PDA

View Full Version : Wizards, casting, and Line of Sight



Atrahasis
15-03-2007, 15:25
While searching the rulebook for references regarding "Last man standing" for another thread, it occured to me that this rule:


...if one model in your unit can see at least one model from an enemy unit, that enemy is said to be 'in sight' of your unit.

grants any character in the unit line of sight to anything the unit can see, as characters are part of a unit they join for all purposes. Because of this, a wizard can cast spells requiring LOS on any target his unit can see. Magic missiles are an exception since they follow the shooting rules, which have specific requirements for per-model LOS.

It also seems to mean that a character can charge out of a unit at any target the unit can see.

mattjgilbert
15-03-2007, 15:27
Sounds reasonable fluff-wise. The models in the unit simply tell the magic user where the target is.

kruzkal
15-03-2007, 15:30
As mentioned above, if a character is within a unit when it declares a charge, he must charge with it. However, if the unit he is with does not declare a charge, a character may declare a separate charge of his own and therefore leaves the unit when he charges out of it.

Depends whether you consider the character loses his LOS the instant he charges out on his own.

kruzkal
15-03-2007, 15:32
Also note that RAW female characters do not conform to this rule :p

DeathlessDraich
15-03-2007, 15:38
Because of this, a wizard can cast spells requiring LOS on any target his unit can see.

My main concern with this is, as a Skaven player I could easily place my Warlock engineer at the back rank and cast magic missiles through the front rank.
I doubt any of my opponents will agree to this.
Still searching the book for something to contradict this - no success yet!

Atrahasis
15-03-2007, 15:54
Depends whether you consider the character loses his LOS the instant he charges out on his own.

LOS isn't required to charge, only to declare. When he declares, he's part of the unit.

kruzkal
15-03-2007, 16:39
The rules say that the unit has LOS but when a character "declare a separate charge of his own", he is not declaring as a part of the unit with LOS.

Negativemoney
15-03-2007, 16:53
My main concern with this is, as a Skaven player I could easily place my Warlock engineer at the back rank and cast magic missiles through the front rank.
I doubt any of my opponents will agree to this.
Still searching the book for something to contradict this - no success yet!

Can models in the second rank of a unit shoo their bows? I think no unless they are on a hill. I think the same should be applied to this issue.

mattjgilbert
15-03-2007, 17:18
Atrahasis already said this did not apply to magic missiles.

Avian
15-03-2007, 17:23
grants any character in the unit line of sight to anything the unit can see, as characters are part of a unit they join for all purposes. Because of this, a wizard can cast spells requiring LOS on any target his unit can see.
You have it backwards. That would only be true if the unit became part of the unit or if the unit was the one casting the spell.

Thus it will for example led a unit of Horrors of Tzeentch cast spells that only a character in the unit can see.

Greyfire
15-03-2007, 17:36
My main concern with this is, as a Skaven player I could easily place my Warlock engineer at the back rank and cast magic missiles through the front rank.
I doubt any of my opponents will agree to this.
Still searching the book for something to contradict this - no success yet!

Can someone check their rulebook for me? I don't have it here. IIRC, unless the wizards is on the first rank he's not able to cast any spells, with the exception being Skaven and Brittonia. I seem to recall reading this on the section discussing the command models and unit frontage. Anyone that isn't on the first rank get limited in their ability. I thought this even included characters, so no benefiting from a generals leadership and no casting of spells at all.

Can someone check that and see if I'm totally making stuff up? Thanks!

-=- Greyfire

DarthBinky
15-03-2007, 17:42
Can someone check their rulebook for me? I don't have it here. IIRC, unless the wizards is on the first rank he's not able to cast any spells, with the exception being Skaven and Brittonia. I seem to recall reading this on the section discussing the command models and unit frontage. Anyone that isn't on the first rank get limited in their ability. I thought this even included characters, so no benefiting from a generals leadership and no casting of spells at all.

Can someone check that and see if I'm totally making stuff up? Thanks!

-=- Greyfire
Page 73, in the Character rules, says that characters can't fight or use magic items if they are not in the front rank. Nothing about no spells.

But there is that rule (page 26) that all models block LOS, including those of the same unit... so you couldn't cast spells which require LOS if your wizard is in the back somewhere- but spells requiring no LOS, such as Comet of Casandora, would be fair game.

Avian
15-03-2007, 18:02
Page 73, in the Character rules, says that characters can't fight or use magic items if they are not in the front rank. Nothing about no spells.
On the contrary, that sentence actually specifies that they cannot use magic. :p

DarthBinky
15-03-2007, 18:05
I'm retarded... dunno how I missed that. Yeah, it does say no magic. Next time I'll just quote the relevant part and leave it at that.... :chrome:

Greyfire
15-03-2007, 18:06
Thanks, DarthBinky! And thanks to you Avian too!

-=- Greyfire

Atrahasis
15-03-2007, 18:46
You have it backwards. That would only be true if the unit became part of the unit or if the unit was the one casting the spell. The character is part of the unit. If one model has LOS, the entire unit has LOS. How can a part of the unit not have LOS if the entire unit (ie all parts) has LOS?

Talonz
15-03-2007, 18:51
The character is part of the unit. If one model has LOS, the entire unit has LOS. How can a part of the unit not have LOS if the entire unit (ie all parts) has LOS?

No, the character has joined the unit. A character having LOS and the unit having LOS are not the same thing.

Atrahasis
15-03-2007, 18:58
The character is part of the unit. The entire unit has LOS if one model has.

Please provide quotations or references to support any counter arguments.

monkeyboyalpha
15-03-2007, 19:01
The wizard requires his own LOS to cast his own spells! Just like a model armed with a bow requires his own LOS to an enemy model to be able to shoot it...



MBA

Avian
15-03-2007, 19:02
Absolutely nonsene. Nowhere does it say that the ENTIRE unit has line of sight, just that the unit has line of sight. You are adding words to a rule.

Talonz
15-03-2007, 19:11
What part of 'the unit has LOS' does not equal 'the character has LOS' dont you understand? When you understand this basic distinction, your answer is clear.

vinush
15-03-2007, 19:18
The spells specifically say the Wizard needs line of sight.

This to me implies that the wizard model, not his unit, need direct LoS to the target.

\/ince

Atrahasis
15-03-2007, 21:40
The wizard requires his own LOS to cast his own spells! Just like a model armed with a bow requires his own LOS to an enemy model to be able to shoot it...The shooting rules specifically require per-model LOS. The LOS rules grant LOS to the unit.


Absolutely nonsene. Nowhere does it say that the ENTIRE unit has line of sight, just that the unit has line of sight. You are adding words to a rule.The wizard is part of the unit. The rules most certainly do not say "some of the unit has los".

The unit has LOS. The wizard is part of the unit.

Atrahasis
15-03-2007, 21:42
What part of 'the unit has LOS' does not equal 'the character has LOS' dont you understand? When you understand this basic distinction, your answer is clear.What part of "the unt has LOS and the wizard is part of the unit" do you not understand? Please argue with rules and not sarcastically worded non-arguments.


The spells specifically say the Wizard needs line of sight.

This to me implies that the wizard model, not his unit, need direct LoS to the target.The wizard has LOS as part of the unit.

kruzkal
15-03-2007, 22:43
As mentioned above, if a character is within a unit when it declares a charge, he must charge with it. However, if the unit he is with does not declare a charge, a character may declare a separate charge of his own and therefore leaves the unit when he charges out of it.

Of his own. i.e. not as a part of the unit.

Atrahasis
15-03-2007, 22:59
Of his own. i.e. not as a part of the unit.

His charge is separate but his LOS as long as he is with the unit is the same as the unit's. He is with the unit when he declares the charge.

kruzkal
15-03-2007, 23:04
No. RAW does not say declare with the unit then charge on his own. Read the quote again. It says "declare a separate charge of his own".

Atrahasis
15-03-2007, 23:07
He declares a charge of his own at a target in LOS. His LOS is the same as the unit's.

vinush
15-03-2007, 23:13
If it meant the wizard or his unit, it would say the wizard or the unit he is with. It doesn't. It specifically says the wizard.

\/ince

Atrahasis
15-03-2007, 23:14
It doesn't say wizard or his unit because he is part of the unit. Why would they differentiate between things that are the same?

vinush
15-03-2007, 23:15
But magic is a separate entity. The whole unit can't cast the spell, only the wizard. So only the wizard's line of sight counts.

\/ince

edit: what does RAW mean?

kruzkal
15-03-2007, 23:17
Rules as written.

Atrahasis
15-03-2007, 23:23
But magic is a separate entity. The whole unit can't cast the spell, only the wizard. So only the wizard's line of sight counts.That's an interesting point, and one with no support in the rules.

vinush
15-03-2007, 23:48
An interesting point, yes, and one with clearly defined support. It has its own section in the BRB to establish that it's not movement, or shooting. Also, it has its own phase. Seems pretty separate to me.

And how about this for further support in the rules then?

Every spell that requires LoS in the rule book specifically states the wizard, or caster can draw line of sight.

The RAW here seems to me to state that it's the caster, not the unit, that must draw LOS.

\/ince

Atrahasis
15-03-2007, 23:58
The caster has los as long as his unit does. That's what the rules say. It doesn't matter that the rules say the wizard needs los, what matters is how that los is determined. It is determined by checking to see if there is an unobstructed path from the front 90 degree arc (usually) of a member of the unit to the target.

Greyfire
16-03-2007, 00:01
IMHO, I'm thinking that they goofed in the sentence "In general (with the notable exception of the shooting phase), if one model...." when what they should have included was "shooting or magic phase". But I'd also like a million dollars too. What's written is what's written, and I'm not going to get a million dollars.

But that's an "In general" sentence and the following paragraph on page 8 discusses that an individual model's LOS may still be blocked when the unit's is not. So even though the unit has LOS, it is possible for an individual model to be blocked, right? Most spells mention "the caster's LOS" when there is that restriction, so that text combined with "a model's LOS may be blocked" restricts the casters targets.

Does that sound reasonable?

Now about the case where there's nothing blocking the LOS of the model? And I think that's the case we're really discussing now. I can't find anything that says that a character model can not charge out of a unit using the units LOS. I also can't find anything that restricts that LOS for a caster as part of a unit either, except where LOS is blocked as above. I'm not really keen on this idea, but I just can't find anything to contradict Atrahasis's idea. There was just a little bit of content in the 6th edition rule book (page 95 titled "Characters and LOS" oddly enough) that implied the character on foot needed his own LOS to charge out, but that's not present in the 7th edition book I've been pondering for the past hour.

Put another way, I just don't know for certain.

-=- Greyfire

Talonz
16-03-2007, 01:48
"The caster has LOS as long as his unit does. That's what the rules say. "

Here is where you are making your fundamental error. The rules do NOT say that. They say that if any one model in a unit has LOS, the *unit* has LOS. What you are saying is that the reverse applies, and it does not. Period. Any single character has his line of sight determined by their own base, unit strength and deployment. As per RAW. There is no rule that explicitly changes that, which is what you need to support your position, and you will not find it.

You are playing word games to get what you want when the RAW clearly say otherwise.

Greyfire
16-03-2007, 02:21
As per RAW. There is no rule that explicitly changes that, which is what you need to support your position, and you will not find it.

I'm kinda neutral on the whole thing, but that's how it's been for years now so that's what I'm used to, too. My question is where is the opposite written in the new rules? They should have it written somewhere - either "a character's LOS for X is determined based on his own LOS even when in a unit" or "a unit's los may not apply to a model"? It was there in 6th - I just can't find it in 7th. The closest I could find was that bit about blocking LOS.

Of course, they could be doing what my group calls "the English game" where England English <> American English. Usually that's when we start argueing "if the rules don't forbid it, it's allowed" versus "it's only allowed if the rules allow it". :(

-=- Greyfire

Atrahasis
16-03-2007, 03:10
"The caster has LOS as long as his unit does. That's what the rules say. "

Here is where you are making your fundamental error. The rules do NOT say that. They say that if any one model in a unit has LOS, the *unit* has LOS. The character is part of the unit. How can the unit have LOS if the component parts do not?

Masque
16-03-2007, 04:05
The character is part of the unit. How can the unit have LOS if the component parts do not?

Because it doesn't say models have line of sight of their unit it says units have line of sight of their models.

If we applied your logic to a different characteristic, say unit strength instead of line of sight, then we would get results we know are not true (and possibly end up with a repeating loop). A unit's US is calculated by adding together the US of all the models in the unit (Page 71). Would that mean that each of the members of a 5 model cavalry unit have US 10? Would they then be immune to Killing Blow? Would you then need to recalculate the US of the unit and come up with 100? Obviously something is wrong.

All poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles.

Talonz
16-03-2007, 04:35
How can the unit have LOS if the component parts do not?

If no model has los? The unit does not, obviouslly.

IN GENERAL...if one model has los, the "enemy is said to be 'in sight' of your unit". Thats it. Not individual models within the unit, just 'the unit'. This is to facilitate unit charges obviouslly. This is confirmed by the declare charges rules (p18).

LOS is determined model by model (p8), whether they form parts of units or not. Only when charging are these 'expanded' to a unit.

Your argument is unsupported.

Atrahasis
16-03-2007, 04:48
LOS is determined model by model (p8), whether they form parts of units or not. Only when charging are these 'expanded' to a unit.

Your argument is unsupported.LOS is determined by unit (page 8). Only for shooting is it not.

Negativemoney
16-03-2007, 05:21
Magic follows the rules for shooting unless otherwise stated.

Talonz
16-03-2007, 06:23
LOS is determined by unit (page 8). Only for shooting is it not.


You have it backwards (this is a running theme with you), LOS is determined by model. Read 'facing & line of sight' pg 8. The 'general' rule thereafter is to allow units to charge together, confirmed by the charge rules as already quoted. Shooting is subdivided by those who can see and those who cant, as per the shooting rules. Spells are subdivided into those the caster must have los to and those that dont require it.

Your diesel volvo needs gas to run. You can convince yourself it can run on unleaded gas, but it wont.

End of line.

WLBjork
16-03-2007, 10:04
I think Atrahasis has the right of it, otherwise the spells in question can all be classed as magic missiles which do follow shooting rules for LoS.

EvC
16-03-2007, 10:31
Some pretty nice logic in this thread, I think I'm going to have to agree with Talonz in the end though.

Consider:
My dressing gown is blue.
My dressing gown is made up of atoms.
Are the atoms blue?

Similarly, the fact the unit can see does not necessarily mean its component parts can.

Atrahasis
16-03-2007, 12:22
Magic follows the rules for shooting unless otherwise stated.Quotation please.


You have it backwards (this is a running theme with you), LOS is determined by model.No, only for shooting. The general rule is that if one model can see the unit can. The only exception given is for shooting.


Read 'facing & line of sight' pg 8. The 'general' rule thereafter is to allow units to charge together, confirmed by the charge rules as already quoted.Charging has no special exceptions to the general rule that one model with LOS means that the unit has LOS.


Spells are subdivided into those the caster must have los to and those that dont require it.If the caster is part of a unit, then he has LOS if his unit does.

vinush
16-03-2007, 12:33
Atrahasis, you seem to have cut that paragraph short in your reading. It goes on to talk about the individual model's LOS immediately afterwards, making a clear distinction between the unit's LOS for charging, and the model's own LOS.

\/ince

edit: You also seem to be missing the whole "spirit of the game". If it does allow things to go with your interpretation then it is over-powered, and perhaps even broken.

Negativemoney
16-03-2007, 12:42
Sorry that was an omission in this eddition but while not stated directly it holds weight, also there are repeated mentions of magic items being distributed like shooting and the like. "In Sight" and "Has Line of Sight" Are two diffrent things. For a single model in a unit he a character needs direct line of site to that unit for spells that require Line of Sight. However I do believe that there are several spells that just require the unit be in site rather than in line of site. In this case I would say that only one model in the unit needs to see that unit.

Atrahasis
16-03-2007, 13:17
Atrahasis, you seem to have cut that paragraph short in your reading. It goes on to talk about the individual model's LOS immediately afterwards, making a clear distinction between the unit's LOS for charging, and the model's own LOS.No exception is given to the general rule. The rules talk about model's line of sight because that is what determines unit line of sight. If we are to use a model's line of sight to determine the unit's line of sight we need to know what blocks a model's line of sight. However, the unit still has line of sight if one model does.



edit: You also seem to be missing the whole "spirit of the game". If it does allow things to go with your interpretation then it is over-powered, and perhaps even broken.Overpowered in your opinion. "Spirit of the Game" is just another way of saying "what I like".


"In Sight" and "Has Line of Sight" Are two diffrent things. You cannot be serious.

Negativemoney
16-03-2007, 13:26
I am in sight basicaly means that the unit has knowledge of an enemy in a certain location while the entire unit cannot trace a line to it. Line of site means that the model has a direct unubstructed line to that unit/model. These are two diffrent things as explained on page 8.

vinush
16-03-2007, 13:33
Atrahasis, you obviously don't want to enjoy the game, and you just want to win at all costs.

I pity people who cannot see that such an interpretation of the rules makes it so that no one would enjoy playing against them.

I think it's plain to see that everyone who has posted in this thread's interpretation of the rules differs considerably to yours.

When so many people are arguing so sucessfully, how can you still cling to your interpretation?

\/ince

Atrahasis
16-03-2007, 13:48
Atrahasis, you obviously don't want to enjoy the game, and you just want to win at all costs.Thank you for being so judgemental over the internet, before you know anything about me or how I play the game.


I pity people who cannot see that such an interpretation of the rules makes it so that no one would enjoy playing against them.It still amazes me that people get so worked up over one arbitrary interpretation of the rules but are quite happy with another. What you mean is you don't like the way the rules are and will attack me for it. I'm not sure that makes me the bad sport.


I think it's plain to see that everyone who has posted in this thread's interpretation of the rules differs considerably to yours.You must have missed the 3 or 4 people who quietly admitted that I was right.


When so many people are arguing so sucessfully, how can you still cling to your interpretation?Because they aren't arguing successfully. Circular logic will not make me roll over. "I win the argument therefore you lose" is not a compelling case.

Avian
16-03-2007, 13:49
No exception is given to the general rule.
Apart from the exception mentioned in the next sentence, you mean? :p

Atrahasis
16-03-2007, 13:53
Apart from the exception mentioned in the next sentence, you mean? :p

Ok, there is that one, but in the context of the post replied to (charging) no exception exists. If a general rule applies, only specific exceptions can break it, and shooting is the only one.

vinush
17-03-2007, 08:46
Ok, so using your interpretation I could come to battle with my O&G army, line my gobbos up in a single rank of 40 models, put a shaman in the middle and you would play against me?

Bear in mind that by doing this I would technically have line of sight to the entire battlefield in front of me.

And you think that isn't broken?

\/ince

Tutore
17-03-2007, 09:21
I donīt support Atrahasisī interpretation, but we shall know that:

1) His experience is longer than mine, he reads rules many times

2) Some rules we use are given more from past editions; 7th edition did modify something, this passage could be one of them.

However, Iīve always considered LoS from the mage and not from the unit, this intepretation seems the most logical to me.

DeathlessDraich
17-03-2007, 11:10
Atrahasis question is not being answered. Let me state it again:

If a unit has LOS can its components [models in the unit] *not* have LOS and where is this stated in the rules?

This is my attempt at rebuttal: :p

1) Where in the rules does it state the converse? i.e. if a unit has LOS where in the rules does it state that every model in the unit has LOS? More on this below.*

2) Magic missiles can only be cast "if it would be a viable target according to shooting rules". Shooting LOS is assessed per model. Therefore magic missiles definitely cannot be cast by a wizard whose individual LOS is obstructed.

3) "Interposing models may block a model's LOS"
Using your reasoning for this Atrahasis:

1) A model can see the target - it has LOS.
2) Therefore the *unit* has LOS
3) Therefore all models in the unit have LOS.
4) But there are interposing models for some models
5) Therefore [by the rule above] not *all* models have LOS.

You have to fit statement (4) [which is a rule] somewhere. ;)

Masque
17-03-2007, 12:13
I don't know if anyone, Atrahasis in particular, will find this relevant or not but I'll put it out there all the same.

On page 41 of the Bretonnian army book in the paragraph describing how a Damsel in the center of the second rank of a lance formation works it says:

"However, a Damsel or Prophetess that is not in the front rank obviously has no line of sight."

My emphasis on "obviously."

explorator
17-03-2007, 14:42
All of the non-magic missle spells in the BRB that refer to "line of sight" or "in sight" or "visible" specifically mention "the caster", or "the Wizard". The caster or Wizard needs line of sight. Being 'in sight' of your unit is not the same as being in sight of your caster.

NakedFisherman
17-03-2007, 14:49
Atrahasis, you obviously don't want to enjoy the game, and you just want to win at all costs.

He wants to try to poke holes in the rules for some absurd reason.

He's been doing it for years.

He's dead wrong on this issue, though. Avian already pointed out his error on the first page.

Masque
17-03-2007, 15:35
Ok, there is that one, but in the context of the post replied to (charging) no exception exists. If a general rule applies, only specific exceptions can break it, and shooting is the only one.

Interestingly, if you read the sentence on page 8 carefully...

"In general (with the notable exception of the shooting phase), if one model in your unit can see at least one model from an enemy unit, that enemy is said to be 'in sight' of your unit."

...you might notice that the 'only' (your word) exception is not 'shooting' but instead is 'the shooting phase.' If you read the section on Line of Sight on page 26 you'll find that individual models need LOS for all shooting, not merely shooting that occurs during the shooting phase. The most common example would of course be the Stand & Shoot charge response during the movement phase. Also, according to page 110, Magic Missiles have the same targetting requirements as shooting so there also appears to be an exception during the magic phase.

People have argued that the quoted line above exists to allow units to declare charges but I believe they are wrong. If you check paragraph 4 of the Declare Charges section on page 18 you'll find that an individual model's LOS is used to determine whether or not a charge can be declared rather than referring to the unit's LOS. So this seems to be another exception to the general rule.

As far as I can tell, the only use for a unit's LOS is to grandfather in the wordings of the Tomb King's Casket of Souls and the Slaanesh spell Titillating Delusions.

vinush
17-03-2007, 18:27
Thanks explorator. That's something I mentioned a while back too, but it seemed to be ignored.

\/ince

vinush
17-03-2007, 18:33
Masque, I think you mean p26 in the BRB.

\/ince

lparigi34
18-03-2007, 05:48
This interpretation of the rules is "Rules Lawyering" in its must pure form... read USA WD#315 article in page 3...

That exact rule in the example was applied to me when I was learning the game... dissapointing...