AoS 2nd Edition: LOS is not 360?

For all the discussions on Games Workshop's Age of Sigmar.
Locked
Mr Cthulhu
Silver Vault Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:34 pm

AoS 2nd Edition: LOS is not 360?

Post by Mr Cthulhu » Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:16 am

I've been having a read through the AoS 2nd edition rules, and no where have I seen that a model's LoS is 360 degrees. The only place I see LoS mentioned is page 6 under missile weapons:

"...and the target unit must be visible to the model with the weapon (if unsure, stoop down and look from behind the shooting model to see if a model from the target unit is visible). "

Visibility is mentioned under wizards casting spells, but I would assume it is referring to this ruling above.

So, by reading this, only things "in front of" your models are visible to them?

I'm sure RAI they meant to make the models have 360 LOS, but RAW, only things visible by looking from behind your model are in LOS.

Thoughts?

User avatar
Koonitz
Mighty Manufactorium of MiniWarGaming Posts
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 8:20 pm
Ribbons Earned: Has Completed 5 Painting PledgesHas Completed 10 Painting Pledges
Location: Grande Prairie, AB, CA

Re: AoS 2nd Edition: LOS is not 360?

Post by Koonitz » Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:10 am

The "look from behind" has been wording used pretty much any time GW references that method of determining line of sight, for both AoS and 40k. It is not a determiner for whether a model has a field of vision or not. It is done only in context with GW's use of "true" line of sight in their games.

When you are drawing a line between two points, where one point is the obvious primary (ie: the firing model), "behind the point (model)" is, through common sense (this is not in relation to AoS, this is in relation to realistic common sense), any point where-upon a line between it and the secondary point would bisect the primary point. Thus, without any further identifiers to adjust your definition of "behind", the facing of the model is irrelevant.

There is a pointed lack of any rules describing how you determine facing or field of vision when determining line of sight in any other means. This is because there is no such determiner for facing or field of vision.

A lack of a rule does not mean you go looking for obscure references to try to fit something in. It means there is no such thing as "facing".

This is doubly reinforced when you realize that there were plenty of rules for facing in previous editions of Games Workshop games. Most notably, 40k, with vehicle facings in all previous editions of 40k, and flyer facings in the optional flyer rules for 8th Edition. Note, as well, that the rules for movement for flyers in 40k may be considered a possible exception to the lack of determiners for facing. However, only in the optional, advanced rules for flyers do they add a facing determiner for line of sight for weapons fire. Otherwise, facing is irrelevant when determine which targets may be fired upon by the flyer's weapons.

Triply so when you consider that other major table-top games that Games Workshop would be aware of do have facing. Games like Warmachine, Infinity, and X-Wing.

A deliberate omission of a rule they are obviously aware of is a strong indicator of no such rule being intended, either.
Armies:
40k: Knights Cynosure Iron Hands successor chapter, House Terryn Questor Imperialis, Thousand Sons/Tzeentch Daemons
30k: Thousand Sons
Age of Sigmar: Sylvaneth, Disciples of Tzeentch

Mr Cthulhu
Silver Vault Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: AoS 2nd Edition: LOS is not 360?

Post by Mr Cthulhu » Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:04 am

Thanks for your reply!

Firstly, a disclaimer:
I know that this isn't what is intended, and I'm not going to make people play with facing and all that garbage (works in some games, would NOT in this one as it is now), I'm just bringing to light that this ruling could be interpreted differently.


Yes, I went back and looked at the old AoS rules, and the 40k rules, and they have the same wording. (40k 8th no 360 LOS 2018!...kidding :lol: )

Anywho, I see a flaw in your explanation. You said:
Koonitz wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:10 am
Thus, without any further identifiers to adjust your definition of "behind", the facing of the model is irrelevant.
However, there is another identifier. The model has a face, as in the literal face (with eyes and mouth etc...albeit only sometimes do they have these features). Common sense tells me that something with a face has a front and a rear, or a forward and a behind.

When you are drawing a line from 2 objects, let's say 2 barrels, your explanation works perfectly. Behind is referring to the point of the other barrel. When you're dealing with things that inherently have a facing, such as bodies, or tanks, etc. behind can refer to 'from the back of it'. Notice how I said can, and not does (because English sucks and everything has 30 different meanings and interpretations).

We'll take your example of 2 points, but give them some more description. There's a soldier and a tank. The soldier is facing north, and the tank is 300 yards south-west of the soldier. You want the soldier to shoot the tank, but by looking from behind the soldier (which common sense tells me you wouldn't look from the soldier's front side, but would from the back side...as in from behind), they can't see the tank, so they can't shoot it.

Again disclaimer:
I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm not going to play AoS this way because that would be dumb, but is it really hard to put in your ruleset "models have a 360 degree field of vision, stoop down to eye-level to check visibility"?

User avatar
Koonitz
Mighty Manufactorium of MiniWarGaming Posts
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 8:20 pm
Ribbons Earned: Has Completed 5 Painting PledgesHas Completed 10 Painting Pledges
Location: Grande Prairie, AB, CA

Re: AoS 2nd Edition: LOS is not 360?

Post by Koonitz » Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:58 am

I do enjoy a good Devil's Advocate argument.
Mr Cthulhu wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:04 am
Anywho, I see a flaw in your explanation. You said:
Koonitz wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:10 am
Thus, without any further identifiers to adjust your definition of "behind", the facing of the model is irrelevant.
However, there is another identifier. The model has a face, as in the literal face (with eyes and mouth etc...albeit only sometimes do they have these features). Common sense tells me that something with a face has a front and a rear, or a forward and a behind.
An identifier that does not apply to all models, as not all models will have an easily identifiable head or face (for example, a steam tank). As such, you cannot use it to apply without specific mentions or exceptions, which the rules do not do. The rules do not say "attempt to view from the model's head/face" (Note: Specific wording used because they DID say that before). Now, line of sight is drawn from "the model". The only determiner is "model". This is why some people will draw line of sight from wing-tips, or banners, or aerials, because they are part of the "model".

Admittedly, many do play with certain 'common sense' restrictions on this (ie: banners and wing-tips don't count). Those restrictions, however, are house rules.
Armies:
40k: Knights Cynosure Iron Hands successor chapter, House Terryn Questor Imperialis, Thousand Sons/Tzeentch Daemons
30k: Thousand Sons
Age of Sigmar: Sylvaneth, Disciples of Tzeentch

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest