been taught wrong by someone teaching you the game, or misunderstood yourself reading it.

It is not that LOS is only about heights. Unlearn that.



I'm not going to argue with you anymore. Line of sight has always been since 8th a common issue in these forums and each one has a different understanding of the rule (have seen values of 90, 180 and 360 in these forums from different people).


Ask yourself if it isn't again you not understanding what people have been arguing about?

There are many other issues with LOS, I could make a long list, but that would probably just confuse you further, but not getting what is said on p.10 there is not what people argue about.



The only thing that is exact is that it needs FAQs, either in the line of sight rules, or in the specific cases where it is used without other restriction.


The reason it hasn't been in the FAQ is because no one has asked them about it, because people do understand it. It is clear. You are in the minority that don't get what the book says.

Asensur
22-01-2013, 14:05
Dude, I already know you have to make a direct line between your models "eyes" and the target without anything blocking sight.

I also know that some parts of the model do not count when it is decided if the model is within line of sight or not (standards, wings,etc)

The rule explains it very well. Even in those rare cases (or backaches), a laser pointer does the job.

The OT questions if a model can see other model behind him. That is the problem. It is not named in the rules.

Normally line of sight is used with front arc when deciding a target. These are the cases where there is no issue

As I stated, some warmachines and banshee's ghostly howl are a couple of cases when this issue arrives.

Does a model have line of sight behind him? That is what it needs a FAQ because it is not stated clear.

Scalebug
22-01-2013, 14:27
No, again, it is you being unable to understand here...

So you get how to draw the line to establish if something is in LOS, but you still need the rulebook to tell you how to use that information, by telling you what happens if a LOS is not accieved? Like, for example if the thing you were testing if you could see is behind the model wanting to see it?

It also looks like maybe you have learned that LOS needs to be in the front arc. Unlearn that. That is not a rule. In many occasions the rules do tell you to have both LOS and for it to be in your front arc, but that doesn't mean LOS is restricted to the front arc. You have misunderstood this.

Lord Solar Plexus
23-01-2013, 08:47
Asensur is correct. While Line of Sight can cautiously be defined as a straight line, arc of sight is not defined anywhere, and the issue cropped up shortly after 8th hit the shelves. There are models without eyes, or eyes all over the place, there are models like that Gobbo Wolf Rider sitting reversed, or stuff like the old Casket where units were affected as long as they had LoS. The consensus back then was to use a 360 arc of sight for everyone.