Shooting and flat out

Thor665 wrote:

Malcharion wrote:

measuring range and line of sight from any point on the
hull of the vehicle.

Those 'points' on the hull? Those are firing points. Because a firing point is a point on the hull of a vehicle a model transported inside can fire from.

Given the disparity between the paragraph on firing points and the immediately preceding paragraph on access points, I'd say it's a stretch to simply assume that the vehicle is one big fire point or else why would they not simply say so as they do for access points?

Access Points wrote:

Open-topped vehicles do not have specific Access Points. Instead, all of the vehicle is considered to be an Access Point

Fire Points wrote:

Open-topped Transports do not have specific Fire Points. Instead, all passengers in an Open-topped Transport can fire, measuring range and line of sight from any point on the hull of the vehicle.

Also, if we want to get pedantic, fire points are specifically defined:

Fire Points wrote:

A Fire Point is a hatch or gun slit from which one or more passengers inside the vehicle can fire shooting weapons

Which doesn't seem to marry with the description of "any point on the hull of the vehicle".

Count Adhemar wrote:

Given the disparity between the paragraph on firing points and the immediately preceding paragraph on access points, I'd say it's a stretch to simply assume that the vehicle is one big fire point or else why would they not simply say so as they do for access points?

Access Points wrote:

Open-topped vehicles do not have specific Access Points. Instead, all of the vehicle is considered to be an Access Point

Fire Points wrote:

Open-topped Transports do not have specific Fire Points. Instead, all passengers in an Open-topped Transport can fire, measuring range and line of sight from any point on the hull of the vehicle.

I kind of feel they are doing exactly the same thing in both quotes, albeit with different words, and will admit to not seeing the actual difference outside of the use of different sentence structure and word choice.

To switch them around - if the two quotes said this;

Fire Points wrote:

Open-topped vehicles do not have specific Fire Points. Instead, all of the vehicle is considered to be a Fire Point that any number of embarked passengers can use

Access Points wrote:

Open-topped Transports do not have specific Access Points. Instead, all passengers in an Open-topped Transport can disembark, measuring from any point on the hull of the vehicle.

What changes for either way of handling it in your opinion?
I see no change created at all - and that's why I think that they are saying the same thing.
What do you think I'm missing?
The only thing I had to change up was clarifying that multiple models could use the one giant fire point rule...and that makes sense as to why they, then, modified the way the sentence was written for Fire Points - as they *would* need to clarify that it wasn't one fire point, because every model inside is allowed to fire - which is what the appear to have then clarified.

Also, to be pedantic - Access points are defined as doors, ramps, and hatches - none of which a Raider has either.

The main difference that I see is that it doesn't have any fire points, then it would be legal for it to flat out after the passengers shoot. It if does have them then it can't. So it could be a major thing for a shooting based army.

Access points don't place a limit on the abilities in regards to a raider, but fire points do.

Open-topped vehicles do not have specific Fire Points. Instead, all of the vehicle is considered to be a Fire Point that any number of embarked passengers can use.

and if that was the way it was worded I wouldn't be having this discussion. But the writers a games workshop didn't write it that way, whether on accident or purposeful is irrelevant. It is written as though it doesn't have any firing points.

Lacking specific fire points is not the same as lacking fire points.

Also, if you wish to try to split hairs as to where the rule is listed under, I would also note that the rule disallowing Flat Out after a unit inside it shoots has no requirement for it to have been fired from a Fire Point or not. If a vehicle had a unit embarked on it 'shoot out' it is disallowed from movng flat out.

I guess you could then start to argue about the definition of what 'shoot out' is - but I will admit I don't really see the ground you're trying to stand on as remotely stable.

Thor665 wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

Given the disparity between the paragraph on firing points and the immediately preceding paragraph on access points, I'd say it's a stretch to simply assume that the vehicle is one big fire point or else why would they not simply say so as they do for access points?

Access Points wrote:

Open-topped vehicles do not have specific Access Points. Instead, all of the vehicle is considered to be an Access Point

Fire Points wrote:

Open-topped Transports do not have specific Fire Points. Instead, all passengers in an Open-topped Transport can fire, measuring range and line of sight from any point on the hull of the vehicle.

I kind of feel they are doing exactly the same thing in both quotes, albeit with different words, and will admit to not seeing the actual difference outside of the use of different sentence structure and word choice.

To switch them around - if the two quotes said this;

Fire Points wrote:

Open-topped vehicles do not have specific Fire Points. Instead, all of the vehicle is considered to be a Fire Point that any number of embarked passengers can use

Access Points wrote:

Open-topped Transports do not have specific Access Points. Instead, all passengers in an Open-topped Transport can disembark, measuring from any point on the hull of the vehicle.

What changes for either way of handling it in your opinion?
I see no change created at all - and that's why I think that they are saying the same thing.
What do you think I'm missing?

I'd say that the second version does not specify that the vehicle has access points and therefore any rules that interact with access points will go a bit wonky. In exactly the same way as the BRB version does not specify that the vehicle has fire points and therefore makes rules that interact with fire points go a bit wonky.

If the rules were intended to mean what you believe them to mean why not simply say so? If we were to change the second point to:

Fire Points wrote:

Open-topped Transports do not have specific Fire Points. Instead, all of the vehicle is considered to be a Fire Point that any number of passengers can fire from, measuring range and line of sight from any point on the hull of the vehicle.

Confirms that the vehicle still has Fire Points, matches the wording of the previous rule and leaves no room for interpretation.

Incidentally, I don't actually believe that this allows a vehicle to go flat out on the same turn as the passengers shoot. Regardless of which paragraph the rule in question appears under, the wording is pretty unambiguous:

Quote :

They (passengers) cannot fire if the vehicle moves Flat Out or uses smoke launchers that turn, nor can a vehicle move Flat Out or use smoke launchers if a unit embarked inside it shoots out.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Quote :

They (passengers) cannot fire if the vehicle moves Flat Out or uses smoke launchers that turn, nor can a vehicle move Flat Out or use smoke launchers if a unit embarked inside it shoots out.

This is the key part in my consideration of the issue - it's clear and unambiguous as Count says, and quite frankly I don't think it would matter which part of the rulebook it was printed in, it's clear what it relates to - you could print it in the assault section and it would still be obvious what it meant.

It says quite clearly that passengers can't fire if the vehicle goes flat out, nor can the vehicle go flat out if passengers fire out.

In the previous paragraph on page 80, I note that the rulebook states

Quote :

Unless specified differently in the vehicle's entry, a single passenger can fire out of each Fire Point and the other transported models cannot fire

In the open topped vehicles rules, on page 88, we have

Quote :

Open topped transports do not have fire points. Instead, all passengers in an Open-topped Transport can fire, measuring range ...etc

The second quote therefore is clearly related to the first, giving you an exception to the rule that if a vehicle has no fire points then no models can fire out of it. It does not however provide an exception to the rule that prevents firing by passengers on a vehicle that has moved flat out, or a vehicle moving flat out if the passengers have fired.

Count Adhemar wrote:

I'd say that the second version does not specify that the vehicle has access points and therefore any rules that interact with access points will go a bit wonky.

I fail to follow this line of thought - can you clarify it?
How does saying something lack "specific" points fail to indicate that it has unspecific points that can then be treated in the way it describes in the second sentence?

Count Adhemar wrote:

Incidentally, I don't actually believe that this allows a vehicle to go flat out on the same turn as the passengers shoot. Regardless of which paragraph the rule in question appears under, the wording is pretty unambiguous:

I understand that, I already said it

Thor665 wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

I'd say that the second version does not specify that the vehicle has access points and therefore any rules that interact with access points will go a bit wonky.

I fail to follow this line of thought - can you clarify it?
How does saying something lack "specific" points fail to indicate that it has unspecific points that can then be treated in the way it describes in the second sentence?

Because I feel you're placing too much weight on the word 'specific'. Nothing in that sentence suggests the existence of 'non-specific' fire points (whatever they may be). Combined with the seemingly deliberate change in wording between the access point rules (which do confirm that the vehicle still has an access point) and the fire point rules (which do not) I'm left with the impression that open-topped vehicles do not have fire points, specific or otherwise. Instead, the rules tell us how to deal with the lack of fire points by saying "Instead, all passengers in an Open-topped Transport can fire, measuring range and line of sight from any point on the hull of the vehicle".

Count Adhemar wrote:

Nothing in that sentence suggests the existence of 'non-specific' fire points (whatever they may be).

I agree with that - but the second sentence seems to very much cover this issue, no?

Count Adhemar wrote:

Combined with the seemingly deliberate change in wording between the access point rules (which do confirm that the vehicle still has an access point) and the fire point rules (which do not) I'm left with the impression that open-topped vehicles do not have fire points, specific or otherwise. Instead, the rules tell us how to deal with the lack of fire points by saying "Instead, all passengers in an Open-topped Transport can fire, measuring range and line of sight from any point on the hull of the vehicle".

Isn't the *instead* a reference to the first sentence, wherein they lack *specific* points?
To my mind that's pretty clearly indicating that one can use a fire point from anywhere.
Are you arguing that what they mean is "they can fie from any point, but it's not a fire point, it's something else that we will not define with a name but is assuredly not an unspecific fire point as hinted at in the first sentence which this sentence is a subordinate clause to due to the use of 'instead' at the start of the sentence"? I mean...I guess I can see that, but I feel like Ockham's really points against what you're trying to suggest.

I think I understand what you're arguing now - I just really disagree with how you're choosing to assess the sentences. They are, by grammer, connected to each other, so the one references the preceding - ergo the 'instead' is meant to be read in context with the first sentence which clarifies that there are not 'specific fire points'. At that stage I am arguing that there are unspecific ones, and you are arguing that there are alternate targeting methods that have nothing to do with fire points.

I suppose that can be argued as a distinction if one wishes. I don't agree.

I read through this topic and I don't really see what the argument is. That being said...

My interpretation is:
1. No, no way can you shoot and then flat out.
2. When passengers are firing from a vehicle pick any point on the hull. Fire from it.

shadowseercB wrote:

I read through this topic and I don't really see what the argument is.  That being said...

My interpretation is:
1. No, no way can you shoot and then flat out.
2. When passengers are firing from a vehicle pick any point on the hull.  Fire from it.

I think most of us agree on those points. Me and Thor are just arguing the semantics of whether such a thing as non-specific fire points exist.

Want to know the rule? Back of the book. Nice charts for easy reference telling you this answer. No need to try to figure out wording. It gives all the information you need.

They do exist. Open topped is the entire hull. But remember there are drawbacks to being open topped. You get +1 on the vehicle damage table for penetrating hits, and template weapons just touching the hull roll a d6 for number of passengers taking hits, no need to actually have the template touch a firing point on say a rhino to get such a result.

Also remember the reason we use raiders with blaster born and a archon with s wwp to put the middle of the raider between two shield archs so the knight has no defense since can shoot from any point on the hull because it has no specific firing point other than the entire hull.

Now for me I do not consider the shock prow part of the hull but only the parts with decking as the hull for firing points for measuring