Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A YMDC resulting from this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/507745.page

Night Fighting restricts your ability to target units to targets within 36". It also confers cover save bonuses to units depending on range.


The Search Lights rule says,

BRB wrote:
Illumination lasts until the end of the following turn.
Illuminated units gain no benefit from the Night Fighting
special rule.

I read this to mean that illuminated units, if they are illuminated by a unit within 36", can be targeted subsequently by units beyond 36". The reason being that the rule says "no benefit", not "illuminated units gain no cover save benefits from the Night Fighting special rule".


What says Dakka? Do Search Lights remove the cover save benefit, or all benefits?

It removes all benefits, that specific model isn't in the shadow of the night and can be seen by anything on the table.

Fluffwise makes sense as well, in a dark landscape looking at a tank/squad being illuminated would actually be the first thing to look at from anywhere in the battlefield

RAW is clear. It says "no benefit" not "doesn't get the specific benefits I want it to remove".

If you put up a poll you should clearly lay down both sides of the argument and why they could be perceived that way.

Either way here is why night fighting is different in 6th edition.

Page 124: "The Shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away." This is a restriction on the firing unit where currently there is no way to get around it. Search light or no search light.

For sake of knowing it.

searchlight pg. 87
Units can illuminate a target
Illumination lasts until the end of the following turn. Illuminated units gain no benefit from the night fighting special rule.

So if a unit gets search lighted it does lose stealth and shrouded if it would gain it from night fighting. However, no unit can shoot over 36" per the night fighting rules! Unless they have night vision and completely ignore night fighting all together therefore avoiding the restriction placed on the firing unit. Its dumb but its the rules and its even bolded to emphasis the restriction. You may play it differently but then your not playing it correctly. I would love if my manticore could shoot over 36" via search lights but it cant.

 Tomb King wrote:
If you put up a poll you should clearly lay down both sides of the argument and why they could be perceived that way.

Either way here is why night fighting is different in 6th edition.

Page 124: "The Shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away." This is a restriction on the firing unit where currently there is no way to get around it. Search light or no search light.

For sake of knowing it.

searchlight pg. 87
Units can illuminate a target
Illumination lasts until the end of the following turn. Illuminated units gain no benefit from the night fighting special rule.

So if a unit gets search lighted it does lose stealth and shrouded if it would gain it from night fighting. However, no unit can shoot over 36" per the night fighting rules. Unless they have night fighting and completely ignore night fighting all together therefore avoiding the restriction placed on the firing unit.

It's difficult for me to communicate sensibly an argument that makes no sense. If you have a proposal for your opinion on this issue, I will modify the poll.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
If you put up a poll you should clearly lay down both sides of the argument and why they could be perceived that way.

Either way here is why night fighting is different in 6th edition.

Page 124: "The Shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away." This is a restriction on the firing unit where currently there is no way to get around it. Search light or no search light.

For sake of knowing it.

searchlight pg. 87
Units can illuminate a target
Illumination lasts until the end of the following turn. Illuminated units gain no benefit from the night fighting special rule.

So if a unit gets search lighted it does lose stealth and shrouded if it would gain it from night fighting. However, no unit can shoot over 36" per the night fighting rules. Unless they have night fighting and completely ignore night fighting all together therefore avoiding the restriction placed on the firing unit.

It's difficult for me to accurately communicate sensibly an argument that makes no sense. If you have a proposal for your opinion on this issue, I will modify the poll.

How does it not makes sense. Rule states and i qoute, "The shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away."

How is that difficult to understand? Think of it as search lights only having a range of effect. Light does fade over distance if you want to get fluffy.

 Tomb King wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
If you put up a poll you should clearly lay down both sides of the argument and why they could be perceived that way.

Either way here is why night fighting is different in 6th edition.

Page 124: "The Shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away." This is a restriction on the firing unit where currently there is no way to get around it. Search light or no search light.

For sake of knowing it.

searchlight pg. 87
Units can illuminate a target
Illumination lasts until the end of the following turn. Illuminated units gain no benefit from the night fighting special rule.

So if a unit gets search lighted it does lose stealth and shrouded if it would gain it from night fighting. However, no unit can shoot over 36" per the night fighting rules. Unless they have night fighting and completely ignore night fighting all together therefore avoiding the restriction placed on the firing unit.

It's difficult for me to accurately communicate sensibly an argument that makes no sense. If you have a proposal for your opinion on this issue, I will modify the poll.

How does it not makes sense. Rule states and i qoute, "The shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away."

How is that difficult to understand? Think of it as search lights only having a range of effect. Light does fade over distance if you want to get fluffy.

You only quoted part of the sentence: "The shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away - such units are completely hidden in the darkness." By illuminating a unit it is no longer completely hidden in the darkness therefore can be picked as a target.

 Lord Yayula wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
If you put up a poll you should clearly lay down both sides of the argument and why they could be perceived that way.

Either way here is why night fighting is different in 6th edition.

Page 124: "The Shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away." This is a restriction on the firing unit where currently there is no way to get around it. Search light or no search light.

For sake of knowing it.

searchlight pg. 87
Units can illuminate a target
Illumination lasts until the end of the following turn. Illuminated units gain no benefit from the night fighting special rule.

So if a unit gets search lighted it does lose stealth and shrouded if it would gain it from night fighting. However, no unit can shoot over 36" per the night fighting rules. Unless they have night fighting and completely ignore night fighting all together therefore avoiding the restriction placed on the firing unit.

It's difficult for me to accurately communicate sensibly an argument that makes no sense. If you have a proposal for your opinion on this issue, I will modify the poll.

How does it not makes sense. Rule states and i qoute, "The shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away."

How is that difficult to understand? Think of it as search lights only having a range of effect. Light does fade over distance if you want to get fluffy.

You only quoted part of the sentence: "The shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away - such units are completely hidden in the darkness." By illuminating a unit it is no longer completely hidden in the darkness therefore can be picked as a target.

The last part of the sentence is the fluff part of the rule and doesn't invalidate the first part. Not trying to be an arse or anything but this is seriously how I play it. I wont shoot over 36" until an faq fixes it because a rule clearly states I cannot. I know how it should be played but then again I knew how torrent baleflamer should of been played too and look what happened there.

The USR says that you can't target units 36"+ away. The specific rule for Search Lights removes all benefits conferred to illuminated units.

A targeting restriction that makes it a non-option would constitute a benefit, no?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
The USR says that you can't target units 36"+ away. The specific rule for Search Lights removes all benefits conferred to illuminated units.

A targeting restriction that makes it a non-option would constitute a benefit, no?

The search light only effects that firing unit and that target. Both are illuminated and can no longer gain the benefits of night fighting.

Nothing currently in the rules whether you like it or not removes the restriction placed on the firing unit. 36" is the max range during night fight (period)

Your labeling the restriction as a benefit to the target unit.. that is your opinion your asserting to the rules. The rule is something that effects the firing unit as much as it effects the target unit. The part that effects the target is removed but the part affecting the firing unit is not removed.

 Tomb King wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
The USR says that you can't target units 36"+ away. The specific rule for Search Lights removes all benefits conferred to illuminated units.

A targeting restriction that makes it a non-option would constitute a benefit, no?

The search light only effects that firing unit and that target. Both are illuminated and can no longer gain the benefits of night fighting.

Nothing currently in the rules whether you like it or not removes the restriction placed on the firing unit. 36" is the max range during night fight (period)

That's funny, because if you look at the poll you can clearly see that you're the only one of two who plays it that way.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
The USR says that you can't target units 36"+ away. The specific rule for Search Lights removes all benefits conferred to illuminated units.

A targeting restriction that makes it a non-option would constitute a benefit, no?

The search light only effects that firing unit and that target. Both are illuminated and can no longer gain the benefits of night fighting.

Nothing currently in the rules whether you like it or not removes the restriction placed on the firing unit. 36" is the max range during night fight (period)

That's funny, because if you look at the poll you can clearly see that you're the only one of two who plays it that way.

Your poll is misleading and poorly worded. With its current wording I am not surprised at the results. In addition, people have trouble adjusting to changes from the norm of past editions. Most of people voting probably didnt even open their rulebooks.

The wording in the poll is incorrect, as Night Fighting applies to both the shooter and the shot at. The unit being shot at is no longer affected by night fighting, but the rest of the shooter's army is. I thing this is WAD too, since otherwise armies that were full of search lights could simply ignore night fighting. As it is they can nullify the cover bonus easily enough.

 Tomb King wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
The USR says that you can't target units 36"+ away. The specific rule for Search Lights removes all benefits conferred to illuminated units.

A targeting restriction that makes it a non-option would constitute a benefit, no?

The search light only effects that firing unit and that target. Both are illuminated and can no longer gain the benefits of night fighting.

Nothing currently in the rules whether you like it or not removes the restriction placed on the firing unit. 36" is the max range during night fight (period)

That's funny, because if you look at the poll you can clearly see that you're the only one of two who plays it that way.

Your poll is misleading and poorly worded. With its current wording I am not surprised at the results. In addition, people have trouble adjusting to changes from the norm of past editions. Most of people voting probably didnt even open their rulebooks.

I asked you once to rephrase your argument for the purpose of the poll. Either do it, and I'll add it, or stop crying about it.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
The USR says that you can't target units 36"+ away. The specific rule for Search Lights removes all benefits conferred to illuminated units.

A targeting restriction that makes it a non-option would constitute a benefit, no?

The search light only effects that firing unit and that target. Both are illuminated and can no longer gain the benefits of night fighting.

Nothing currently in the rules whether you like it or not removes the restriction placed on the firing unit. 36" is the max range during night fight (period)

That's funny, because if you look at the poll you can clearly see that you're the only one of two who plays it that way.

Your poll is misleading and poorly worded. With its current wording I am not surprised at the results. In addition, people have trouble adjusting to changes from the norm of past editions. Most of people voting probably didnt even open their rulebooks.

I asked you once to rephrase your argument for the purpose of the poll. Either do it, and I'll add it, or stop crying about it.

I am not crying at about it all.. I am merely trying to illuminate.

While i do see understand your point on this Tomb King, It can be said that if the unit being shot at gains no benefits for night fighting, then that special rule is no longer in effect. That would lift the restriction on the firing unit.

Unfortunately, I'm with Tomb King on this one. Night Fighting does two things. It places restrictions on the firer AND gives benefits to the target. The target benefits by getting a cover save. The firer is restricted to 36" range.

The searchlight merely removes the benefits from the target but does nothing with regards to the restrictions on the firer. These are two separate things.

Everyone agrees that the target cannot get it's cover save.

However, the wording for the searchlight completely ignores the restrictions on the firer. Because we have a permissive rule set, unless you can show where the targeting restriction is lifted then it's still active and you can't shoot anything over 36".

side note: I clicked the wrong selection in the vote box.

BryllCream wrote:The wording in the poll is incorrect, as Night Fighting applies to both the shooter and the shot at. The unit being shot at is no longer affected by night fighting, but the rest of the shooter's army is. I thing this is WAD too, since otherwise armies that were full of search lights could simply ignore night fighting. As it is they can nullify the cover bonus easily enough.

Yea it really screwed the results.

pyre wrote:While i do see understand your point on this Tomb King, It can be said that if the unit being shot at gains no benefits for night fighting, then that special rule is no longer in effect. That would lift the restriction on the firing unit.

Night fighting affects both units but only one is no longer effected.

clively wrote:Unfortunately, I'm with Tomb King on this one. Night Fighting does two things. It places restrictions on the firer AND gives benefits to the target. The target benefits by getting a cover save. The firer is restricted to 36" range.

The searchlight merely removes the benefits from the target but does nothing with regards to the restrictions on the firer. These are two separate things.

Everyone agrees that the target cannot get it's cover save.

However, the wording for the searchlight completely ignores the restrictions on the firer. Because we have a permissive rule set, unless you can show where the targeting restriction is lifted then it's still active and you can't shoot anything over 36".

side note: I clicked the wrong selection in the vote box.

I know its silly but that is the rules. A lot of people refuse to accept it though.

Benefit

(Ben.e.fit) / Noun

An advantage or profit gained from something.

Being shot at: Not a benefit

Not being shot at: A benefit

Therefore, by logical conclusion, not being shot at is an advantage of night fighting.

As an aside, I have always held that common sense is not a particularly common trait amongst rules lawyers.

Tyranidfreek01 wrote:
<snip irrelevant definition in violation of the tenets>
Being shot at: Not a benefit

Not being shot at: A benefit

Therefore, by logical conclusion, not being shot at is an advantage of night fighting.

As an aside, I have always held that common sense is not a particularly common trait amongst rules lawyers.

It'd be great if you argue with rules instead of snide remarks and insults.

The firing unit has a restriction on it. Removing benefits on the "lit up" unit does absolutely nothing for restrictions on a completely unrelated unit.

Tyranidfreek01 wrote:
Benefit

(Ben.e.fit) / Noun

An advantage or profit gained from something.

Being shot at: Not a benefit

Not being shot at: A benefit

Therefore, by logical conclusion, not being shot at is an advantage of night fighting.

As an aside, I have always held that common sense is not a particularly common trait amongst rules lawyers.

lol this isnt rules lawyering. This is merely applying the rules, that are in this case pretty damn clear on the way they are written. Common sense and/or logic is not a particular good way to approach a game with little plastic men in a the 41st millennium. But that is neither here nor their. You can play by the rules or just scribble in your own if you would like. As long as your FLGS agree's then you all can play it either way.

40k is a permissive ruleset. Search lights affect targets. Night fight effects both the shooter and the target. As for benefit, we are pretty clear on what it means. It does remove the effects of night fight for the target but not the unit shooting.

rigeld wrote:
It'd be great if you argue with rules instead of snide remarks and insults.

The firing unit has a restriction on it. Removing benefits on the "lit up" unit does absolutely nothing for restrictions on a completely unrelated unit.

Snide remarks aside, the rules are quite clear: the specific Search Light rule is applied to the general Night Fighting rule. The Search Light rule, to the letter, removes all benefits pertaining to the Night Fighting rule for units that are illuminated.

A state in which a unit is not able to be targeted certainly counts as a benefit. Search Lights, a specific wargear item, remove this restriction because it is a benefit. I'm not sure how, in the English language, anyone can read this otherwise. If the "benefit removal" were meant to pertain only to the cover save bonuses, the rule would say that.

That's an interesting assumption. (That the rules would say that)

Here's the thing - GW is horrible at writing rules. Like - truly awful. You're trying to argue intent - which is fine. But it's clear that the searchlight removes all benefits on the target unit. A restriction on some 3rd party unit doesn't get removed because the lit up unit doesn't get benefits.

rigeld2 wrote:
That's an interesting assumption. (That the rules would say that)

Here's the thing - GW is horrible at writing rules. Like - truly awful. You're trying to argue intent - which is fine. But it's clear that the searchlight removes all benefits on the target unit. A restriction on some 3rd party unit doesn't get removed because the lit up unit doesn't get benefits.

I'm not arguing intent at all. I'm arguing that the meaning of "all benefits" includes all benefits. I've been playing 40k since Rogue Trader so I can attest to the poor specificity of GW's rules

...people just seemed to argue a lot less back then, when a vortex grenade sucked up 700 points worth of stuff.

Searchlights remove the benefit of nightfighting.

One of the benefits of night fighting is that if you are more than 36 inches away you can not be targeted.

I could be wrong, but aren't all of those rules (can't target a unit, unit targeted gets shroud, unit targeted gets stealth, free fire) restrictions to the firing unit that ultimately benefit the target unit.

They all limit what the firing unit can do. Wanna shoot that target beyond 36"?...too bad. Wanna shoot that target 24" away?... gonna be real hard to hurt that. Wanna shoot that target 12" away?...gonna be kinda hard to hurt that. Wanna shoot that target less than 12" away?....good choice.

The section that they are listed under is : Picking a Target and Night Fighting.

It's not listed as: Benefits of Being Targeted in Night Fight.

I'm of the opinion that not being able to be targeted is a pretty darned good benefit. Just ask yourself, is not being able to be targeted beneficial to a unit? If yes, then it's a benefit.

Also there is no definition of benefits in the RaW. None of the conditions in the "Picking a Target and Night Fighting" are listed as being benefits nor does it list that target unit as "benefiting" from a rule.

The Stealth rule does use the term "benefit" in it's entry when pertaining to a specific type of terrain stealth. It reads "If this is the case, the unit only gains the benefit whilst it is in terrain of the specified type." The Shrouded rule does not use the term benefit at all.

Why separate restrictions and benefits? That's a false dichotomy. You can benefit from restrictions and this is a perfect example. There's no RAW reason to split these into exclusive categories and avoiding being shot at is obviously beneficial. I would go as far as saying not removing the restriction is failing to fulfil the requirement that the unit gains no benefit.

The game itself separates benefits from restrictions. Stubborn removes only negatives but not bonuses..... It would be like saying that because I can force you to take a moral check that it is a negative and I can't do it.

The restriction on shooting is not based on the distance from target to you but the distance from you to your target. This is not based off the target getting a benefit. It is beneficial to the target only based on you being restricted, which is a large difference.

That being said, RAI I think they can be targeted. RAW, the restriction on firing is not a benefit to the target but a restriction placed on the firer.

What? Stubborn ignores negative leadership modifiers. If anything you've helped my case as stubborn ignores negative modifiers no matter the cause, yet you purpose that for this rule the cause of the benefit maters. This draws no distinction between benefit and restriction and you are arguing they get to keep a benefit, hence are breaking the rules.

 Gravmyr wrote:
The restriction on shooting is not based on the distance from target to you but the distance from you to your target. This is not based off the target getting a benefit. It is beneficial to the target only based on you being restricted, which is a large difference.

To rephrase this, just for my own clarification. The benefit bestowed to the target unit is not a benefit to the target unit.

The game itself separates benefits from restrictions. Stubborn removes only negatives but not bonuses..... It would be like saying that because I can force you to take a moral check that it is a negative and I can't do it.

I haven't found anywhere the book separates a benefit from a restriction. I do know that gaining shroud is deffinetly not listed as a benefit anywhere in the text.

The book does occasionaly refer to a rule as a benefit or restriction.
The 36" cannot shoot rule is also never listed as a restriction. These are terms that people are applying in their own interpretation of the rules. They feel that "B" and "C" are benefits, that "A" is a restriction.

Could anyone tell me whether option "D" is a benefit or restriction? "Units less than 12" away can be shot at normaly"

The very wording of option "D" shows that all of the entries are from the perspective of the firing unit. It shows that in all of the other options the firing unit is not shooting at the target normaly.