PDA

View Full Version : Can a lone model move backwards with Bridge of Shadows?



semprus
07-12-2014, 04:53
The spell states "The target unit is immediately removed from the table and replaced anywhere on the battlefield visible to the Wizard, provided that no model from the unit is within 1" of another unit or impassable terrain."

Does "visible" in this case mean forward arc and if so, does it apply to lone models that are in combat?

I have attached an image to better explain my question.

Thank you.

204184

forseer of fates
07-12-2014, 10:26
It would have to say that it gets you out of combat, and yes that would be forward arc, the question there is does that include the wizard himself and his unit if there is any, probably not.

moonlapse
07-12-2014, 15:06
Well BoS specifically states that it can be used to leave combat, so that isn't an issue. It should come as no surprise, unfortunately, that GW do not handle the question of visibility well at all. We aren't concerned with arcs and whatnot - they don't come into it. "Line of sight determines what a model can 'see'". Arcs are not mentioned in the Line of Sight rules. A target lying within your front 90degree arc is necessary in order to declare some actions against it, such as charging it or shooting it, but you still potentially have 'visibility' of things which are not in your front arc.

So what brilliant method have GW devised in order to determine whether a model can 'see' something in the strictest sense of the word? "you must be able trace an unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the body... of the target". So, assuming the model has eyes, it can see most of the things, presumably, within its front 180 degrees. It certainly can't see things behind it. Unless it's a spawn with an eye on a tentacle facing backwards.

Bear in mind that this means RAW models without eyes on them or whose eyes are completely obscured cannot draw a line of sight to anything at all, and so can never charge or shoot etc. The wording of this rule is therefore ruthlessly and necessarily ignored as it's downright abysmal and a terrible mechanic of determining visibility.

tl;dr: you can leave combat but you can't move backwards with the spell unless you can trace a line of sight, from the models eyes, to the spot you want to move to. This almost certainly prevents it moving backwards, but you will probably be able to move anywhere you can see within your front 180 degrees (NOT 90 degrees).

semprus
07-12-2014, 16:58
Well BoS specifically states that it can be used to leave combat, so that isn't an issue. It should come as no surprise, unfortunately, that GW do not handle the question of visibility well at all. We aren't concerned with arcs and whatnot - they don't come into it. "Line of sight determines what a model can 'see'". Arcs are not mentioned in the Line of Sight rules. A target lying within your front 90degree arc is necessary in order to declare some actions against it, such as charging it or shooting it, but you still potentially have 'visibility' of things which are not in your front arc.

So what brilliant method have GW devised in order to determine whether a model can 'see' something in the strictest sense of the word? "you must be able trace an unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the body... of the target". So, assuming the model has eyes, it can see most of the things, presumably, within its front 180 degrees. It certainly can't see things behind it. Unless it's a spawn with an eye on a tentacle facing backwards.
.

So I am unclear as to what you are saying here. You say both that front arc is necessary to declare some actions but you still potentially have "visibility" of things which are in your front arc AND that it needs to have eyes on the side of its head to see 360. Unfortunately, it can't be both at the same time.

My understanding of the spell is this: the term "visible" here is used synonymously with "unobstructed". In other words, the model can move backwards, forwards, sideways etc so long as there isn't something blocking that move. So he could not move behind a wall for instance.

The spell is an augment and thus can target 360. Why would it allow you to target 360 but then only move in your front arc when the term front arc is never used. In fact, Line of Sight isn't even used which leads me to believe that "visible" only means unobstructed.

Even if they meant for "visible" to mean Line of Sight (in which case they would have just used the term Line of Sight...) it would still allow a lone model to see 360.

moonlapse
08-12-2014, 00:18
So I am unclear as to what you are saying here. You say both that front arc is necessary to declare some actions but you still potentially have "visibility" of things which are in your front arc AND that it needs to have eyes on the side of its head to see 360. Unfortunately, it can't be both at the same time.

Your 'front arc' is 90 degrees. Targets have to be in the front arc for certain things like charging and shooting. However please note that the front arc is not relevant to this question. I mentioned it in order to point out that it is irrelevant.


My understanding of the spell is this: the term "visible" here is used synonymously with "unobstructed". In other words, the model can move backwards, forwards, sideways etc so long as there isn't something blocking that move. So he could not move behind a wall for instance.

The BRB states you must be able to trace a line from the models eyes in order for it to be visible. How can you trace a line from your eyes to something behind you? You're correct that you need to have an uninstructed view. You clearly can't teleport behind a wall, because you can't trace a line from your eyes to behind the wall.


The spell is an augment and thus can target 360. Why would it allow you to target 360 but then only move in your front arc when the term front arc is never used.

I did not suggest that the spell should limit you to your front arc. Like I said, the front arc is irrelevant. You need to be able to trace a line from your eyes for visibility. For most models, this would give you visibility of everything 'in front' of you for about 180 degrees. It depends on how lenient you are with the 'tracing', which is always going to be vague at best. That is nothing to do with your front arc (which is 90 degrees).
As to your augment query, the answer is that the target of the spell CAN be chosen from anywhere in 360 degrees. The target of the spell is the unit you want to move. You don't need line of sight to that unit, so that's fine. Where you want to MOVE the unit to, however, is restricted by your 'visibility' and so IS limited. The final location of the unit you move has nothing to do with the spell being an augment.


In fact, Line of Sight isn't even used which leads me to believe that "visible" only means unobstructed.
Even if they meant for "visible" to mean Line of Sight (in which case they would have just used the term Line of Sight...) it would still allow a lone model to see 360.

Line of Sight IS the BRB's rule for determining visibility. Your interpretation, which involves being able to 'see' behind you even without being able to trace a line of sight, is not supported by the rules - as far as I can see.

Askari
11-12-2014, 21:36
The BRB states you must be able to trace a line from the models eyes in order for it to be visible. How can you trace a line from your eyes to something behind you? You're correct that you need to have an uninstructed view. You clearly can't teleport behind a wall, because you can't trace a line from your eyes to behind the wall.


Maybe my model's head is on backwards? I don't think it's unfair to assume a model can turn his/her/it's head either.
It also means Line of Sight would vary from one model to the next - some Chaos, Bretonnian and Empire Knight models would have a Line of Sight narrower than their forward arc I'd say! I highly doubt this is an intended downside to such models.

It's one of those situations where the rule, as written, breaks down and the easiest way to resolve this, imo, is assume a model can turn his head without his facing (much like I can) and see in a 360 degree circle around it. The rules do imply this to some degree with the bit about stooping down to get a "model's eye view" as you clearly could never place your own eyes at the same location as your model's.
I don't see why it'd be restricted to 180 degrees as even with just eyeball rotation and zero head movement would a bit more than that, and that would also be restricted to humans anyway (plenty of Lizardmen models have eyes that could conceivably see behind them at an angle far greater than a 180 field of view).

In short. Rule is poorly worded. Following it to the letter breaks the game and/or adds likely unintentional advantages and disadvantages to different models and equipment with frankly, a cause for argument when a Lizardman player can see so much more than a Bretonnian player can.

theunwantedbeing
11-12-2014, 22:46
Visible means within the models forward arc. (and not obscured by interposing troops/scenery)

Unless they have a special rule allowing them a different size arc of sight.
One example would be a Grey Seer on a Screaming Bell. On the Bell he can cast with a 360 arc of sight, off the bell it goes back to the 90 degree normal.

Askari
12-12-2014, 09:03
Visible means within the models forward arc.

Does it though?
The Line of Sight rules disagree.

Whether the spell can be cast within the forward arc, or within Line of Sight is what's under contention, as 'visible' doesn't have a particular definition in the ruleset.
Look at the description for Magic Missiles (useful as they are also a type of spell) it specifically says that a Wizard needs to have his target in his forward arc and his Line of Sight, implying they are not the same thing and that 'visible' refers to the Line of Sight rules - which is the rather silly "straight line from eyes with no obstructions".

theunwantedbeing
12-12-2014, 09:48
Does it though?
The Line of Sight rules disagree.

I edited it slightly.

As for rules....
On page 10, all it makes mention of is whether or not the target is obscured, and forward arcs are not mentioned.
This isn't an admission that the forward arc is irrelevant to the rules (nor is it an admission that it is required either)

On page 16, Declare a Charge.
It states that the target unit must be within line of sight of at least 1 model and also in the units forward arc.
Again, this doesn't mean that the two are separate entities not taking up the same space, merely that you have to be able to see the enemy as well as them be within the forward arc.
eg.
No charging an enemy obscured by a building that is directly infront of you
Not no charging an enemy you can see behind you.

On page 31 detailing how various spells work.
Magical missiles for example do require a wizard to see his target.
Accordingly (which is basically meaning, "this means") the target has to lie within the forward arc and be able to trace line of sight (just like shooting).
So we get a definition of what "see the target" means.

On page 39 Check to see the shooter can see the target.
Which is defined by the enemy being in the forward arc, and being able to trace line of sight.

So as I said
Visible just means "in the frontal arc and not obscured".

Askari
12-12-2014, 09:55
Visible just means "in the frontal arc and not obscured".

It's a valid interpretation, though I still disagree, as "in the frontal arc and not obscured" would be a simpler and more efficient way of saying it if that was what they meant, they could also have added the "frontal arc" clause to the Line of Sight rules as it would clear up the mess with models having eyes in different places problem also. The way they have written it is, at the very least, ambiguous.

Ergo, I'd say while your viewpoint is better, as a rule, I don't agree that's what's written.

Dazqpr
12-12-2014, 10:25
I read it as being an augment you can target a unit to pick up and move from 360 deg. But you must place it in your forward arc where you can see. Visable means what you can see. The front arc in warhammer is what you can see. And if it is not obstructed by a wall/building/terrain/ect then it is visable. The lone models cannot see behind them. If you put the wizard in a building however its a very very powerful spell.

Askari
12-12-2014, 10:51
The front arc in warhammer is what you can see.

It isn't though, that's the point. Doesn't mention front arc anywhere in the Line of Sight rules.


Line of sight determines what a model can 'see'.

..

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