The rules are so fethed up its untrue!
I was using my 1500 point Nurgle WoC army against Ogres. The magic rules almost caused a big argument on a couple of occasions-
First one, I cast Plague Squall wanting to hit a unit behind a giant and a unit of Gnoblars. My opponent says I can't as I need to be able to see my target, fair enough, that's what the rules say. The target I wanted to hit is 22" away, the Gnoblars 19" and the giant 6" away, all in line with each other. I asked what was stopping me guessing around 22" even though the giant and Gnoblars were in the way. My opponent says that I need to make a realistic guess but it doesn't say that in the rules... (I didn't do it in the end as even I thought it was cheating!).
Next I have a unit with a sorcerer on the end in combat with the giant, following the rules the sorcerer can't cast a spell on the giant (his biggest threat) but he can cast a spell on another unit, not engaged in combat, which he has line of site to...
We gave up then and called it a draw. I am now looking for an alternative fantasy rules set!
Mick

Ok, first things first.

You could have guessed 22", how is that not a realistic guess? If there was a unit I wanted to hit that was 24" away and I guessed 12", I'd be waay off, but that's still legal.

Finally, unless the spell is a magic missile, you can cast the spell on the giant.

Your opponent was cheating so he could win the game.

He couldn't cast the spell on the giant as he was in combat with the giant unless the spell specifically say "can be cast into combat" but he COULD cast spells targeting any other unit except magic missiles as long as he meets all other requirements (line of sight, target not in combat etc.) that apply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
but seriously, the dud you were playing with sounds like a douche. If you played with me, I would educate you on the REAL rules, and tell you alternatives if what you originally wanted to do wasn't possible. Play with other people and you will enjoy the game.

Arion has it correct.

My rule-fu has, well, faltered...

1) Plague Squall fires as if a stone thrower. I'm not 100% on the rules for those (don't use them myself as mortars have slightly different rules), but if they require direct line of sight now, then you can't target a unit you can't see. 'Overguessing' is in bad taste in addition to being against the rules, and anyone who attempts it is both a cheater and a DB.

2) If one bit of frustration out of your misunderstanding of the rules is enough to cause you to quit the game, perhaps you should ponder why you were playing in the first place. That, or don't let your Soceror get into combat with a Giant.

'Overguessing?'

What do you mean? Was this a case of overguessing?

Cryonicleech wrote:'Overguessing?'

What do you mean? Was this a case of overguessing?

I think what OP is trying to say is , he want to hit the unit hiding out of LOS behind 2 units.
But his friend wont let him fire because well no LOS ( though not sure about rule of stone thrower )
Hence he says fine , he'll fire at the unit he can see , and over guess it on purpose hoping it would travel through
the 2 units in front and land on the targeted he wanted.

Oh, I understand then.

@OP:

1) In theory you are allowed to do what you did. Because if you didnt tell your opponent that you are actually trying to hit the unit hidden , they cant really do anything about it.
Because you did pick a target , and you are allowed to guess anywhere between the allowed range which you did.
I think the only reason a guess range weapon still need an appointed target to fire is , for example so we cant target say a lone unit hiding across the other side of a forest .
Tough luck to your opponent i guess to grouping them together !

2) It depends what spell you casted , you would need to tell us because there are too many different special rules.

What a Dbag!

Does the rule say you can't guess high? No! It says you guess, so guess 22" and call it a day. Next, they'll ban cannon sniping, because it's unfair to kill Bloodthirsters outside HtH...

It's not cannon-sniping unless the target is actually inside a unit and even then this is perfectly allowed within the rules.

Deliberately overguessing to hit a target you cannot target otherwise is cheating by the rules so I wouldn't call his opponent a douchebag that quickly.

However, it seems both players haven't looked at the relevant rules all that closely because, going from memory here, but IIRC Stone Throwers firing still do not require LoS for valid shooting so him guessing to hit a unit he couldn't see is pefectly within the rules. So what they should have done was looking closely at the way the spell is worded, picked up on the whole 'as a Stone Thrower' thing and then read the rules for guessing ranges & LoS with Stone Throwers.

I'll also agree on Manfred's comment that if one silly rules argument + the disagreement about how another rule works (the reason that wizards cannot cast inside their own combat is to stop other rules exploits, like said, play better next time and don't get your Wizard in combat with a Giant! He'll only end up as pants stuffing.) makes you want to quit the game you'll never find a ruleset you'll like.

Games have rules, the more intricate the rules the easier it is to have conflicts/overlook stuff. If you don't want any rules discussions then play as simple a game as possible (rules wise then, chess is complicated but within a very restricted rules environment).

Stone throwers still need LOS to be able to target a unit - if you can find somewhere that says otherwise, please let me know. The whole argument against overguessing is nothing new - people try using that when opponents use cheap skirmishing units to block LOS to their more expensive units (i.e. skirmishing skink meat shield protecting temple guard blocks). What I do with the overguessing thing when it comes up is that I see what unit they are targetting, eyeball the distance, then ask them to turn around while I measure it. Gross overguesses that I don't even need to measure I tell them sorry - if it's close, I'll ask them to reguess. Or play it even easier - if they want to overguess - let them. Just tell them the shot doesn't count and they can't fire that turn.

I hear you on the whole "magic into combat" argument - GW seriously needs to tighten up the rules on magic in combat because some spells say you can cast into combat, some don't say anything - the basic rule of "Well it doesn't say I can't" is countered with the "Well it doesn't say you can" - it's just a mess. Where I normally play uses the "it has to say something about being able to be cast into combat" to be allowed.

BAWTRM- last nights game was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak. My local club has been running a yearly WHFB league for 5 years now and I can't remember there being one game where there hasn't been a query/arguement over the rules or interpritation of them...

I've personally being playing WHFB since the first edition and have never seen so many questions raised as there have been with this and the last edition. If I do play again I think I'll go back to third edition if there are others at the club willing to do the same (I'm not the only one at the club giving up on this edition).

Mick

the basic rule of "Well it doesn't say I can't" is countered with the "Well it doesn't say you can"

Because that's what the rules say. The BRB rather clearly states that unless a spell specifically says that it can be cast into combat, then it can't be. People haven't been pulling this out of their bums, you know.

bye

Mick A, I feel your pain, I really do. We all know that the Warhammer rules are a festering mess, that new army books only make things worse, and that the only way to fix it requires that Games Workshop set up dedicated team of technical writers who will set up definitions and then enforce consistent wording across all the different books. Which GW ain't gonna pay for.

Good luck finding another game. I would suggest WotR but, being a GW rules set, it has its own ambiguities.

We are concidering WotR but only a couple of us have those rules...
Mick

Mattbranb wrote:What I do with the overguessing thing when it comes up is that I see what unit they are targetting, eyeball the distance, then ask them to turn around while I measure it. Gross overguesses that I don't even need to measure I tell them sorry - if it's close, I'll ask them to reguess. Or play it even easier - if they want to overguess - let them. Just tell them the shot doesn't count and they can't fire that turn.

See, now that's pure Bull.

None of that is permitted by the rules. None.

If you want to "protect" the rear unit, you should have to give up a perfectly centered hit on the forward target. Otherwise, suck it up and deal with the overguess.

Overguessing is:

a) Lame
b) A weak way to take advantage of the ambiguous ruleset
c) Probably legal (unless they FAQ'd it)
d) All of the above

My vote is D. It is one of the D-BAGGIEST things somebody that is trying to have a mutually enjoyable TWO PLAYER game can do. That being said, my Wood Elves take this into account when placing lone mages and such out of line of sight where, by all reasonable consideration, they should be safe.

There is, however, a nagging suspicion that this may have been fixed. Could somebody check the FAQ, as I cannot from work.

Pfft. Overguessing exists because not every army can field HtH monsters. It's a legit and useful counterbalance that keeps Empire and other "squishy" armies playable.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Pfft. Overguessing exists because not every army can field HtH monsters. It's a legit and useful counterbalance that keeps Empire and other "squishy" armies playable.

I agree! Where does it say you cannot guess any number you like? It sounds like the rules discussions above calling this "cheating" are just making up whatever rules you like. What would be the point in guessing if you couldn't over (or under) guess? The solutions posted above are much more complicated (and imho, cheating) than the original idea!

I just started playing fantasy, but I do use skinks to shield my expensive temple guard. AND I just played an empire player who used lots of guess range weapons and blew apart a lot of my units.

But what JohnHwangDD says above here is true- I had a carnosaur, a skink cheif on stegadon with war spear, and another stegadon. The first two of these got into hth on the last turn we played (we had to call it on I believe turn 4) and decimated his flank. He probably should have focused on taking these down; but still, I probably would have won the game if we'd had time to finish, not because I was a better general (I made tons of mistakes, since I just started) but because I had several monsters that owned in hth.

Anyway, I think this discussion is silly! What happened to YMDC being RAI (or even RAW)? All of the solutions posted above make guess-range weaponry not "guess" at all- completely silly, imho!!

Might I suggest that before starting the game you discuss with your opponent whether the game will be:

A) A merciless, literal interpretation of the rules.
or
B) An extension of role-playing

If you go for B, the reason you wouldn't guess 22 inches is because the big scary giant is only 6 inches away (which at the time should have easily been the "biggest threat," just as you said he was later to your caster when they met in close combat.)

That doesn't make sense as a way of looking at the rules either, ImparialTard, because what if the tiny little skinks are 6" away, and my scary temple guard with Slann are right behind? From a "does it makes sense" standpoint, of course you would ignore the skink (who are going to run away anyway) and shoot the temple guard / slann.

But when you're looking at rules, you can't always agree on a "what makes sense" interpretation... (people usually take the side that benefits them) so you have to go by what's written.

Or at least, somewhat! You can't make up rules about you measuring for your opponent, the shot disappearing, etc, etc. I'm taking this side of the argument, and I don't have any guess range weaponry! What I do have are salamanders, which have a rule that specifically states they can accidentally fire over a unit (they add an artillery dice roll to the flamer template) by the flames arcing over top of them. It makes sense that a stone-thrower could do the same thing... and since it's just a guess, there's no reason why you might not overguess by mistake. Would the shot then not count, either?

That just doesn't make any sense!

RiTides wrote:That doesn't make sense as a way of looking at the rules either, ImparialTard, because what if the tiny little skinks are 6" away, and my scary temple guard with Slann are right behind? From a "does it makes sense" standpoint, of course you would ignore the skink (who are going to run away anyway) and shoot the temple guard / slann.

But when you're looking at rules, you can't always agree on a "what makes sense" interpretation... (people usually take the side that benefits them) so you have to go by what's written.

Or at least, somewhat! You can't make up rules about you measuring for your opponent, the shot disappearing, etc, etc. I'm taking this side of the argument, and I don't have any guess range weaponry! What I do have are salamanders, which have a rule that specifically states they can accidentally fire over a unit (they add an artillery dice roll to the flamer template) by the flames arcing over top of them. It makes sense that a stone-thrower could do the same thing... and since it's just a guess, there's no reason why you might not overguess by mistake. Would the shot then not count, either?

That just doesn't make any sense!

You're absolutely right, of course. The role-playing option I suggested isn't meant to be a rule, but an attitude. And that attitude is totally up to the discretion of each player. You'd just have to trust the other guy that his actions aren't the product of meta-game thinking, which as I understand it is very difficult for most people. I don't blame anyone; it's only natural to compete, isn't it?

You're right... and if you both have that attitude, it'd probably be more fun. I haven't met too many (any?) opponents with that kind of attitude/sportsmanship, though :-/

SO what conclusion? Is this really going to be a permissive/restrictive rules debate? Are there any crunchy arguments for disallowing overguessing or are we sticking with the "oi, daz cheap" argument? So far, I'd have to agree with John. It's not an argument from rules but it's the best practical argument among those posted.

The conclusion is very simple:

1. Play with people who play compatibly with you.
2. The rules aren't perfect, but they are the rules.

If you want to play fast & loose, and the other guy wants to play tight & picky (or vice versa), then probably there's a problem.

If the rules don't make sense, then both players need to agree on any change, rather than somebody getting huffy and deciding to unilaterally change the rules.

I hate those awkward moments when you or your opponent (I only play with friends btw, not a *spit* tournament gamer myself) wants to do something clever and there's a question about if it's allowed AND we have no answer in the books. There's a lot of hemming and hawing until, inevitably, we say "okay, go ahead" or come up with a good practical argument like yours. So I guess my appeal was for conclusion other than "play with people you get along with" because I think the problem isn't totally solved even in friendly and casual play (they are different categories as OP makes apparent).

JohnHwangDD wrote:The conclusion is very simple:

1. Play with people who play compatibly with you.
2. The rules aren't perfect, but they are the rules.

QFT! Bottom line is the game is a game and is meant to be fun. If you are not having fun playing a certain opponent, don't play that person. It is to bad though that the OP played against a person who either did not know the rules, or flat out cheated to try and win.

Mick, good luck finding a new game system, but I can tell you that when you get a fun group to play with, WHFB can be a blast.

RiTides wrote:You're right... and if you both have that attitude, it'd probably be more fun. I haven't met too many (any?) opponents with that kind of attitude/sportsmanship, though :-/

Strange, isn't it? I plan on developing into a very honorable Bretonnian player. ;D

JohnHwangDD wrote:Pfft. Overguessing exists because not every army can field HtH monsters. It's a legit and useful counterbalance that keeps Empire and other "squishy" armies playable.

Please explain how that works on the battlefield.

Cannon/cataput is on the same level as the enemy (i.e. not on a hill) so it can't see over units. Crew can see enemy unit A in front of them, and maybe a bit of motion an indeterminate distance behind unit A from enemy unit B. So they are going to shoot over the closer threat of A in the hope of hitting the unknown unit B, which they cannot see well enough to identify, much less target accurately (thus, out of LOS)?

But because the PLAYER can see that Unit A is just a wimpy screen in front of a more dangerous Unit B, the PLAYER can deliberately shoot high to hit B? How does the cannon crew come by this knowledge, that they can snipe a unit they can't even see? It's not like the have (in most cases) aerial observation, or radios to tell the cannon crew exactly where to shoot to violate the 'can't shoot at targets without LOS' rule.

In short, overguessing in WFB is manipluating the letter of the rules in clear violation of the intent.

I wish GW would put that into the rules, and end the cheap shots once and for all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RiTides wrote:That doesn't make sense as a way of looking at the rules either, ImparialTard, because what if the tiny little skinks are 6" away, and my scary temple guard with Slann are right behind? From a "does it makes sense" standpoint, of course you would ignore the skink (who are going to run away anyway) and shoot the temple guard / slann.

But when you're looking at rules, you can't always agree on a "what makes sense" interpretation... (people usually take the side that benefits them) so you have to go by what's written.

Or at least, somewhat! You can't make up rules about you measuring for your opponent, the shot disappearing, etc, etc. I'm taking this side of the argument, and I don't have any guess range weaponry! What I do have are salamanders, which have a rule that specifically states they can accidentally fire over a unit (they add an artillery dice roll to the flamer template) by the flames arcing over top of them. It makes sense that a stone-thrower could do the same thing... and since it's just a guess, there's no reason why you might not overguess by mistake. Would the shot then not count, either?

That just doesn't make any sense!

If the overguess was only a little, then sure.

But if the screen is close to the war machine (say, 6"), and the hard target well behind (say, 20"), and the PLAYER guesses 18"... that's a mistake well beyond any that would likely be made by a cannon crew on the battlefield. It's a clear attempt to violate the 'cannot shoot at a target out of LOS' rule.

Vulcan wrote:In short, overguessing in WFB is manipluating the letter of the rules in clear violation of the intent.

I understand what you are trying to say but I think you assume that intent of the rules is to foster realism in scale which I would say is pretty shaky. And even if that was the case, a person could argue back "well, this is an crew that has seen enough battle to be pretty sure that certain units are used to hide tougher ones so they just take a crack shot from the wisdom of experience." As such, the argument from realism isn't as rock solid as you feel, IMO.

So the end result is:

a) Play as if someone will take the cheap shot and guess WAY longer than their target could possibly be. Take this into account in your deployment and movement during the game.

AND

b) Don't take cheap, rules-abusing shots like this yourself. Treat the other player with respect, it might rub off.

I think John raises a good point about this possibly being a legitimate tactic. People aren't really addressing his point. Using words like "cheap" to describe a viewpoint that is different from your own without actually dealing with a valid argument (much less appealing to any rules or discussing their interpretation) is the opposite of respect. I can see that "be prepared for others to cheat but don't cheat yourself" is good advice for dignified behavior. But the question is whether this is cheating in the first place.

Vulcan wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Pfft. Overguessing exists because not every army can field HtH monsters. It's a legit and useful counterbalance that keeps Empire and other "squishy" armies playable.

Please explain how that works on the battlefield.

Cannon/cataput is on the same level as the enemy (i.e. not on a hill) so it can't see over units.

It's not like the have (in most cases) aerial observation, or radios to tell the cannon crew exactly where to shoot to violate the 'can't shoot at targets without LOS' rule.

In short, overguessing in WFB is manipluating the letter of the rules in clear violation of the intent.

I wish GW would put that into the rules, and end the cheap shots once and for all.

The fact that WFB specifies the obsolete and archaic "Guess" mechanic that is only limited by the maximum range of the weapon, as opposed to a far smarter and simpler "place and scatter" mechanic (as in BFG Armada and now 40k) is all the explanation that is necessary.

But if you're talking about a Warhammer *FANTASY* battlefield, it works via innate Magic that provides every army with 2 Power Dice and 2 Dispel Dice, while ensuring that units flee in the most advantageous direction at all times.

If you were talking about a pseudo-realistic battlefield, then you'd have to concede that the flattness of the tabletop is a very poor abstraction of RL terrain, and that even IRL, armies have spotters and signalmen and messengers and pigeons.

The real world bears no resemblance to the Warhammer world, and claiming any sort of intent like that is not supported anywhere in the ruleset. Indeed, the very fact that Empire, which has NO HtH monsters, but has multiple efficient Guess weapons that were not revised in the WFB7 Army Book, nor in the WFB7 Rulebook strongly implies that GW expects and endorses this tactic.

In short, if you want to play a realistic game, don't play WFB.

My advice to you is simple: learn to play better. Don't be the guy who places juicy targets in line with enemy Guess weapons, and then complain that the tactic is "cheap" because you don't have the Generalship skillz to counter them.

ImperialTard- this whole mess started due to the fact that the spell only does strength 1 hits which would not affect the giant due to its toughness, that's why my opponent and myself started talking about over guessing so the spell wouldn't be wasted.

I do think the problem is I tend to look at the games with a bit of realism as in my mind a catapult launches its missile up into the air in an arc rather than in a straight line. I can totally agree with banning over guessing to hit units behind hills and buildings etc that have not been seen by the firers, but when you think of the area covered by a giants base compared to the area covered by a typical units base surely you must be able to see something past it?

Mick

Mick A wrote:BAWTRM- last nights game was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak. My local club has been running a yearly WHFB league for 5 years now and I can't remember there being one game where there hasn't been a query/arguement over the rules or interpritation of them...

I've personally being playing WHFB since the first edition and have never seen so many questions raised as there have been with this and the last edition. If I do play again I think I'll go back to third edition if there are others at the club willing to do the same (I'm not the only one at the club giving up on this edition).

Mick

I can feel your pain in this regard Mick. I've only played since 5th Ed. but I can see where you're coming from. (personally I believe 6th Ed to be the best of the bunch I've played).

Our own gaming group was Looking into Armies of Arcana for a moment, but the guy who was really the pusher behind it died in an accident, so in the end we stuck with what we knew. It did look like a very interesting system though and I've read favorable reviews about it.

BAWTRM wrote:Our own gaming group was Looking into Armies of Arcana for a moment, but the guy who was really the pusher behind it died in an accident, so in the end we stuck with what we knew.

Whoa.

I'm going from memory here, so nobody shoot me down on this,

Overguessing.

Cannon follow a different mechanic from trebuchet, mortars, stonethrowers and scrap launchers, in that they must have LOS to their target. All the others only require lLOS to an enemy unit in the direction of the shot. So it is perfectly legitimate to lob a shell/rock over a unit of skirmishers at the hard core behind, and I believe there is an article on this on the GW website. If your spell follows the same rules as a stonethrower then you were perfectly entitled to cast your spell where you wanted.

Magic.

You mage shouldn't have been able to cast any spells at all. He is part of a unit locked in combat, as such he has to follow those rules (unless of course I've missed something glaringly obvious, and so would like to receive a page reference so I can correct my ways), so no spells, no leaving, no ranged weapons.

Cheers

Andrew

Actually the BRB does specifically mention two things
1) that you must declare a target in LOS that the stone thrower is trying to shoot at.
2) you must make a guess of the range as accurately as possible

so that means that purposefully overguessing is in fact cheating, not only in a moral sense but also because it is against the rules. It is hard to regulate, but that does not change the rules.

You are taking the bit about 'you must guess the range as accurately as possible' out of context. All it is is re-iterating that you can't pre-measure so have to depend on your guessing to get the result you want.

True that is probably the way to read it, but in my group i guess maybe we use that as an excuse as to no over guessing.

We say that since you must try to guess as accurately as possible, without measuring ranges, then you need to at least try and hit the target your aiming at, similar to the charging units at the other side of the board rule. The phrase is probably merely trying to strengthen their point about no measuring ranges, but since it is in the rules you have to do it.

I dont know if it's sloppy writing on behalf of GW but I think there is a diiference in the rules.

Cannon specifies LOS to target, thrower specifies LOS to an enemy unit in the direction of fire. Not that you have to have LOS to your target. (Please see previous caveat)

Andrew

skyth wrote:You are taking the bit about 'you must guess the range as accurately as possible' out of context. All it is is re-iterating that you can't pre-measure so have to depend on your guessing to get the result you want.

I haven't played WHFB in several years, but do they still require you to guess on the charge range?

If some asshat guesses it's 22 inches to a Giant that is actually 6 inches away, he better be calling charges from the first turn and failing them all game. If they think 6 inches is halfway across the table, they need to play like that the entire game.

If screening target (A) is 6" away and Juicy Unit (B) is 8" away, guessing 8" for (A) seems plausible, even if you are doing it to hit (B) while calling (A) your target.

If screening target (A) is 6" away and Juicy Unit (B) is 22" away, guessing 22" for (A) seems like cheese/cheating/abusing the rules and no one should play with you, or they should beat you in the parking lot with your miniatures case.

Mick A wrote:ImperialTard- this whole mess started due to the fact that the spell only does strength 1 hits which would not affect the giant due to its toughness, that's why my opponent and myself started talking about over guessing so the spell wouldn't be wasted.

I do think the problem is I tend to look at the games with a bit of realism as in my mind a catapult launches its missile up into the air in an arc rather than in a straight line. I can totally agree with banning over guessing to hit units behind hills and buildings etc that have not been seen by the firers, but when you think of the area covered by a giants base compared to the area covered by a typical units base surely you must be able to see something past it?

Mick

I admit, Mick, I didn't consider that. That's more than enough reason for me that if you and I were playing, I'd totally let you overguess.

Has anyone in this discussion mentioned "True Line-of-Sight" yet? 'Cause if you apply that rule which allows you to shoot at visible bases behind tiny hill edges and such, maybe you could apply it to shooting at enemies straddling between a giant's legs?

skyth wrote:You are taking the bit about 'you must guess the range as accurately as possible' out of context. All it is is re-iterating that you can't pre-measure so have to depend on your guessing to get the result you want.

Hunh? What part of:

tiekwando wrote: you must make a guess of the range as accurately as possible

is unclear?

You can see unit A. You must guess the range to unit A as asccurately as possible.

If you overguess a little and hit a unit I have close behind A, okay. That happesn.

If you overguess by three times the actual range, that's not 'overguessing,' that's a clear attempt to miss Unit A and hit something else. Which is in clear violation of 'guessing the range as accurately as possible,' and therefore at the very least poor sportsmanship, and at worst outright cheating.

It is the part that is taken out of context. If you actually read the rule in the book, not just the part that he quoted, it is simply re-interating that you can't pre-measure.

"Then declare how far the rock is to be fired - this can be any number of inches between a minimum of 12" and the maximum range of the stone thrower (normally 60"). Do this without measuring the distance to that target, so try to guess the range as accurately as possible. Once you have made your guess..." BRB 92

So the in the context of the sentance it would seem RAI that the designers were saying "guess well to hopefully get a hit" but RAW "so try to guess as accurately as possible" gives a new rule, even though it is the second part of the sentence. Still though my guess is that RAI the designers didn't want people to throw stones over screens anyways but like i said, its just a guess (with much personal bias influencing it).

RAW requires you to take the entire sentence into context, not just a part of it.

I believe that there really is two ways to interpret the sentance. One way to look at it as

Do this without measuring the distance to that target thus you must guess and it is advantageous to try to guess accurately as possible. (a suggestion)

Or

1)Do this without measuring the distance to that target
2)so try to guess the range as accurately as possible (a command)

that is the lovely thing about english there is so much ambiguity, is it a compound sentence (i think thats the right term) or is it just an explanatory clause? How you answer that question asnwers what you think about the rule.

Having had a chance to look at the rules, I'm horribly wrong about my earlier post. I guess I was thinking about last edition.

The rule is pretty clear, you declare a target visible to the stonethrower and guess the range to it. Now I would have no problem with an over estimation to land the rock in the middle of the unit, eg 1 or 2", but I would if it was by 5 or 6".

Cheers

Andrew

Hmmm... looking at the rules and the arguements in this thread it seems perfectly fine to overguess to try and hit a unit... theirs a single keyword in their... "guess" the stone thrower can either A) See a unit in LoS and guess how far away it is (range) to try and hit it.... B) Take a "GUESS" that there might just be another unit behind the visable unit and purposly shoot over...

Thats just one way to see it for those who want this to be "realistic"

To quote a wise tournament organizer:

"There's two ways to interpret that rule. One of them is going to get your ass kicked. Do as you will."


I'm going to step aside from the rule debate about overguessing being cheating to touch on something someone else said about those armies that can overguess NEEDING to in order to beat cc monsters.

Are you KIDDING me?

Chaos warriors charge empire spearmen. Not only are the chaos warriors going to statistically LOSE or just barely squeak by a win because the enemy is likely getting saves and outnumbering them and has more ranks, but before the combat starts they get shot by the handgunner attachments, and a unit of halberdiers comes in from the side that counts as charging, cancelling their ranks, probably killing one with their S4 attacks, and will most likely get a flanking bonus after all is said and done.

That hodgepodge of crappy hth guys just totally kicked the crap out of those chaos warrior elite cc uber dudes with a couple special rules. The chaos army [full of awesome cc dudes] has pretty much no shooting other than risky magic [which can be countered by cheaper empire wizards] with which to disrupt this line and shoot the detachments before the warriors get into cc. Then we have the steam tank which crunches chaos warriors pretty handily, and any jackass can take van horstman's speculum and pummel a chaos lord into oblivion, or take a runefang and just charge, utterly obliterating those chaos characters that don't have a ward save [that's all of them, unless they got the warshrine buff].

Empire has PLENTY of good cc answers without having to overguess and find loopholes in the rules, legal or otherwise.

Chaos Warriors aren't the issue, and you know it. If you go up, my example was a Bloodthirster.

The Arch Lector that I typically run will beat a normal BT (Obs armor, firestorm blade, always hate) in combat

GW has gone back and forth on this issue a few times.

In the past there have been Warhammer Chronicles articles which explicitly allowed sniping and overguessing, and in the past, the rules for Stone Throwers specifically noted that you just had to have LOS to enemy in the line of fire, but you were explicitly allowed to overguess to hit stuff behind them. The rationale being that catapults are designed, in part, to get at targets behind something else (be it a wall or a screening unit).

That said, the present edition specifically requires you to guess, as accurately as possible, to hit a target you have LOS to. This means that overguessing to hit something else is a violation of the 7th edition rules. Yes, it is hard to police. This is a flaw of the WH rules. But it's not exactly hard to tell, once you've played a turn or two with the person. An inch or three off- plausible. A foot off? Guess again, please.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Chaos Warriors aren't the issue, and you know it. If you go up, my example was a Bloodthirster.

They can shoot that bloodthirster with like 100 handgun shots if they so chose.

A bloodthirster charging chaos warriors wins by MORE. The empire guys automatically do effectively 5 wounds to the bloodthirster, and an extra one if he happens to only do 5. Chaos warriors generally do 3, and actually only 2 by the end of it because they may not be outnumbering him anymore.

The gribbly crappy guys hold up better to a close combat monster, for fewer points, than elite guys. HUH! And on the way in, you can shoot at him with 20 handgunner shots. Wow, that sounds awesome!

There's no unit that goes toe to toe with a bloodthirster well by actually fighting it. Stubborn units, unbreakable units, units with lots of combat res are able to sit there and take it, but that's all. Certain characters can stand up to a bloodthirster - none of those characters are in the WoC book. Dozens are in the empire book [any jerk with a speculum, almost any build]. Others are in the dwarf book. Also dark elf book, high elf book, even chaos dwarves.

My point? NO, in NO WAY, EVER, do you need to CHEAT or find loopholes in order to deal with those monsters. Other army books have WORSE of a time of it than empire does. Far, far worse.

If they want to fix it, they have a shot (har har) to do so next year, or so the rumors/leaks say.

Well, here's a funny one for ya...

I'm supposed to guess as accurately as I can to hit my target with any guess weapon right? So I take my cannon and I happen to know that the enemy unit is 24" away. (First turn, both on the line or something else like that) What do I have to guess legally? 24" for the frong of the unit, 26" for the centre of mass...
Oh, and would it be wrong of me to guess 20" or 18" like I really would b/c the cannonball will bounce?

Same thing with firing a stone thrower at the middle of the enemy line. You have to declare a target, so you say the skaven slaves in the centre, but really you want to be in the centre of mass of the slaves & clanrats & giant rats & what not, so you aim for the rear right slave and try to guess bang on him and hope that wherever it lands, it hits something.

So RaI both those are fine yet interpreting as accurate as possible RaW would say no. ... go GW

B/c there is no way to adjuticate guessing, GW relies on fair play and spirit to get them through this; which means, overguessing is RaW legal ('cause you can't prove otherwise) and RaI bad sportsmanship. I like the 40k solution of place and scatter, less scatter with LoS. The Poison wind mortars are kinda neat.

I believe that complaining that having a shooty army means you should be able to have the handicap of being TFG is bull. Build a better army, one that uses the entire rule book, not just relying on shooting everything to death. Combat res is an amazing thing.

Mick A wrote:ImperialTard- this whole mess started due to the fact that the spell only does strength 1 hits which would not affect the giant due to its toughness, that's why my opponent and myself started talking about over guessing so the spell wouldn't be wasted.
Mick

But if you did go for "B" from my silly little list, do you think the wizard really measures his spells by strength, hits or other abstractions? Maybe he shouldn't know that the spell will have no effect on the giant until he's tried it at least once.

*snicker*

Deminyn wrote:there is no way to adjuticate guessing,

And this is why WFB should move to a "place-scatter-adjust" mechanic as in 40k.

Deminyn wrote:I'm supposed to guess as accurately as I can to hit my target with any guess weapon right?

Right.

Deminyn wrote:So I take my cannon and I happen to know that the enemy unit is 24" away. (First turn, both on the line or something else like that) What do I have to guess legally? 24" for the frong of the unit, 26" for the centre of mass...
Oh, and would it be wrong of me to guess 20" or 18" like I really would b/c the cannonball will bounce?

Same thing with firing a stone thrower at the middle of the enemy line. You have to declare a target, so you say the skaven slaves in the centre, but really you want to be in the centre of mass of the slaves & clanrats & giant rats & what not, so you aim for the rear right slave and try to guess bang on him and hope that wherever it lands, it hits something.

Both of those examples would be fine at any of the GTs I've attended. The cannon wouldn't raise an eyebrow from anyone. Aiming for the back corner of the targeted unit wouldn't cause any batted eyelashes either, from my experience. You're still trying to hit a unit you can see.

Deminyn wrote:Well, here's a funny one for ya...

I'm supposed to guess as accurately as I can to hit my target with any guess weapon right? So I take my cannon and I happen to know that the enemy unit is 24" away. (First turn, both on the line or something else like that) What do I have to guess legally? 24" for the frong of the unit, 26" for the centre of mass...
Oh, and would it be wrong of me to guess 20" or 18" like I really would b/c the cannonball will bounce?

Same thing with firing a stone thrower at the middle of the enemy line. You have to declare a target, so you say the skaven slaves in the centre, but really you want to be in the centre of mass of the slaves & clanrats & giant rats & what not, so you aim for the rear right slave and try to guess bang on him and hope that wherever it lands, it hits something.

So RaI both those are fine yet interpreting as accurate as possible RaW would say no. ... go GW

B/c there is no way to adjuticate guessing, GW relies on fair play and spirit to get them through this; which means, overguessing is RaW legal ('cause you can't prove otherwise) and RaI bad sportsmanship. I like the 40k solution of place and scatter, less scatter with LoS. The Poison wind mortars are kinda neat.

I believe that complaining that having a shooty army means you should be able to have the handicap of being TFG is bull. Build a better army, one that uses the entire rule book, not just relying on shooting everything to death. Combat res is an amazing thing.

Shooting for the middle (or a corner, or whatever) of the unit is fair. A cannon shooting short of the unit to make maximum use of the bounce is fair (back in the day when direct-fire cannon were commonly used on blocks of infantry it was called 'grazing fire'). Heck, if you overshoot an inch or two and hit the unit that is close (within the aformentioned inch or two) behind the target unit, I won't contest that either - from the point of view of the shooter, the two units likely blend together.

Shooting over a unit - way over, like really improbably far over (6"+), is not fair - especially when your wild guess 'just happens' to land your shot on another unit that by the rules the shooter cannot see.

My point with the silly examples of things that everyone does is to point out that GW expects everyone to understand it and play like that, but the RaW don't (IIRC) say you can. Guessing short is not guessing as accurately as possible.

Vulcan wrote:Heck, if you overshoot an inch or two and hit the unit that is close (within the aforementioned inch or two) behind the target unit, I won't contest that either - from the point of view of the shooter, the two units likely blend together.

Alright, neither would I and I would/do aim for the center of mass of enemy lines all the time... but how is this, from a RaW point of view, different from overshooting by 6"?
Is it b/c the intent was to overguess? Well, that would not be guessing as accurate as possible, but try and prove intent...

***New challenge of common sense vs rules*** This one a bit trickier. I don't know all the details about the Chaos spell mentioned in the thread earlier, but let's assume S1 no armor save stone-thrower-like effect.

Our mighty caster is sitting by himself and the enemy just ran some... goblin wolf riders 3" from his face and shot some arrows in his (very) general direction. His turn comes, casts the spell, he only has 2 things in LoS; the Wolf Riders, and the giant (all Large target of him) which just happens to be standing in the middle of 5 different infantry blocks (read as "in the middle of the place you REALLY want to drop a stone thrower template). Our caster declares the giant as his target (legal target) and guesses a little short (or far) of him so that it is in the middle of that mass of people. The spell can't hurt the target, at all.

a) He never had the intention of hitting the giant and guessed off on purpose. This is against the spirit of it but how is that different from the last stone thrower example?
b) What if the wolf riders weren't there? Would that make it better/worse/the same?
c) What if he guessed right on the giant (by accident)? Would that justify over/under guessing in order to hit a different target?

***One more time***
Some unit with a big "shoot me sign" is hiding behind some screen. (Stormvermin + Queek behind slaves). Me puts a trap in front of slaves (like 2" in front) hoping they'll charge and open expose the target (just go with it, maybe they'd have to leave a hill or something to expose him) or I'll charge next turn. So Me decides to aim for the slaves and, to be safe about avoiding my own unit, add 6" to my guess. (you got an average scatter of what? 5.2" ?) This will probably initially land on the rear target. Which would be overguessing, wouldn't it?

a) So Me had the intention of hitting the slaves, it's just that they were close to my line so I cautiously added 6" for a bad scatter.
b) Again, what if the target unit wasn't there. I was just overguessing to have a bigger safety on my "danger close" artillery support, and there was nothing behind there...

I think I've overguessed for safety before, and my opponent wasn't bothered about it. Probably 'cause I talk to myself a lot when I do that kinda guessing of range and he knew my intent...

For the sake of having a good argument, you can't use Past Precedent as justification unless it was tournament, nor can you use common sense as justification. I'm trying to get an argument either for or against that you could shove in the face of TFG and tell him to STFU and he could do nothing but pout. (From either side, the shooter can put something here that fully justifies overguessing as long as its a solid case.) Right now I think it sits as bad sportsmanship but legal unless called out on it and a lot of people agree. That's not how rules are supposed to work.

Spellbound wrote:To quote a wise tournament organizer:

"There's two ways to interpret that rule. One of them is going to get your ass kicked. Do as you will."

lol QFT


and for Vulcan again, your post of

Vulcan wrote:

skyth wrote:You are taking the bit about 'you must guess the range as accurately as possible' out of context. All it is is re-iterating that you can't pre-measure so have to depend on your guessing to get the result you want.

Hunh? What part of:

tiekwando wrote: you must make a guess of the range as accurately as possible

is unclear?

You can see unit A. You must guess the range to unit A as asccurately as possible.

If you overguess a little and hit a unit I have close behind A, okay. That happesn.

If you overguess by three times the actual range, that's not 'overguessing,' that's a clear attempt to miss Unit A and hit something else. Which is in clear violation of 'guessing the range as accurately as possible,' and therefore at the very least poor sportsmanship, and at worst outright cheating.

is why I'm throwing out scenarios. The first ones were blatantly fine by common practice. I hope these next ones start playing around with the line and making a scenario where one says "Yeah that's cool" (or opposite) than you change one thing and its "WTF Cheater". Okay, 3x is way too much, but what if it was a 2" guess at the wolf riders right in front of my mortar... don't want to hit my self, so can I guess 6" with big template... where's the line between safety and cheating?

And again, the RULES are SUPPOSED to be that line... and are failing... so the thread should come up with a faq-like answer to what is/isn't a legal guess.

edit: lol, I had no army save. Man, I want THAT spell.

Deminyn wrote:***One more time***
Some unit with a big "shoot me sign" is hiding behind some screen. (Stormvermin + Queek behind slaves). {/quote]

I'd argue that as having a big "Shoot me!" sign. That's more a "Don't you wish you could shoot me?" sign. Having a big "Shoot me!" sign is something like leaving those stormvermin out in the open without a screen.

Me puts a trap in front of slaves (like 2" in front) hoping they'll charge and open expose the target (just go with it, maybe they'd have to leave a hill or something to expose him) or I'll charge next turn. So Me decides to aim for the slaves and, to be safe about avoiding my own unit, add 6" to my guess. (you got an average scatter of what? 5.2" ?) This will probably initially land on the rear target. Which would be overguessing, wouldn't it?

a) So Me had the intention of hitting the slaves, it's just that they were close to my line so I cautiously added 6" for a bad scatter.
b) Again, what if the target unit wasn't there. I was just overguessing to have a bigger safety on my "danger close" artillery support, and there was nothing behind there...

I think I've overguessed for safety before, and my opponent wasn't bothered about it. Probably 'cause I talk to myself a lot when I do that kinda guessing of range and he knew my intent...

So long as the 'overguess' wasn't flagrantly beyond what was necessary to insure the safety of friendly units (a couple inches beyond maximum scatter, that is) I woudn't be too upset. Even if it did nail my screened unit.

For the sake of having a good argument, you can't use Past Precedent as justification unless it was tournament, nor can you use common sense as justification. I'm trying to get an argument either for or against that you could shove in the face of TFG and tell him to STFU and he could do nothing but pout. (From either side, the shooter can put something here that fully justifies overguessing as long as its a solid case.) Right now I think it sits as bad sportsmanship but legal unless called out on it and a lot of people agree. That's not how rules are supposed to work.

My formula for dealing with TFG is simple. Do it once, you get a warning. Do it twice, I remove my stuff from the table and look for someone else to play.

Of course, this works only because I don't play tournaments, only friendly games.

and for Vulcan again, your post of

Vulcan wrote:

skyth wrote:You are taking the bit about 'you must guess the range as accurately as possible' out of context. All it is is re-iterating that you can't pre-measure so have to depend on your guessing to get the result you want.

Hunh? What part of:

tiekwando wrote: you must make a guess of the range as accurately as possible

is unclear?

You can see unit A. You must guess the range to unit A as asccurately as possible.

If you overguess a little and hit a unit I have close behind A, okay. That happesn.

If you overguess by three times the actual range, that's not 'overguessing,' that's a clear attempt to miss Unit A and hit something else. Which is in clear violation of 'guessing the range as accurately as possible,' and therefore at the very least poor sportsmanship, and at worst outright cheating.

is why I'm throwing out scenarios. The first ones were blatantly fine by common practice. I hope these next ones start playing around with the line and making a scenario where one says "Yeah that's cool" (or opposite) than you change one thing and its "WTF Cheater". Okay, 3x is way too much, but what if it was a 2" guess at the wolf riders right in front of my mortar... don't want to hit my self, so can I guess 6" with big template... where's the line between safety and cheating?

And again, the RULES are SUPPOSED to be that line... and are failing... so the thread should come up with a faq-like answer to what is/isn't a legal guess.

Skyth - you yet again, despite having gone through this on 'seer, ignore the important word RANGE

RANGE, in this context, is "the distance to the target"

So, you are required to guess the distance to the target as accurately as possible.

Not doing so is cheating.

Only if you don't take the sentence into context where it is simply re-stating that you can't measure before you guess.

And the context of "range" is "the distance to the target", so you ignore that for no reason.

You still cheat when you do it, as you well know.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Skyth - you yet again, despite having gone through this on 'seer, ignore the important word RANGE

RANGE, in this context, is "the distance to the target"

So, you are required to guess the distance to the target as accurately as possible.

Not doing so is cheating.

Except if you are using a cannon, you don't actually want to guess the distance to the target, you want to guess ~6" short of the target. I don't think yer definition really doesn't solve the problem. You don't guess the distance from the warmachine to the unit, you guess a distance, and that's where the shot lands.
And don't get caught up on individual terms in GW rule books. As people have pointed out, they aren't great with English and editing. They rely on people understanding what they mean in spite of how they say it. Which is why RaI are just as important as RaW.

i have to agree with the statement regarding the cannon, you guess for where you want the ball to go, often thats 4 to 6 inches short for me, so that example is dead on correct. as for a mortor, so long as your guessing to any part of the 'SEEN' unit i wont call it cheating, i also wont call it cheating if you try to hit before a unit of after it. but i will never play against you again. and i will make fun of your smell, hair, and general lack of relation to the human race for trying to bend the rules to breaking.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And the context of "range" is "the distance to the target", so you ignore that for no reason.

You still cheat when you do it, as you well know.

All the 'guess as accurately as possible' is, in context of the paragraph, re-stating that you can't measure before guessing.

My wish for combating overguessing is that if the shot lands a certain distance away from the targeted unit, the shot is completely negated/ignored. Or just make guess weapons/rules not require LoS, so that everyone can do it without any sort of issues about sportsmanship or rules abuse.

Skyth that is your interpretation of the wording. It can definitely be interpreted that way but there are other interpretations, English is a very malleable language unfortunately, with multiple definitions for every word and practically everything having a variety of exceptions to whatever rule you can find. So saying that the second clause is explanatory instead of (i cant remember the word, but essentially additional) is an interpretation.

I could say that I see the clause in the context of the sentance as having nothing to do about not measuring, as that is already explained in the first half of the sentance. Instead it is a clarification on how the guessing should be done (as accurately as possible). I think this is an equally valid point of view as your own given the context of the sentence. My viewpoint would then be based on the fact that this sentence is in fact a clarification of the one before, while the first half of the sentence clarifying when the guessing should take place, and the second clarifying how it should be done. I am completely in context of the paragraph, but still we will arrive at separate points of view.

skyth wrote:All the 'guess as accurately as possible' is, in context of the paragraph, re-stating that you can't measure before guessing.

"range" is defined as "distance to the target" - you can ignore this if you want, doesnt alter facts you know.

Not guessing this distance is cheating. As you know given we've had this discussion on 'seer.....

Yes, but 'seer works on the 'shout down your opponent' principle of rules argument rather than looking at what the rules actually say.

And it's not cheating. All the passage is doing is mearly restating that you can't measure before guessing is all that it is saying. Have to look at the context of the paragraph.

Whereas your argument relied on ignoring words?

"range" in this case tells you it is tihe distance to the target. So if you are not guessing this as accurately as possible you are cheating.

skyth wrote:Yes, but 'seer works on the 'shout down your opponent' principle of rules argument rather than looking at what the rules actually say.

And it's not cheating. All the passage is doing is mearly restating that you can't measure before guessing is all that it is saying. Have to look at the context of the paragraph.

skyth, if you ever wind up in St. Louis and play at the Miniatures Market, tell us who you are so I can just not bother wasting my time playing you.

Bringing up the cannons in this argument is a waste of time anyway, since the book rather specifically states that you should guess short in order to hit your intended target.

Or, you could take it a step further and make the case that since the rules state you SHOULD aim a cannon short, and says nothing about guessing over or short for other machines, then for those machines you MUST guess as accurately to that target as possible.

You know if we're going to go for RAI and fluffy kinds of non rule things here. Wouldn't a cannon crew, knowing full well that there are enemy units _behind_ the unit they're firing at try to shoot over? What if they had spotters or members of other units further up telling them hey there's more behind the unit in front of us, try to shoot farther? Seems reasonable to me in a story/fluff perspective.

All in all, if anyone is honestly that upset about someone being a good guesser and overshooting a target (which has been happening in Fantasy games/tournaments since I can remember playing 8 years ago) to hit targets further behind them. One should consider another game to play. As some are obviously taking this way too seriously. No game of warhammer is worth the amount of drama anyone claims as to pick up their toy soldiers and stomp off because someone thought of a clever way to target things.

Because someone thought of a clever way to cheat, you mean?

Cheating is cheating.....

You keep on saying it's cheating after that being debunked...Would think you would get tired of it.

Skyth - just curious but after some of the other posts I've seen you do, is it a trick or something to get weird rule question drama going?

There seem to be about 2 or 3 folks on here who are just arguing a RAW vs RAI discussion. Okay thats great and if your trying to get your posts up - go ahead. But face the facts - you know how the game is supposed to be played. If your guessing with a cannon exactly on target or over to hit another unit behind it (which happens to not be in your line of sight) - then your opponent has every right to call you on it and discount the shot. If you do it again, then he should pack up and not play you. If your at a tournament, he'll call the judges over and they'll explain to you why you can't do it. Keep doing it and they kick you out.

If the rules state that you need line of sight to shoot at a target, and you are intentionally working around another rule to break the first, at some point don't you think it would be considered cheating?

skyth wrote:You keep on saying it's cheating after that being debunked...Would think you would get tired of it.

Your "debunking" involved you ignoring the words used and pretending theyre not there.

Pretending /= "rules"

strange_eric wrote:You know if we're going to go for RAI and fluffy kinds of non rule things here. Wouldn't a cannon crew, knowing full well that there are enemy units _behind_ the unit they're firing at try to shoot over? What if they had spotters or members of other units further up telling them hey there's more behind the unit in front of us, try to shoot farther? Seems reasonable to me in a story/fluff perspective.

Why on earth would a cannon crew not shoot at the threat the can see (who, even if they are just a screen unit, are likely still able to kill the crew just as dead as an elite unit) on the possibility that they might hit a worse threat that they can't see... and therefore are unlikely to be sure about which unit is the bigger threat anyway?

All in all, if anyone is honestly that upset about someone being a good guesser and overshooting a target (which has been happening in Fantasy games/tournaments since I can remember playing 8 years ago) to hit targets further behind them. One should consider another game to play. As some are obviously taking this way too seriously. No game of warhammer is worth the amount of drama anyone claims as to pick up their toy soldiers and stomp off because someone thought of a clever way to target things.

Verisimilarity. Even though we are talking about little pastic dudes routinely defying the laws of physics (at least, within the game), it should at least feel plausible.

And sniping at a unit that you cannot see (and let's face it, if you are deliberately overshooting and routinely nailing the target, you are sniping blind) is not plausible, no matter how much you argue it.

You saying it's 'cheating' involves taking a quote out of context.

Note - I've never said which way I play it...I just take offence to a legitimate rules interpretation being called 'cheating'. Just FYI, I know at least one major tournament where you are officially allowed to overguess.

Vulcan wrote:
Why on earth would a cannon crew not shoot at the threat the can see (who, even if they are just a screen unit, are likely still able to kill the crew just as dead as an elite unit) on the possibility that they might hit a worse threat that they can't see... and therefore are unlikely to be sure about which unit is the bigger threat anyway?

Verisimilarity. Even though we are talking about little pastic dudes routinely defying the laws of physics (at least, within the game), it should at least feel plausible.

And sniping at a unit that you cannot see (and let's face it, if you are deliberately overshooting and routinely nailing the target, you are sniping blind) is not plausible, no matter how much you argue it.

Verisimilitude is all in the eye of the beholder. The situation I laid out was extremely plausible. And there are many reasons to fire beyond at a unit they cant see. "THEYRE HUGE DRAGON OGRES IGNORE THE TINY GOBLINS" Being the least of which in a story context. The point i'm making here is that anything can be explained away via Story/Fluff/Good Feelings. It's all great to have a game with a thematic story feel, but unless that game is operating within some sort of definable parameters then we're just playing Toy Soldiers going "pew pew you're dead".

There's also a problem within the game with how the Cannon itself is fired. In a "real" context, the cannon would aim at center mass, guess the best range it could and fire away. However, the game says "the cannon is a sniper rifle and hits precisely" verisimilitude right there goes out the window as the cannon dissects a unit at an angle yet only hits one model (as shown in the Rulebook itself). It goes on an on.

Skyth has the right of it, there are many tournaments that allow this method of Guessing. There are many people who use this interpretation. Lemme put it another way: If the RAI method you all describe was so obvious and correct, why do so many use the other method, legally, in tournaments?

I suppose there's also the most important rule to remember here, play the game you want to play. I always try to bring this up. While i'm intensely interested in how the rules are actually written, we can freely ignore just about anything if it means having more fun.

strange_eric wrote:While i'm intensely interested in how the rules are actually written,

Curious. I do believe that there are a number of people doing just that in this thread, trying to explain to you that the rules forbid overguessing. Warhammer is permissive, not restrictive. In the end, I think GW taking the language about a stone thrower using indirect line of sight out of the rules to say more than just about anything else said in this thread. It's all pretty clear.

skyth wrote:You saying it's 'cheating' involves taking a quote out of context.

Note - I've never said which way I play it...I just take offence to a legitimate rules interpretation being called 'cheating'. Just FYI, I know at least one major tournament where you are officially allowed to overguess.

You did on 'seer.

The quote is a) not taken out of context and b) uses the actual meaning of the words in the sentence. Your "method" involves ignoring everything to come up wioth an interpretation not supported by the rules. aka cheating.

And a tournament changing the rules? Shock! Say it isnt so! Next you'll be saying some tournaments...forbid....special...characters! How can this be?

It's not changing the rule. The quoted rule that you keep on taking out of context only is re-interating that you can't pre-measure the shot before the guess.

I think that the argument really should be put to rest as:

RaI were no overguessing, but as GW did not include any way to validate a guess, ANY GUESS is legal, no matter how bad it is.
***If you can find a rule that shows when a guess is not a legal guess, post it.***
Otherwise you are trying to explain what was meant by rules, which is the definition of RaI.

"Guess the range as accurately as possible"

Range has many meanings, but the ONLY pertinent one is "distance to the target" - so you sub in the definition and get:

"Guess the [distance to the target] as accurately as possible"

You have a single target - the unit you declared on.

Only by ignoring the *dictionary definition of the words used* can you possibly state you can overguess legally.

Deminyn wrote:...
ANY GUESS is legal, no matter how bad it is.
***If you can find a rule that shows when a guess is not a legal guess, post it.***

You seem to have missed the point in there...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Guess the range as accurately as possible"

Only tells you HOW to guess, not when a guess is illegal. So if I guess 16" too far (whether there is something behind the unit or not) it is still a legal guess. Was still guessing as accurately as possible, I just suck at guessing.

I'll try a different way.
Step 1: name target
Step 2: guess range
Step 3: Measure range, find where point of impact is.
Step 4: Apply warmachine rules (scatter/bounce).

It doesn't matter what you guessed in Step 2, Step 3 ALWAYS happens. Therefore there is never an (RAW) Illegal guess. (Except if you try to guess outside the range of the weapon. (Hey look, range here doesn't mean the distance to target, it means something else, weird how English works like that)

If you want to convice me that overguessing is cheating/illegal, give me a solid example of a rule that says something like "If the guess lands more than 6" from the target, it has no effect" or something like that.

Please, for the sake of intelligent debate for intellectual exercise, keep it legal-like. Think like a lawyer and don't use common sense. If something is not defined, it is open for ALL interpretations. If something is not written, it doesn't exist no matter how obvious it is.

(in all honesty, overguessing is bs and one should never do it as it is horrible sportsmanship and the kind of behaviour that will ruin the fun in the game. But, arguing RAW is kinda fun, if everyone is willing to keep it light and intelligent)

Which is why I said that, out of its many meanings, the ONE THAT MAKES SENSE HERE is "distance to target" - so attempting condescension is...unwise.

You don't need a solid rule like that - because an accurate guess for a cannon is different to the acfurate guess for a stonethrower.

This means that, much like judges do (hey, you brought legalistic ideas into this) you have to interpret what "as accurately as possible" means in each situation.

Anything aggregious, call a TO over or sort it out between you. However you can prove your guess was not as accurate as possible when it is a 40" guess agaisnt a target 12" away....

We are arguing rules which are suppossed to provide a ruling of what is and isn't alright in every circumstance. Otherwise it is required for a case by case rulings. The only thing is you are using hyperbole to show that guessing 40" for a 12" target.

What about the dire wolf screen that is only 1" infront of graveguard and overguessing 2". So is 2" overguessing. What if one guy meant to do it and can do it with pinpoint guesses, and the other guy did it by accident? Is one illegal, is the other legal. What about 4", 6" 8"? When is it over guessing and when is it just bad guessing?

And judges get to make those interpretations and rulings. In this scenarios, TOs and GW are judges, not us. We are just lawyers, making arguements, try to reach a collective understanding with out a judge (since GW doesn't make rulings and TOs only have jurisdiction over their event)

I'm already in the camp of if your opponent looks at you funny when you guess, you better start explaining your intent and if he calls you on it, you reach an agreement. This is necessary 'cause the rules aren't clear. What I'm hope-ing (never know how to spell that) for from this debate is an enlightening statement that makes me go "AH, perfect, that is such a neat way of thinking about it that clears up the confusion." I'm afraid the "as accurate as possible arguement" is too wishy washy for me (that's just me I guess) Is there anything else you have that can make me have a warm fuzzy about this rule?

No, because the rules expicitly dont cater for every circumstance - TMIR is there for a reason, read some of the fluff behind the rule for why.

"guessing" a range is such an individual thing that it cannot be water tight - 1" out is unacceptable for a 10year vet playing Empire (at distances up to 60" i would say) however isn't for someone on their 3rd game with a couple of cannons.

That is why it is "as accurately as possible" - it HAS to be part of the social contract between gamers that exists *over and above the rules* of the game so they make it clear that certain guesses, such as charging when you know you cannot reach, IS cheating but other guesses would not be.

Like most things - context of the guess is king.

so would I be wrong in saying RaI and good sportsmanship govern over guessing?

As the op I must admit if I had deliberatly overguessed to hit another unit way behind the unit I could see I wouldn't blame my opponent packing his army up.
It may not be against the raw but its its certainly not good sportsmanship...
Mick

Deminyn wrote:so would I be wrong in saying RaI and good sportsmanship govern over guessing?

In a similar vein to declaring impsosible charges - sometimes "impossible" is very close to call, and you have to determine if they are doing it in good faith or it is an attempt to exploit the situation.

skyth wrote:It's not changing the rule. The quoted rule that you keep on taking out of context only is re-interating that you can't pre-measure the shot before the guess.

Okay. I give up. I point out that the phase tells you to guess the range to the target unit as accurately as possible, but because that isn't explicitly spelled out, you keep repeating... what you keep repeating.

That doesn't make you right, that makes you irritating.

Play that way if you want. I won't, nor will I play with someone who does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

strange_eric wrote:Verisimilitude is all in the eye of the beholder. The situation I laid out was extremely plausible. And there are many reasons to fire beyond at a unit they cant see. "THEYRE HUGE DRAGON OGRES IGNORE THE TINY GOBLINS"

As I recall, Dragon Ogres are large targets, and therefore in sight of the cannon. And therefore a viable target. Sorta like other large monsters.

I'm talking about, say, overshooting your cannon over my (for example's sake) DE spearmen to nail the Black Guard behind them. The Black Guard are not in line-of-sight, and therefore not a valid target for the cannon. Just because you, the player, can see over the spearmen does not mean your cannon crew can, nor does it mean you should be allowed to shoot over said spearmen because you consider the Black Guard a bigger threat. The cannon crew sees the spearmen, they are a threat, and if they can see anything of the Black Guard, it is the points of their halberds.... that look a lot like spearheads at long range. Assuming perspective doesn't have them completely concealed by the (apparently taller) spearmen?

Ditto giving up. I'm not convinced that over guessing is breaking any rule in the BRB and haven't heard a good argument in 4 pages.

As I recall, Dragon Ogres are large targets, and therefore in sight of the cannon. And therefore a viable target. Sorta like other large monsters.

Pretty sure they aren't But since we're nit picking right now. How about this example.

Carnosaur.

Not a large target. Group of skinks in front of it blocking LOS.

Yeah, that makes sense. My game suspension of disbelief is totally there.

Meanwhile: I can handwave/story/fluff argue out anything. This is why that is a terrible idea to base "rules decisions" around.

So? As far as the rules are concerned they are both the same height.

Its called an abstraction.

This same abstraction is used to say you cannot "see" that unit of BG over the spears - you may just about work out there is another unit, but as far as the game is concerned you cannot discern enough of the target to try to shoot at them.

*YOU* , the god like figure looking down ont he table can see them - however the unit in question cannot, and therefore have no reason to try to shoot over the immediate threat.

Let me throw a different hook at people because I play Empire. I find it out that, if a Giant parks in front of my tank by one inch, that the "large" target blocks line of sight but that there is no way for me to hit it because if I guess I must guess at least 1 and roll the die and get a 2, I miss the giant even though the damn thing is right in front of me.

How would one play this scenario since many say over guessing is wrong? I personally think if a giant's fat butt is sitting right in front of my tank I should be able to auto hit as long as I don't fire a dud.


Also, regarding "over guessing" I see both sides but the rule book does not say its wrong, no does it say its right. Now in other war games, there are spotters for the cannon crew and line of sight is accomplished in this fashion. I think one of the problems with not being allowed to over guess is number one: Am I good at guessing (I am not). Do I want to gamble that there is no bounce? If I roll two dice and get 20 on top of my guess (lets say 10) that is 30 which covers a long distance on a 4 foot table. So is my bad dice rolling (in this case) mean I cheated? (I am expected most people to say no because of the dice rolls making up the distance).

All in all I find the Cannons a bit over rated against many armies as with the look out rule, ward saves, and not guessing correctly, not to mentioning misfiring, means most of the time cannons are more point takers. I take them simply to take on the tough guys on people's list, but once everyone is engaged in combat they just sit there waiting doing 200 or 300 points of nothing. Also, if people have flying units goodbye to my cannons; wood elves take out canons by turn three unless I keep my army tight and back in front of the cannons.

By the way, I always elevate my canons on hills so I don't run into line of site issues.

johnnyspys wrote:Let me throw a different hook at people because I play Empire. I find it out that, if a Giant parks in front of my tank by one inch, that the "large" target blocks line of sight but that there is no way for me to hit it because if I guess I must guess at least 1 and roll the die and get a 2, I miss the giant even though the damn thing is right in front of me.

How would one play this scenario since many say over guessing is wrong? I personally think if a giant's fat butt is sitting right in front of my tank I should be able to auto hit as long as I don't fire a dud.

I would find that perfectly reasonable. After all, I was dumb enough to park the giant there...

By the way, I always elevate my canons on hills so I don't run into line of site issues.

Fair enough.

This is why I favor doing away with guess ranges entirely and just nominating a target point for "guess" weapons. As long as that point is within max range and LOS, then mark it and roll artillery and/or scatter dice from there. The ability of a seasoned crew operating a warmachine to do their jobs should not be disrupted because their "general" has poor depth perception.

Besides, this method also speeds up the game by eliminating the guessing portion of firing stone throwers, cannons, and the like.

I think the problem with eliminating guesses is that it will make artillery TOO accurate. This is fine in a gun-heavy game like 40k, but in WHFB it could unbalance some things.

How many Empire players field mortars? How many will field 4 if they didn't have to bother guessing range?

Manfred von Drakken wrote:I think the problem with eliminating guesses is that it will make artillery TOO accurate. This is fine in a gun-heavy game like 40k, but in WHFB it could unbalance some things.

How many Empire players field mortars? How many will field 4 if they didn't have to bother guessing range?

QFT

Manfred von Drakken wrote:I think the problem with eliminating guesses is that it will make artillery TOO accurate. This is fine in a gun-heavy game like 40k, but in WHFB it could unbalance some things.

How many Empire players field mortars? How many will field 4 if they didn't have to bother guessing range?

My friend can guess within 1/2" at ranges over 180"*, it isnt the guessing part that makes mortars inaccurate

*we made him guess when, during a series of linked megagames, he wanted to fire his basilisks at another table. It wasnt a hindrance....

Yeah i played against a few guys at my club, and they can usually not only hit the unit, but usually are able to place the darn template right on the guy they are "aiming" at. Thank god for scatters

Pretty laughable argument really.

There is a point where common sense and sportsmanship overrides, or should override, arguments that are the 'RaW' arguments that are really 'I'm going to interpret this word in a fashion that is most beneficial to me'.

If you're guessing is more than +/- 6" and it's not your first couple games, you're a douchebag, plain and simple, and you will be asked to pack your gak and hit the road.