Determining visibility

Quote :

Having chosen a shooting unit, you must pick the target unit, or units, for the attacks. In order to target an enemy unit, a model from the unit must be within the range of the weapon being used (as listed on its profile) and be visible to the shooting model. If unsure, stoop down and get a look from behind the shooting model to see if any part of the target is visible. For the purpose of determining visibility, a model can see through other models in its own unit.

Models cannot target enemy units that are within 1" of friendle models - the risk of hitting your own troops is too great.

That´s from the rules, page 179.

"Bowing down and looking from behind the shooting model" is not looking through the tip of the sail. Behind the model is behind the model, and the hull is "more" model than the tip of the sail.

And it doesn´t make sense to fire the tip of the sail, thus you´re violating the most important rule (page 180). They literally ask you to apply the solution that makes the most sense and firing from an antenna doesn´t make sense.

Can anybody help me out where this stuff "I fire from this microscopic point of the model over this hill" is coming from?

@TeenageAngst So wenn you fire with the tip of your sail, can I shoot at your Raider when I only se this tip? Or is this a one way street?

Quote :

The most important rule: In a game as detailed and wide-ranging as Warhammer 40.000, there may be times when you are not sure exactly how to resolve a situation that has come up during play. When this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent and apply the situation that makes the most sense to both of you.

You said yourself that your solution is stupid and you don´t like it but you do it anyway, thus breaking the most important rule on purpose. Same with your continued statement that you hate the game, but you keep posting here, keep playing it. Again my simple question: why?

I disagree. There is no "more model". The hull is part of the model. The sail is part of the model. Heck, the wing of a scourge is part of the model.
Without restriction from GW, you can bow and lock from ANY part of the model, so T.A. is applying the rule perfectly fine.
And yes, you can fire at a Raider if you only see the tip of the scale. That's why screening is dead in this edition.

The problem is that the "common sense" rule redcons every other rule. Can you fire a pistol after running ? No you can't. Would it make sense ? Yes it would. Does it make sense that a poison has the same chance of killing a feeble guardsman and a titanesque tyrannid (hint : that's not how real life poison works) ? Does it make sense that our sybarite can fire a splinter rifle and a PGL in the same turn, but a reaver can't fire an automatic bike weapon and his hand pistol at the same time ? Does it make sense that a plane that has pivoting restrictions can fire at any direction ?

So either you change every single rule in the game to adjust to what you see as logical, or you forget about that "common sense" rule and you apply the rules as written, which is what T. A. is doing.

You may very well be able to see the entirety of an enemy model or Unit when through the tip of your sail, but if the enemy can only see the tip of the sail/antenna then the Tantalus, Raider or other vehicle is majority obscured. Another thing which I don't think the rules covered.

Also; as for your "makes sense" argument, I'd like for games to make sense. But the rules don't.

And at least our skimmers firing from their tallest extremities can be explained away by flying up a little before ducking down behind cover. The same excuse cannot be given to Land Raiders.

You don't even have to see the entire model. A raider can fire from the tip of its sail, and aim at the tip of the sail of another raider.

Mppqlmd wrote:

I disagree. There is no "more model". The hull is part of the model. The sail is part of the model. Heck, the wing of a scourge is part of the model.
Without restriction from GW, you can bow and lock from ANY part of the model, so T.A. is applying the rule perfectly fine.
And yes, you can fire at a Raider if you only see the tip of the scale. That's why screening is dead in this edition.

The problem is that the "common sense" rule redcons every other rule. Can you fire a pistol after running ? No you can't. Would it make sense ? Yes it would. Does it make sense that a poison has the same chance of killing a feeble guardsman and a titanesque tyrannid (hint : that's not how real life poison works) ? Does it make sense that our sybarite can fire a splinter rifle and a PGL in the same turn, but a reaver can't fire an automatic bike weapon and his hand pistol at the same time ? Does it make sense that a plane that has pivoting restrictions can fire at any direction ?

So either you change every single rule in the game to adjust to what you see as logical, or you forget about that "common sense" rule and you apply the rules as written, which is what T. A. is doing.

This.

What's more, bear in mind that GW specifically removed all rules relating to firing from the actual weapons on a model. This would seem strong evidence that people are expected to draw LoS from anywhere on the model (not just from its guns).

While i don't like those rules much, and my friends and I are not allowing someone to shoot a Carnifex to death by pulverizing its tail, the rules are clear. If you're playing in shops against strangers, the written rules are cannon.

Mppqlmd wrote:

While i don't like those rules much, and my friends and I are not allowing someone to shoot a Carnifex to death by pulverizing its tail, the rules are clear. If you're playing in shops against strangers, the written rules are cannon.

I agree that the rules are far from ideal, but then so are many others (especially in terms of verisimilitude).

With regard to not being able to shoot a carnifex to death by his tail, my issue with that sort of thing is that there's usually a middle-point where it starts to get really blurred.

To take the carnifex example, I can see how shooting it to death by the tip of its tail would seem wrong. But, how much do you need to see of it before you're allowed to shoot it? If you can see the whole tail, is that enough? What if you can see a fraction of its body as well - are you allowed to shoot it to death by the side of its bum? And if not, is it not equally absurd that shooting it in the tail causes no damage whatsoever?

To be clear, I'm not trying to get at you or anything. I'm just saying that trying to implement that sort of thing seems like it would lead to a lot of disputes. Or maybe that's just my group.

We play by the rule "you have to see 75% of the model to shoot it". And we are very generous on the percentage calculation, but often it's obvious that less than 25% is visible.

I get the design choice, it's technically the most rules light call a designer could make for determining visibility, I just think we're all used to years of determining LoS by other means.

Unfortunately it's just a lateral shift because again it's an area where players are pretty willing to give the finger to the spirit of the law in a competitive setting, it's like a football coach instructing his players never ever to dive or force a whistle when they've lost possession; you can certainly do that, but everyone else in a competitive meta is just going to keep diving if it means refs will even 25% of the time stop play and give them back the ball.

Which seems to boil down to more a spirit of the law issue than anything, since i think any rule on determining LoS is going to be open to interpretation and debate.

Yeah. I think that's the core of the problem. Different spirits. I just thought that the most important rule covered that.
Well. At least if the tip of the sail can shoot, they can also shoot the tip of the sail to destroy the beehive ä vehicle.

I Really Think those two different interpretations are creating two different games.

I play the game as GW intends. They want me to fire from the tip of my sail at the exhaust pipe of a Land Raider. If they didn't they wouldn't have put it in the rules.

TeenageAngst wrote:

I play the game as GW intends. They want me to fire from the tip of my sail at the exhaust pipe of a Land Raider. If they didn't they wouldn't have put it in the rules.

I´m actually not sure that this is what they intend. They repeatedly showed that they think this game requires some kind of sportsmanship, that some competetive players made fun of as beer&pretzels spirit. I don´t think this has changed.

TeenageAngst wrote:

I play the game as GW intends. They want me to fire from the tip of my sail at the exhaust pipe of a Land Raider. If they didn't they wouldn't have put it in the rules.

That's bull, and you know it.  This isn't the first, nor will it be the last, time that the exact writing of the rules clearly differs from the intent.

It's been a problem since the earliest editions of the game, and it will continue to be a problem.  Differing over interpretations of intent is one thing, but when the issue is crystal clear, that's quite another.

That's the same kind of logic that led people to claim that Mephiston's Sanguine Sword power lasted all game once activated during the 5e/6e overlap, or that led people to claim their Terminators could launch an assault in their opponent's assault phase if they had been forced to perform an emergency disembark from the vehicle being destroyed, or that led people to claim that Wraithguard/Lords couldn't shoot because they didn't have eyes.

Disagreeing about intent is all well and good, but eventually it crosses the line into trolling.

^^^^

LIKE.

So far say what you will about the rules product the designers delivered, they do seem to have their eyes open and are taking this "living rules" shtick seriously. I wouldn't expect nor would I be happy with weekly errata, but once they have a schedule I'm pretty certain they'll clarify intent further.

For now it's the wild west unfortunately, choose your opponents wisely if you can and remember that competitive level play is going to require you to take dives until GW leans in.

Not much to do otherwise in the meantime. Those players who are thumbing their nose at intent or conflating it with the letter of the law likely aren't going to be reasoned out of their perspective without the final word coming from God.

It sucks but it's just the way people like this have treated the rules since the earliest edition. Fingers crossed that GW keeps its promise to the players who want to enjoy this game and not be handcuffed and tortured by rules lawyers.

So, I agree the rule sucks. I hated how my farseer hand could be sticking out a window and suddenly I am being shot.

One thing you can do, although not optimal either, is to explain intent. When you move the raider explain that you are avoiding LOS from a specific direction. That way you both assume the raider cant see or be seen from that direction.

The true issue with this is that the models werent designed with these rules and it gives incentives for people to model for advantage (big suprise, I dont think ive played an edition that didnt)

I know one of you guys has raiders with no sails and a half inch flight stem lol.

If these rules keep going in this direction, we are going to need even more "Big" LOS blocking terrain. I only have one for my table that I usually offset near the middle to divide the battlefield. But 8th feels like I need like one in each quarter. I like to play with a lot of ruins but my medium/small ruins arent tall enough for flight stem models to actually hide behind.

Maybe ill buy like 10 of those shipping crate container lookin things. Ill have to do the math and see if 2 stacked will even be enough.

I'd model a Raider upside down
Actually i don't think breaking the game as hard as possible really improves the gaming experience, nor does it help a real, strategic competition.
The last one is more of a guess though, as i play this game solely for fun.

Quote :

That's bull, and you know it.  This isn't the first, nor will it be the last, time that the exact writing of the rules clearly differs from the intent.

Hang on I got one for ya.



As you can see from this example, even ridiculous interpretations of the rules are 100% endorsed by GW. WORKING AS INDENDED!

Quote :

I´m actually not sure that this is what they intend. They repeatedly showed that they think this game requires some kind of sportsmanship, that some competetive players made fun of as beer&pretzels spirit. I don´t think this has changed.

Speaking of sportsmanship, my tournament shirt arrived!



I never thought I'd only play 40k ironically but here we are.

Ew.

No.

This is not the same as your example.

And you know it.

If you are truly incapable of seeing the difference, then perhaps you have become a little too committed to the conflict instead of the game, and a little break, either from this specific line of argument, these two threads, the forums, or the game in general. Perhaps it might give you some clarity.

When the TO allows my opponents to fire lascannons from their antennas, what am I going to do, Jim? Puff out my cheeks and hold my breath? Or do the same thing back at my opponent?

Can I claim Ad hominem here?

"short for argumentum ad hominem, is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
-wiki

The other person did it, so i can and should be encouraged to do so as well.

It is in the rules. You're handwaving this issue as "bad sportsmanship" rather than acknowledging that the rules themselves are bad and allow such maneuvers. Also you didn't answer the question, which is a fallacy unto itself.

You people are silly. Play the game by the rules or admit you're not playing by the rules because the rules as they stand are broken.

Ok now hold up bub. What version of "broken" are we talking about? From how hard you game I'd assume it's the video game kind in which its defined as:

"Broken" = I do too much and have too much versatility for numbers to balance.
"Overpowered" = I do my thing to effectively and consistently that most consider me too overbearing or toxic to play against.

here's another :
"Broken is a term used in many games, particularly fighting or otherwise competitive ones, to describe characters, techniques or other elements or combinations of element so overpowered that they severely skew the game's balance in their favor, making alternatives nearly irrelevant by comparison."

and again

"The term "broken" is often used when describing techniques, characters, attacks, etc. in many competitive games. Many players are quick to label strong techniques as "broken" when they mean overpowered, or even just powerful. Though many accept this usage, it is often discouraged because it makes the usage ambiguous. There are alternate terms that are less ambiguous for these more emphatic sentiments, such as OP, stupid, or insane, while there aren't clear-cut synonyms for the other definition of broken.

Less controversially, broken can refer to elements that are buggy, or don't work as intended in all circumstances."

Broken:

It's not working as intended. Can be good or bad.

What are your intentions with your argument? Because if GW has clearly stated that it's working as intended, then it's just another fancy gimmick to the game that you can attempt to power play but honestly how big of an impact does it have?

This argument began when I said I annoyed people by shooting my Tantalus from it's sail tip. This means people find this rule of firing from any point on the model, interpreted literally, to be distasteful. This topic proves that. They say following this rule to this extent is poor sportsmanship, when in actuality, it's a bad rule for anyone who enjoys verisimilitude in their game. Expecting people to simply not follow the rules, especially if it is to their benefit to take them literally, is ridiculous as they are rules for a reason. My intention is to point out that I am not playing a "different game" I am playing the same game that game has bad rules that allow and encourage stupid stuff like shooting guns from sail tips.

It really depends on the context too.  In a tournament you would be at a disadvantage not shooting from the sail.

In a pickup game, as long as my opponent hasnt done it, if my opponent is annoyed I would just shoot something I can see with the gun.  

I mean it does kind of make sense.  The model is just a representation of a fictional battle, nobody is actually standing still.  Its a hover tank and could easy be moving all over the place.  Hell it could be windy.  We dont know how windy alien planets get!  

Over all I think the rules are a lot more clear and less arguments/confusion even though we still have to put up with a couple wonky rules like this.