Issues with fast cavalry...

[Boreas_NL]

During our battle yesterday (for a report, check my thread) we encountered a 'problem'...

Does fast cavalry have a 360 degrees line of sight?

[Caitsidhe]

No? Why would you think that? Fast Cavalry are extremely mobile and can reform as many times during a movement as they want. The only time 360 degrees of LOS would matter (and they don't have it) is for a charge.

[Boreas_NL]

Thanks for the clarification! Might be something left over from a previous edition?

[theunwantedbeing]

The only thing that specifically has a 360 degree line of sight these days is a unit in a building and war machines (as they can pivot in the shooting phase).
Everything else has a 90 degree arc of sight.

[T10]

During our battle yesterday (for a report, check my thread) we encountered a 'problem'...

Does fast cavalry have a 360 degrees line of sight?

They can see what the models can see (which is a lot!), but the important thing is that any target they wish to shoot at must lie in the model's forward arc.

This is a general rule for shooting and fast cavalry and skirmishers are no exception to this.

[Razaan]

The only thing that specifically has a 360 degree line of sight these days is a unit in a building and war machines (as they can pivot in the shooting phase).
Everything else has a 90 degree arc of sight.

Don't forget the Skaven Grey Seer atop the Screaming Bell. He has 360 degree line of sight.

[covenant]

No? Why would you think that? Fast Cavalry are extremely mobile and can reform as many times during a movement as they want. The only time 360 degrees of LOS would matter (and they don't have it) is for a charge.

Its an easy mistake because they used to have 360 LOS for shooting in 7th edition. ( 7th edition rulebook page 70 ), so need to be so condescending to the OP. And it does make a difference, as you used to able to line up a charge for the next movement phase while shooting in another direction, which you cannot do now.

Personally I preferred the old rule, as it more accurately reflected the shooting on the move nature of fast cavalry, but to the OP's question in 8th edition Fast Cavalry don't have it.

[Boreas_NL]

Its an easy mistake because they used to have 360 LOS for shooting in 7th edition. ( 7th edition rulebook page 70 )

That's the one I was thinking about... Thanks!

[Scalebug]

Don't forget the Skaven Grey Seer atop the Screaming Bell. He has 360 degree line of sight.

As does the commander of the steamtank, with his repeater pistol.

[Mercules]

Its an easy mistake because they used to have 360 LOS for shooting in 7th edition. ( 7th edition rulebook page 70 ), so need to be so condescending to the OP.

This is why I constantly tell people to forget everything they knew about 7th edition, don't assume they know the rules, and double check everything in the 8th Ed. book.

Edition bleed over is to blame for some really un-fun games I've had where I have had to pull out the BRB dozens of times and correct someone. I had a guy practically screaming at me that I had to declare all my charges before he had to declare any reactions. After pointing out where it had changed in the 8th edition book he told me I was cheesy for playing that way. No apology or at least shame for getting loud, just I am the bad guy for insisting we play by the current set of rules.

[was1974]

I think it is really a mistake the changed this rule because because the fast cavalry were recon or harraing units meaning the look al around and have a horse or several in every direction. Aspecialy because they operate near or behind the enemy lines. That is why they don't ride in close formation because they need the all around view.
Unlike knight and infantry units that move like big blocks and looking around is hard.

[T10]

Well, they have tremendous freedom of movement, so it shouldn't be hard for a player to decide on a target and then move the unit into a position where it can shoot.

Also, this thread is nearly (but not quite!) a year old. Is cake in order?

[AMWOOD co]

Also, this thread is nearly (but not quite!) a year old. Is cake in order?

I wouldn't mind cake, but I think a burial might be more appropriate. Let's put this thread back in its grave.