I apologize if this has been answered I searched. Does the skaen doom wheel only shoot its lightning through its front arc? Or can it be 360 around the model for purposes of closest unit? Thnx for any help.

Shooting is front arc unless given an exception, from memory - so does it have an exception?

Although, assumingnitbis a lone model, it may be forced to turn towards the closest unit (ie if the rule says shoot the closst unit rather than "shoot the closest unit in your front arc").

Each warp lightning bolt has a 18" range and will strike the nearest unit (friend of foe) regardless of terrain and line of sight
(if the first bolt kills the closest unit, then work out the second closest, etc)
So you can shoot lightning out your a**!

LOS != Arc of Sight. Two entirely different concepts.

Yes Nosferatu, and The Lightning bolts are not a regular shooting attack/magic missile nor do they follow the regular shooting rules
It is measured from the Doomwheel, but it might as well be thunderbolts striking down from the sky as far as rules are concerned
The Skaven book is full of toys and rules that weren't really translated in 8th edition rules (ie. you can "target" the Scorch spell at an enemy unit in CC for instance)

Shooting 360 at closest unit is how we played it the rules were not that clear thnx for the help any other insight is always welcome.
thank you.

OK, so prove that it has an exception to the shooting rules requiring you to shoot inside your front arc. Page and graph fgrom the skaven book / FAQ will be sufficient, thanks

I'm aware of some of the discrepancies, however in Scorch case that is actually as case of a change in restriction based on type, as opposed to here where there is a NEW restriction in place

No need for that tone Nosferatu I don't want that to degenerate into a mud brawling contest

I base my reasoning on the fact that every shooting weapon in the Skaven arsenal is very clear on how it is shooting, that is:
WLC = treated as a cannon
PWM = treated as a stone thrower
WFT = treated as a Fire thrower
Ratling = very specifically says it can turn on the spot, that you have to nominate a visible target
Jezzails/globadiers = direct references to the BRB for shooting rules

Doomwheel = full of exceptions:
hitting units in CC
"shooting" while in CC
ignores LOS and terrain
Is not specifically a shooting attack / magic missile + Doesn't have a weapon profile

Also I dug up the 7th edition BRB (to which those rules were linked), where a unit can see what is in his "line of sight" defined by his front arc minus obstructions
Agreed it might need an FAQ, but it is clearly designed as shooting all around

There was no tone - it was asking you to back up your argument with rules.

There is a split in 8th edition between LOS and Arc of Sight. Ignoring one does NOT allow you to ignore the other.

It is frankly irrelevant, from a rules perspective, what it was designed as. Currently it may only shoot in its front arc, as it has no exception to the rules stating otherwise.

Except that it is a lone model, so can freely swivel.

What does being able to wheel have to do with shooting?

That they don't have a set front arc in the way which units do.

No, they have a set front arc, but can pivot during moving as they wish.

That does not alter that WHEN it shoots, it only shoots in its front arc.

Interesting. I assumed that war machines swivelling was just a reiteration of this rule, but do you think it is seperate?

Correct.

The free pivots for lone models is during moves.

Niteware wrote:
Interesting. I assumed that war machines swivelling was just a reiteration of this rule, but do you think it is seperate?

Yes, because the rules for warmachines has a specific allowance to pivot while shooting. There is NO SUCH allowance in the rules for lone models. Ergo, while shooting, they are unable to pivot.

Hmmm. So for the OP, does the doom wheel say nearest legal target or nearest unit? It seems to break just about every rule for shooting already...

Nearest target has to be nearest legal target, by definition. It isnt giving you specific permission to break the requirement to fire within Arc of Sight, so you have to fire within Arc of Sight.

Niteware wrote:
Hmmm. So for the OP, does the doom wheel say nearest legal target or nearest unit?

Just to clarify, are you asking if the rules allow the targeting of an illegal target?
How could that possibly be a rule?

No, I was asking if it said the closest unit (which does imply that it could be 360º) or if it used some other language to indicate targets.

Given that this is a unique unit type, assuming that it follows standard rules seems like a bit of a jump. Especially since it can target friends and units in cc.

If it says "the closest unit", what gives you the right to add caveats?

The fact you are not given any permission to ignore the normal requirements?

You only get to do things when given permission. Find permission to targt an illegal target, i.e. one outside your front arc. Page and para will suffice

Counter: if it says nearest unit, show where that is restricted ie where it says the nearest target in your front arc.

Niteware wrote:
Counter: if it says nearest unit, show where that is restricted ie where it says the nearest target in your front arc.

The doom wheel is the closest unit to the doom wheel. It always shoots itself.

-Matt

What if the weapon is not on its front arc of sight though?
Wheel has 3.
Both sides and one at the front.

Would be nice if this was the case though and could only shoot forwards, as i wouldnt need a suicide unit beside it to protect my stormvermin.

Niteware wrote:
Counter: if it says nearest unit, show where that is restricted ie where it says the nearest target in your front arc.

Your counter ignores jhow the rules actually work

You have to have permission to do anything, and in order to override a restriction you must have specific permission to do so. You are only given permission to fire at units in your front arc Find permission, explicit, to fire at units NOT in your front arc. You can only shoot at unit you have LOS to - you HAVE specific permission to override that requirement.

So your counter doesnt hold, as it gives no permission to fire at units outside front arc. You need to find this permission. Failure to do so means you have to follow the rules for shooting as normal.

Interesting discussion so as a newer player it seems the Doom wheel must shoot in its front arc only? The wording for who it shoots at is nearest unit that makes no sense it would shoot itself? Really fairly new to the game but thnx for the help. I was hoping that some skaven players would chime in how they handle it :}

I am a skaven player, I was just pointing out the current rules that cover this

If you then decide to alter the rules that is fine, you just need to know that not everyone would play that way

Being "limited" to the forward arc is generally highly beneficial
Not that you'd care about frying a few rats/slaves, but you'd care about wasting those precious zzzaps!

As many things in the Skaven armybook, the rules are not that clear cut and there's a lot of shady areas

Meh, I would argue the rules ARE clearcut; if you JUST read 8th edition, and the separation of arc from LOS, then without kniwing what you USED to be able to do you would always come to the current RAW conclusion - you just Zzap to the front.

Every edition change brings these questions, especially such an overhaul as 7th to 8th. Similar query with the new Eldar codex with people asking if taking two weapons the same on a wraithlord makes them Twin Linked, whcih was a rule only in the old codex. Without that fore knowledge you would have no reason to think two weapons the same means twin linked.

Thank you so I just want to be clear Im dense sorry it only shoots in its front arc? Therefore what situation would it ever need to check leadership to not shoot? It seems that a smart player would never put the doom wheel facing your own troops. Thnx for all the help :}

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I am a skaven player, I was just pointing out the current rules that cover this

If you then decide to alter the rules that is fine, you just need to know that not everyone would play that way

Yes, it only shoots in your front arc. As for when? Easy. Charges have resulted in your troops now in front of the doom wheel.

My reading is the front arc but the gw store said its 360 so I will discuss with the gw storemore in depth. more comments welcome just want clear guidance being a new player thnx

GW stores are notorious for not understanding rules - because it isnt actually their job to.

Theyre thinking of 7th edition, when it was 360.; In 8th it is front arc.

Niteware wrote:
No, I was asking if it said the closest unit (which does imply that it could be 360º) or if it used some other language to indicate targets.

Given that this is a unique unit type, assuming that it follows standard rules seems like a bit of a jump. Especially since it can target friends and units in cc.

If it says "the closest unit", what gives you the right to add caveats?

I agree. Closest unit means the relevant criterion to define a legal target is distance and trumps the BRB rules.

Only where there is a conflict is this true.

To take an easy example from 40k - an allowance to charge after disembarking a vehicle does not mean you can charge having arrived from reserves, after firing a rapid fire / heavy weapon, etc.

Well at my local GW shop the ruling was it shoots 360 as the rule says nearest unit regardless of LOS or terrain. It may also be worth noting the model has nodes to shoot in the front and the sides.
thnx for all the help

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Only where there is a conflict is this true.

As in this case.

I have no idea what 40k matters or what its rules are. They are insubstantial to the question at hand.

I found out what the "best" answer to this question as both answers are fine by me as long as I know in advance:
I ask the TO / my opponent before the tournament / game begins, and just rolls with what decision is achieved
I'm happy in both cases and there's no conflict arising

And so far everyone considered that it's 360 degrees by the way

+1. The question never came up in the last 5 years, and I've been playing against a whole lotta Skaven.

 Mike der Ritter wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Only where there is a conflict is this true.

As in this case.

Please find the conflict then, without making rules up, like you did in the post I was responding to.

You are told to fire at the nearest target. Nowhere does it state you can fire at a target out of arc. So there is no conflict between the armybook and the rulebook.

Same as being asked to charged the nearest enemy. Does this let you charge out of LOS, arc, through a building, etc? No? Gee, guess this is the same....

Mike der RitterI wrote:have no idea what 40k matters or what its rules are. They are insubstantial to the question at hand.

Inconsequential or irrelevant would be a more relevant term.

It matters when it is an illustration of "conflict", as you appear to suffer from a misunderstanding of what the term means in a permissive ruleset

Warhammernut - LOS != arc of sight. This is a change to 8th edition from prior editions.

People used to playing prior editions are likely to not spot changes like this - rule blindness. It happens. The correct thing to do is point it out.

It i s like claiming a cannon can place the initial "mark" out of LOS of the cannon. This is impossible in 8th edition, yet is still incorrectly played that way at a number of tournaments. Doesnt make it any less wrong (or, rather, that everyone is subconcsiously playing a hosuerule)

The rules are actually crystal on this - an allowance to ignore LOS has no bearing on your ability to ignore another, totally different restriction. Sayiong otherwise menas you do not understand permissive systems.

Usually, if told to charge the nearest enemy, you are also told to spin to face it.

In the doom wheel, does it say closest target or closest unit? Closest target would def be front arc, closest unit is not the same and does not imply a targetable unit.

Which doesnt alter if you have a building (or other impassable like terrain) that would physically stop you cmopleting the charge

Being told to charge the nearest unit lifts exactly as many restrictions as being told to shoot the nearest unit - none. Only those restrictions explicitly lifted (ignoring LOS, for example) would be ignored.

Agreed, except that the wheel, iirc, does have alll those restrictions lifted. I could see it beinf forced to face the nearest unit in order to shoot it, but "nearest unit in front arc" seems very different from "nearest unit".

Then where does it lift the restrictions?

Page and paragraph where it states you can shoot at the nearest unit, regardless of LOS AND Arc of Sight

this is unlikely given 7th edition considered the two to be the same, but, given you contention is these restrictions are lifted then you can show the rules for this?

This one is interesting and can go both ways,

Most units have to shoot from their forward ark. However DoomWheels are not like most units. They are Unique. The Zzzzap shoots more like a War Machine than a bow or Gun.

I just reread the book about 5 times to make sure I was reading it correctly then compared it to the BRB. The Skaven book states, "... will strike the Nearest Unit (Friend or Foe) regardless of X and Y....". “Strike” is not target. If it was Target then you would use ark of site. However it specifically states “strikes the nearest unit”, It also uses an Artillery Dice, can Misfire unlike other bows/guns. As such it shoots more like a War Machine for all intensive purposes. Based on the words from the Army Book, which override the BRB. You should select the closest unit, be it in front, on the side or behind and strike at it. There are numerous items in the Skaven book that do just as much damage to themselves as they do to the Enemy. So this is no way strange for a Skaven Unit to hurt themselves.

Everywhere I have played people has used the 360 ark to detrain the closet unit. I have seen one Doomwheel, take out two others in the same turn.

"Arc"
"Intents and purposes"

Sorry, pet peeves there.

"strike" must mean target, otherwise it doesnt get to use the shooting rules.

It has the restriction on X and Y lifted, but does not lift the restriction on Z. What gives you permission to lift the restriction on Z?

"strike" must mean target, otherwise it doesnt get to use the shooting rules.

Good thing the doomwheel doesn't use the normal shooting rules I guess?

Anyway, even if you are right, everyone else I met (in about 6 different countries, about 25+ clubs) play it as "Doomwheel doesn't give a damn about arc of sight", so I guess we'll just all continue to bath ourselves in blissfull ignorance

Yep, and same as the largest tournaments in the UK still let people play cannon as they did in 7th, by being able to place the initial target point out of LOS of the cannon.

Lots of people being ignorant of the rule, or not realising things have changed quite markedly between 7th and 8th (like the swap from 4th to 5th 40k) doesnt mean they are "right". De jure is not the same as de facto.

I wonder why they put the leadership to avoid shooting the warp lightning in as a rule.?
Compulsory moves come after charges and you move like a chariot
A player can easily keep all their units out of front arc the There is no reason to test against leadership.
Isn't it written somewhere that rules in your army book take precedence over the rule book?
So when a rule states that it effects all units within 6" like the luminarc or hurricanum..does that only apply to units in their front arc?
The doom wheel strikes the closest 3 units within 18"
Under the same restrictions people are applying to the doom wheel it must.

Do you have any rules to argue with here, or just arguing how you would play it?

You haven't as yet presented anything that can be argued

Yes.
Let me clarify.
According to the assumption that the doom wheels lightning is in the front arc..the hurricanum must be front arc also.
I believe this to be incorrect.
The doom wheel is a 360 degree lightning as is the luminark.
Both of their rules state ... with in x"

It's already been debated a lot, so far the results of the debate are:
nosferatu plays it "front arc"
everyone else on the thread playd it "360"

he won't budge whatever you say or offer to argue, so I stopped

More Doomwheel Questions, I just started playing Skaven. so here are some questions If a Doomwheel,rallies, does it then move in the remaining moves phase and shoot in the shooting phase. Rally RAW says you can not move, or shoot after ralling, but Random movement states that you always move in the remaining moves, phase, and doomwhell states that you always shoot int he shooting phase. Also where are the rulls for shotting into CC that the doom wheel is not in.. /if the Nearest unit, is also in combat. who gets hit?

Doomwheel always shoots, even when fleeing or rallying, that's a given
Never looked at it moving after rallying though, don't know about it
When it shoots into CC, it just hit the closest units as usual
Note that it might hit several units this way, if the first or second Zzzap kills its target, as usual

edit: I just scoured the BRB and my findings are
Basic rule: rallying units can't move
Advanced rule: random movements units HAVE to move
Adv rule trumps basic rule --> rallying Wheel has to move

Ok, I might have found an answer to the who the Doomwheel shoots. It comes down to Basic vrs advanced rools. Basic Rule, Modesl require AOC and LOS to target an enemy, Advanced rule, Zapp shots target the nearest Unit regardless of ZXY. BRB states, Advanced rules override Basic So because the Doomwheel does not say Nears Target, it says Nearest Unit, It would not use AOC to select a target. It simply shoots at the target that is closest to the model.

The Movement came up in my game today,

cawizkid wrote:
Basic Rule, Modesl require AOC and LOS to target an enemy, Advanced rule, Zapp shots target the nearest Unit regardless of ZXY.

I missed the underlined bit, it seems. Which entry was that?

Peasant wrote:
Yes.
Let me clarify.
According to the assumption that the doom wheels lightning is in the front arc..the hurricanum must be front arc also.
I believe this to be incorrect.
The doom wheel is a 360 degree lightning as is the luminark.
Both of their rules state ... with in x"

The luminark is a spell not a shooting effect. It has a classification and power level requirement. It follows the rules of the spell type which I believe is magic missile. The luminark follows those rules. It's been a while since I've been looking at the ska em version but it doesn't happen in the magic phase? Or does it? Either way, it has no spell type thus it follows the rules of its own description.

While I don't agree that it's front arc only, I believe this is a false analogy and it needed to be clarified

Peasant wrote:Yes.
Let me clarify.
According to the assumption that the doom wheels lightning is in the front arc..the hurricanum must be front arc also.
I believe this to be incorrect.
The doom wheel is a 360 degree lightning as is the luminark.
Both of their rules state ... with in x"

So found a specific rule overriding the requirement that you fire in front arc?

TanKoL wrote:It's already been debated a lot, so far the results of the debate are:
nosferatu plays it "front arc"
everyone else on the thread playd it "360"

he won't budge whatever you say or offer to argue, so I stopped

Given you failed to provide a single rules quote, or indeed any actual argument based on the rules of the game we play, why would I "budge" given my position does follow the rules of the game?

A lot of people play that cannon can target a point anywhere on the table, disregarding true LOS. Doesnt mean they are right by the rules.

You can play a houserule all you like. It would behoove you, however, to realise this and ensure people are happy with your houserule before playing. Assuming otherwise is an unsafe position.

Oh, and you make a critical failure in arguments - you assume I play any way or the other. Dont. Thanks!

Nearest unit seems to override the usual targeting. That is a rules arguement. Some people agree with it, some disagree. It IS still a rules arguement.

No, it is an argument that doesnt talk about the fact there is no conflict for the rule to override.

The rule overrides LOS, but doesnt override Arc.

Debunked. Next argument?

No. You say it is debunked is not the same as debunked. See my previous post. Just because yo do not interpret the rule the same as everyine else does not mean that you are correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And there is conflict - every time that the nearest unit is not in the front arc. It does not give you a get out clause. You are forcednto shoot the nearest unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Peasant wrote:Yes.
Let me clarify.
According to the assumption that the doom wheels lightning is in the front arc..the hurricanum must be front arc also.
I believe this to be incorrect.
The doom wheel is a 360 degree lightning as is the luminark.
Both of their rules state ... with in x"

So found a specific rule overriding the requirement that you fire in front arc?

TanKoL wrote:It's already been debated a lot, so far the results of the debate are:
nosferatu plays it "front arc"
everyone else on the thread playd it "360"

he won't budge whatever you say or offer to argue, so I stopped

Given you failed to provide a single rules quote, or indeed any actual argument based on the rules of the game we play, why would I "budge" given my position does follow the rules of the game?

A lot of people play that cannon can target a point anywhere on the table, disregarding true LOS. Doesnt mean they are right by the rules.

You can play a houserule all you like. It would behoove you, however, to realise this and ensure people are happy with your houserule before playing. Assuming otherwise is an unsafe position.

Oh, and you make a critical failure in arguments - you assume I play any way or the other. Dont. Thanks!

Where does doom wheel state front arc.? All it states is nearest target within 18"
If you play the doom wheel in front arc..which I, amongst many do not, then you should be playing the Aura of hysh, portents of battle, and all other similar effects that state all models within x" in front arc.
Do you play your generals inspiring presence only in front arc..? It says any model within12"
Where does it state front arc for the doom wheel or any other of these special rules?
If most people are playing it 360, you are the one with the house rule.

Doomwheel says withing x(18) inches.

Shooting is restricted to front arc.

Within x inches is not allowing shooting outside of frotal arc without the allowance to ignore printed rules.

Implications notwithstanding, there is nothing stated that ignores the limitation of frontal arc being needed for shooting, as it is a requirement for shooting in general.

"Shoot at Z" does not prevent something from saying you need to "shoot at X first".

Niteware wrote:No. You say it is debunked is not the same as debunked. See my previous post. Just because yo do not interpret the rule the same as everyine else does not mean that you are correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And there is conflict - every time that the nearest unit is not in the front arc. It does not give you a get out clause. You are forcednto shoot the nearest unit.

Ah, I see you just dont understand specific > general then.

That explains it.

It is debunked, as you have a specific RESTRICTION stating you may only fire in front arc, and you have no SPECIFIC permission to fire outside of your front arc. To give you an analogy that is round base world, but is in the same permissive game system - being able to assault after disembarking from a vehicle does not allow you to assault after arriving from Reserves, as there is a specific restriction that your permission has not overridden

Here you have a specific restriction that is not overridden by a specific permission. Unless you can find said permission? Page and graph will suffice.

Peasant wrote:
Where does doom wheel state front arc.? All it states is nearest target within 18"

Shooting rules

Peasant wrote:If you play the doom wheel in front arc..which I, amongst many do not, then you should be playing the Aura of hysh, portents of battle, and all other similar effects that state all models within x" in front arc.

Read their individual rules, are they Shooting attacks? No? Then perhaps you could not compare apples to oranges? If you think they are applicable, then explain how, including ALL rules.

Stating "this aura affect only operates in front arc" does not mean the same thing as "all aura affects only operate in the front arc". Hopefully you can understand the difference.

Peasant wrote:Do you play your generals inspiring presence only in front arc..? It says any model within12"

Sigh. See above. Is it a shooting attack? No? Shucks, then I guess the specific SHOOTING restriction doesnt apply! Who would have thought that two entirely different things operate differently

Peasant wrote:Where does it state front arc for the doom wheel or any other of these special rules?

Did you bother reading this thread? Or indeed my responses? Have you read the basic shooting rules in this 8th edition of WHFB, whihc require shooting attacks to be made within front arc AND within LOS? Have you found anything in the Skaven Doomwheel rules which states it ignores BOTH the LOS and front arc restriction?

In fact, are you able to provide any actual rules to back up your argument? Page and graph, or concede. Now.

Peasant wrote:If most people are playing it 360, you are the one with the house rule.

Crap. Did you read, at all, the comment about cannon? They have a VERY straightforward rule - the point nominated initially MUST be in LOS of the Cannon. MOST people dont bother playing that, as apparently getting down and seeing what your models can see is actually anathema for a lot of WHFB players. Doesnt make it a "hosue rule"

Same here. De jure is not the same as de facto.

So, for the final time - post a page and grapgh showing your exemption from the requirement to shoot in front arc ONLY. If you continue to post assertions with no backing, or further strawmen, you will be considered to have accepted you are now discussing a pure hpouserule you wish to play, not one based on the WHFB rules.

Page 87, unique units.
They may use some of the normal rules for other units, but they may have rules totally unique to themselves.
Doom wheel clearly has several unique rules.
The fact that it says that it targets "the nearest unit" is suggestive that this could be another.
Due to its unique nature, it is hard to assume which other rules apply.

Going back to general vs specific, rules which affect only one model are specific. Rules which affect everything that has normal shooting rules are general. Again, Nosferatu, it is clearly you that does not understand the difference.

If you want to argue that this is not a unique rule, what evidence do you have?

sigh.

No, you dont get it. There is no specific override of the general shooting requirement. If there was, you would have posted it.

Until you can post that the DW has an exemption to this rule, it must abide by it. Simple.

Did you understand the simple example I gave of how specific > general works>

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Niteware wrote:No. You say it is debunked is not the same as debunked. See my previous post. Just because yo do not interpret the rule the same as everyine else does not mean that you are correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And there is conflict - every time that the nearest unit is not in the front arc. It does not give you a get out clause. You are forcednto shoot the nearest unit.

Ah, I see you just dont understand specific > general then.

That explains it.

It is debunked, as you have a specific RESTRICTION stating you may only fire in front arc, and you have no SPECIFIC permission to fire outside of your front arc. To give you an analogy that is round base world, but is in the same permissive game system - being able to assault after disembarking from a vehicle does not allow you to assault after arriving from Reserves, as there is a specific restriction that your permission has not overridden

Here you have a specific restriction that is not overridden by a specific permission. Unless you can find said permission? Page and graph will suffice.

Peasant wrote:
Where does doom wheel state front arc.? All it states is nearest target within 18"

Shooting rules

Peasant wrote:If you play the doom wheel in front arc..which I, amongst many do not, then you should be playing the Aura of hysh, portents of battle, and all other similar effects that state all models within x" in front arc.

Read their individual rules, are they Shooting attacks? No? Then perhaps you could not compare apples to oranges? If you think they are applicable, then explain how, including ALL rules.

Stating "this aura affect only operates in front arc" does not mean the same thing as "all aura affects only operate in the front arc". Hopefully you can understand the difference.

Peasant wrote:Do you play your generals inspiring presence only in front arc..? It says any model within12"

Sigh. See above. Is it a shooting attack? No? Shucks, then I guess the specific SHOOTING restriction doesnt apply! Who would have thought that two entirely different things operate differently

Peasant wrote:Where does it state front arc for the doom wheel or any other of these special rules?

Did you bother reading this thread? Or indeed my responses? Have you read the basic shooting rules in this 8th edition of WHFB, whihc require shooting attacks to be made within front arc AND within LOS? Have you found anything in the Skaven Doomwheel rules which states it ignores BOTH the LOS and front arc restriction?

In fact, are you able to provide any actual rules to back up your argument? Page and graph, or concede. Now.

Peasant wrote:If most people are playing it 360, you are the one with the house rule.

Crap. Did you read, at all, the comment about cannon? They have a VERY straightforward rule - the point nominated initially MUST be in LOS of the Cannon. MOST people dont bother playing that, as apparently getting down and seeing what your models can see is actually anathema for a lot of WHFB players. Doesnt make it a "hosue rule"

Same here. De jure is not the same as de facto.

So, for the final time - post a page and grapgh showing your exemption from the requirement to shoot in front arc ONLY. If you continue to post assertions with no backing, or further strawmen, you will be considered to have accepted you are now discussing a pure hpouserule you wish to play, not one based on the WHFB rules.

Keep your snide, pathetic Internet high horse commentary out of the discussion.
40k comments are irrelevant also.
We have rules from a previous edition with a model that breaks all other shooting rules. All of its shooting rules are specific LOS, choosing a target, shooting into combat, target selection, rolling to hit, strength etc. It is reasonable that it breaks front arc rules also and to this point is an oversight.
The doomwheel makes no reference to it being a shooting attack, it is in fact specifically called a zzzap attack. it just happens in the phase.
It is never referred to as shooting
There is no specific description given for the doomwheel.
I have not found any proving it doesnt use its front arc nor have you found anything proving it does. You assume just as we do.
If/when GW FAQ's this we will have their answer.
The fact that we are having this discussion about the doomwheel shows that the actual usage is questionable. And if a majority play a questionable rule one way, it again is reasonable that that is the correct way.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
sigh.

No, you dont get it. There is no specific override of the general shooting requirement. If there was, you would have posted it.

Until you can post that the DW has an exemption to this rule, it must abide by it. Simple.

Did you understand the simple example I gave of how specific > general works>

Of course, although you were utterly mistaken in your use of the words specific and general. As usual.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peasant wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Niteware wrote:No. You say it is debunked is not the same as debunked. See my previous post. Just because yo do not interpret the rule the same as everyine else does not mean that you are correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And there is conflict - every time that the nearest unit is not in the front arc. It does not give you a get out clause. You are forcednto shoot the nearest unit.

Ah, I see you just dont understand specific > general then.

That explains it.

It is debunked, as you have a specific RESTRICTION stating you may only fire in front arc, and you have no SPECIFIC permission to fire outside of your front arc. To give you an analogy that is round base world, but is in the same permissive game system - being able to assault after disembarking from a vehicle does not allow you to assault after arriving from Reserves, as there is a specific restriction that your permission has not overridden

Here you have a specific restriction that is not overridden by a specific permission. Unless you can find said permission? Page and graph will suffice.

Peasant wrote:
Where does doom wheel state front arc.? All it states is nearest target within 18"

Shooting rules

Peasant wrote:If you play the doom wheel in front arc..which I, amongst many do not, then you should be playing the Aura of hysh, portents of battle, and all other similar effects that state all models within x" in front arc.

Read their individual rules, are they Shooting attacks? No? Then perhaps you could not compare apples to oranges? If you think they are applicable, then explain how, including ALL rules.

Stating "this aura affect only operates in front arc" does not mean the same thing as "all aura affects only operate in the front arc". Hopefully you can understand the difference.

Peasant wrote:Do you play your generals inspiring presence only in front arc..? It says any model within12"

Sigh. See above. Is it a shooting attack? No? Shucks, then I guess the specific SHOOTING restriction doesnt apply! Who would have thought that two entirely different things operate differently

Peasant wrote:Where does it state front arc for the doom wheel or any other of these special rules?

Did you bother reading this thread? Or indeed my responses? Have you read the basic shooting rules in this 8th edition of WHFB, whihc require shooting attacks to be made within front arc AND within LOS? Have you found anything in the Skaven Doomwheel rules which states it ignores BOTH the LOS and front arc restriction?

In fact, are you able to provide any actual rules to back up your argument? Page and graph, or concede. Now.

Peasant wrote:If most people are playing it 360, you are the one with the house rule.

Crap. Did you read, at all, the comment about cannon? They have a VERY straightforward rule - the point nominated initially MUST be in LOS of the Cannon. MOST people dont bother playing that, as apparently getting down and seeing what your models can see is actually anathema for a lot of WHFB players. Doesnt make it a "hosue rule"

Same here. De jure is not the same as de facto.

So, for the final time - post a page and grapgh showing your exemption from the requirement to shoot in front arc ONLY. If you continue to post assertions with no backing, or further strawmen, you will be considered to have accepted you are now discussing a pure hpouserule you wish to play, not one based on the WHFB rules.

Keep your snide, pathetic Internet high horse commentary out of the discussion.
40k comments are irrelevant also.
We have rules from a previous edition with a model that breaks all other shooting rules. All of its shooting rules are specific LOS, choosing a target, shooting into combat, target selection, rolling to hit, strength etc. It is reasonable that it breaks front arc rules also and to this point is an oversight.
The doomwheel makes no reference to it being a shooting attack, it is in fact specifically called a zzzap attack. it just happens in the phase.
It is never referred to as shooting
There is no specific description given for the doomwheel.
I have not found any proving it doesnt use its front arc nor have you found anything proving it does. You assume just as we do.
If/when GW FAQ's this we will have their answer.
The fact that we are having this discussion about the doomwheel shows that the actual usage is questionable. And if a majority play a questionable rule one way, it again is reasonable that that is the correct way.

This

Niteware wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
sigh.

No, you dont get it. There is no specific override of the general shooting requirement. If there was, you would have posted it.

Until you can post that the DW has an exemption to this rule, it must abide by it. Simple.

Did you understand the simple example I gave of how specific > general works>

Of course, although you were utterly mistaken in your use of the words specific and general. As usual.

So you will add anything more to the discussion?

I assume, given you now understand specific vs general, that you are conceding you do not havea rules based argument.

peasant wrote:Keep your snide, pathetic Internet high horse commentary out of the discussion.

Reported. I asked you to provide rules - you did not do so. Argue the post, not the poster.

peasant wrote:40k comments are irrelevant also.

When theyre an easy example of specific vs general, which WHFB is based on, they are NOT irrelevant. Trying to teach you how the game rules are constructed, which is true for both 40k and WHFB, and used a pertinent example.

peasant wrote:We have rules from a previous edition with a model that breaks all other shooting rules. All of its shooting rules are specific LOS, choosing a target, shooting into combat, target selection, rolling to hit, strength etc. It is reasonable that it breaks front arc rules also and to this point is an oversight.

Ah, so you are arguing INTENT? As in, HYWPI? Sorry, I thought you were arguing rules in this rules forum. I was unaware, as you had failed to mark your post as such, that you were arguing a houserule.

peasant wrote:The doomwheel makes no reference to it being a shooting attack, it is in fact specifically called a zzzap attack. it just happens in the phase.
It is never referred to as shooting
There is no specific description given for the doomwheel.
I have not found any proving it doesnt use its front arc nor have you found anything proving it does. You assume just as we do.
If/when GW FAQ's this we will have their answer.
The fact that we are having this discussion about the doomwheel shows that the actual usage is questionable. And if a majority play a questionable rule one way, it again is reasonable that that is the correct way.

Again, de facto is not de jure. A lot of people play cannon being able to shoot an initial point the cannon cannot see. Does that mean that is the "correct" way? Or does it just mean that people get used to how one edition plays and dont make changes when the new one appears?

8th edition added in a NEW shooting requirement - that you must have LOS AND be in your front arc. This 7th edition book, where the two concepts were one (LOS was, broadly, anything in your front arc that wasnt in terrain) could not know about this change, and does not have a specific exemption to the general shooting requirement. They have not bothered to FAQ it, which highly implies it will not change

The same thing happened in round base land between 4th and 5th, with dreadnoughts changing from 180degree fire arc to 45 degree. That change suprirsed a lot of people who dont read the rules that carefully - same as in this case.

Nosferatu, you're not answering in any way to his (relevant) comment on how the Doomwheel is not doing a shooting attack, but simply triggers a lightning-based ability that happens to be resolved during the shooting phase

So until you yaddda yadda rant rant quote quote *add incoherent useless text here*, you are "debunked" (as you love to put it)

TanKoL wrote:
Nosferatu, you're not answering in any way to his (relevant) comment on how the Doomwheel is not doing a shooting attack, but simply triggers a lightning-based ability that happens to be resolved during the shooting phase

So until you yaddda yadda rant rant quote quote *add incoherent useless text here*, you are "debunked" (as you love to put it)

Can you provide another attack that happens inside the shooting phase that is not a "shooting" attack or a quote from the rules statin it is not a shooting attack?

I don't know of any "attacks" done in the shooting phase that is not a "shooting attack".

Not exactly the shooting Phase, but the Bell another Unique Model activates in Magic Phase, Is not a Magical Item, Has only one affect that is the same as casting the Spell, These affects do not use winds of magic dice, cannot be dispelled so they could fall under the same outside the normal rules as the Doomwheel's Zzzappp Attack in the shooting phase. Ring the Bell at the start of the Magic phase apply XYZ Result. The Skaven Have many things that are outside the scope of 8th ed. Which is the reason thier FAQ could be a rule book. But putting this one into either is really hard, I can understand how it can go both ways, If it is truly a shooting attack, Then it should probably be the front ark, If it is some other type of Attack, (as alot of Skaven stuff is) then it would be 360. Personally as many others believe, The wording in the Army Book implies, that it is indeed "360". We in our clubs have gone Back and forth, and until GW comes out and says one way or the Other, we will continue to use it as 360.

Arc of sight IS Line of Sight in fantasy. It governs shooting, Magic Missiles, Direct Damage, and Charging. In as far as I know, the Doom Wheel's rules state that it ignores Line of Sight restrictions and affects the nearest unit in the shooting phase, which would suggest to me that it ignores the arc restrictions and that's how everywhere I have been has played it, from coast to coast on the US GT scene. That is, unless you want to argue that things like the Mortis Engine only damage units in their front arc or other similar silliness....

Are scream attacks shooting attacks?

Anvil of Doom?

Nosferatu...
I am discussing rules. most times if it is in 'you make da call'. It is 'how I would play it.' That is how it ends up here.
So you have your position and so do I.
You have a rules based assumption, so do I.
The difference is you have one rule that you claim applies and I have seven reasons why it doesn't.
Do you have anything else to defend your position?
Generally shooting follows shooting rules.
The doomwheel specifically breaks shooting rules with the zzaap attack.
You play it forward arc, I play it 360.
I guess we are done here.

 Phazael wrote:
Arc of sight IS Line of Sight in fantasy.

Interesting.

But this does not seem to be the case.

Page 10 allows for a much greater idea of what a model can see than the shooting rules allow for its targeting though.

 Phazael wrote:
Arc of sight IS Line of Sight in fantasy. It governs shooting, Magic Missiles, Direct Damage, and Charging. In as far as I know, the Doom Wheel's rules state that it ignores Line of Sight restrictions and affects the nearest unit in the shooting phase, which would suggest to me that it ignores the arc restrictions and that's how everywhere I have been has played it, from coast to coast on the US GT scene. That is, unless you want to argue that things like the Mortis Engine only damage units in their front arc or other similar silliness....

Please review your 8th edition rulebook, and note that this is no longer true. Arc of sight WAS also line of sight, that is NO LONGER TRUE.

Peasant - so it is a shooting attack that isnt a shooting attack?

You are told to ignore LOS. Does that give you permission to ignore Arc of Sight? Please find a rule showing this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Phazael wrote:
Arc of sight IS Line of Sight in fantasy. It governs shooting, Magic Missiles, Direct Damage, and Charging. In as far as I know, the Doom Wheel's rules state that it ignores Line of Sight restrictions and affects the nearest unit in the shooting phase, which would suggest to me that it ignores the arc restrictions and that's how everywhere I have been has played it, from coast to coast on the US GT scene. That is, unless you want to argue that things like the Mortis Engine only damage units in their front arc or other similar silliness....

Please review your 8th edition rulebook, and note that this is no longer true. Arc of sight WAS also line of sight, that is NO LONGER TRUE.

Peasant - so it is a shooting attack that isnt a shooting attack?

You are told to ignore LOS. Does that give you permission to ignore Arc of Sight? Please find a rule showing this.

No. It is not a shooting attack. It is a damage effect that targets the nearest model within 18" in the shooting phase.

Phazel made the comment about the Mortis Engine and it's damage. What kind of attack is that? Does it do damage? Is it front arc?

BRB says you can only shoot at targets that are in your LOS, You can only draw LOS in your AOS, If you do not need LOS, Then you can not apply AOS as it has become a non standard attack within the shooting phase. Army book always takes president over BRB, And army book clearly states the nearest model.

"precedent"

Specific vs general. You need a specific rule to override the requirement to have LOS AND be in your front arc.

You have a specific rule overriding the requirement to have LOS. You do not have any such rule overriding the requirement for being in your front arc.

cawizkid wrote:
BRB says you can only shoot at targets that are in your LOS

That is not the only restriction.

Glad to see my question is generating discussion it is to bad gw wont faq it. Is there a way to email gw ? Will they answer rules questions? my local gw store says its 360

You can email them, they wont reply but it may get into an FAQ eventually(good luck with it being in your lifetime). GW stores are notorious for getting the rules 100% wrong.

The email address is either:
askyourquestion@games-workshop.com

or

Gamefaqs@gwplc.com


not sure what is the current one.

warhammernut wrote:
Glad to see my question is generating discussion it is to bad gw wont faq it. Is there a way to email gw ? Will they answer rules questions? my local gw store says its 360

I think there is a majority that play 360. As you can read through the posts that seems to be the trend as well.
Like anything else if that's how you play and everyone is on board with it then it's good game times.
I'd give my 360 vote as well.

Yep, and as pointed out de facto is not the same as de jure.

Same as the majority (in the UK) play cannon incorrectly.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, and as pointed out de facto is not the same as de jure.

Same as the majority (in the UK) play cannon incorrectly.

So the mortis engine only damages in its front arc as well? You avoided that question.

You can say de facto vs. de jure all you want but the fact that we are having this discussion shows the statement is as useful as 'I'm right, you're wrong, so there.'

The cannon is a different issue.

No, I just got tired of the repetition. Theres a difference.

No, the cannon is a precise example of defacto vs dejure. The rules are blindingly obvious, but a lot of people unknowingly / deliberately play differently.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, I just got tired of the repetition. Theres a difference.

No, the cannon is a precise example of defacto vs dejure. The rules are blindingly obvious, but a lot of people unknowingly / deliberately play differently.

But we are not talking about the cannon. It has its own rules and is a different subject. And has no relevance to this discussion.

We are talking about how the damage is dealt from the doomwheel.

What repetition? You never gave input about it.
The Mortis engine does damage within x"'s. So is it front arc like the doomwheel?
I'd say it's 360....just like the doomwheel.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
sigh.

Exasperated, so soon? :-) Don't worry, all the yourenotgettingitblahblahs soon become white noise when you become more familiar with the internet.

-------

It is pretty obvious that the DW can shoot everywhere it likes. Closest target within x is a replacement for the normal rules.

Rage on.

THat only works where specified it replaces. Find the line stating it replaces.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
THat only works where specified it replaces. Find the line stating it replaces.

?????

Its how specific > general works.

You need a more specific rule to override the general rule

The general rule is that shooting requires LOS, front arc, etc. We have rules that override LOS, but none that override front arc.

Sorry, such a basic concept I didnt think I needed to explain more.

You're perfectly right Nosferatu ... on all accounts
It's a good thing that "Zzzap" is not a shooting attack I guess, as it doesn't say that it's one (following your reasoning here), thus it's not governed by normal shooting rules

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its how specific > general works.

You need a more specific rule to override the general rule

The general rule is that shooting requires LOS, front arc, etc. We have rules that override LOS, but none that override front arc.

Sorry, such a basic concept I didnt think I needed to explain more.

Another jab. Sad. Stay on topic.

And you still haven't answered the specific question about whether or not the mortis engine is front arc also. It too is a damage effect that by your ruling,must be because you do not have specific permission to override it.

We have rules, as Tankol mentioned, it is specifically called a zzaap attack. It is never called a shooting attack.
And as I have stated in the past, its rules specifically override target selection. It has rewritten its effects on all counts and it is therefore reasonable that it is 360.
Front arc is just how you would play it. Incorrectly but that's okay as long as your opponents agree.

Peasant - sigh.

You replied "?????" to a post. I asumed that meant you didnt understand the concept you were replying to.

By arguing "it is therefore reasonable..." that means you are making a RAI argument. I was pointing out that specific beats general, meaning unless you have a rule specifically overriding the front arc requirement, this requirement remains. You have yet to counter that argument, and given you have JUST repeated your RAI argument - along with a snide comment that I must play it "incorrectly" if I am following rules - I accept your concession to this argument.

Do you play cannon correctly or incorrectly? Is it "reasonable" to ignore the LOS requirement for the initial spot, same as it is "reasonable" to ignore the front arc requirement for shooting attacks? Where does your "reasonable" line get drawn?

(it isnt "specifically" a zzzap attack, good way to misuse words, you win +1 internets!)

Still not answering our reasonable questions
No need to divert the question to the Cannons that have nothing at all to do here
stop trying a cheap and easy diversion!

According to you, a Banshee howl would require Arc of Sight as it's during the shooting phase ? Even if it's not a shooting attack and when it says it only requires LOS?
While a Doomwheel that does not even require LOS would require Arc of Sight? Even though it doesn't even target anything and has to be activated even when fleeing? (sheesh, it really looks like a shooting attack now!)

It's simply that the Skaven book was written by a drunk monkey using his feet and that he couldn't write clear rules ... Just use a simlar rule like the one from the VC Screams (that obviously are designed to work the same way), and you're grand

Or you can bicker, moan, argue and otherwise be haughty and an annoyance (and probably not play much, or at least with a very limited and walled-off number of people)

I seriously think this thread should be locked. Not because someone is right and the answer's definitive, but simply because it goes on due to the stubbornness of a single person while all the others take turns trying to offer reasonable arguments that are rebuffed by "Ihma sayin' you wrong cause bananas + mushrooms = pink telephone booth"

"While a Doomwheel that does not even require LOS would require Arc of Sight?"
If it is shooting, then yes - because when the armybook was written the two were the same concept

Now they are split

Apparently this is too tricky a concept for some

No, I will no stop asking about cannon - it is a perfectly analogous situation

You have a change in edition causing a change in rules. Some people adapt and play to the new rules. Others insist there is an "oversight" or a "reasonable" change to let them play in the old rules.

Stop insulting others, it degrades your argument. Your arguments are RAI, pure and simple, and you stubbornly refuse to admit that.

I think we're going nowhere now, so this thread is over.