So, the idea is that you can fire from any point of the non-vehicle model. If you place the model so that it can trace the line of firing to 2 knight's facings, you can choose from which part of the model you shoot after the shield's facing is decided.

No you are in on side or the other. You would talk with your opponent which facing this person would be shooting in before decided on facing. You couldn´t then choose to fire at the other side.

Anything else and you would be considered a complete dick.

That's not how you determine facing. You shoot at the facing you are standing in, not the one you can see

he is saying that he wants to stand in the middle of 2 facing and choose which one to fire at depending on his opponents choice

In fhe rare event your actually stood on the line between 2 facings, I'd say you hit the closest of the 2 rather than being able to pick.

If you want to shoot the side armour, move to that facing.

The shield facing is determined at the start of the shooting phase. The line of sight is traced from right before making a shooting attack. And you can't decide which armor facing you're...facing until you check line of sight. And you can check it from any point of the model. So, what's exactly prohibiting this?

 koooaei wrote:
The shield facing is determined at the start of the shooting phase. The line of sight is traced from any part of the model. And it'd done right when you're shooting. And you can't decide which armor facing you're...facing until you check line of sight. And you can check it from any point of the model.

First of all again the LoS doesn't not effect the armor facing, its where you model is standing that matters

But lets assume that the model is standing on the line between two armor facings. The rules don't cover this situation so there is nothing to support your stance that you get to choose the facing at the time of shooting.

Can you show with rules support why you are the player that gets to pick the facing the shooting attack is resolved against instead of your opponent choosing which facing gets picked?

 koooaei wrote:
So, what's exactly prohibiting this?

The fact that facing is determined by which section the model is physically located in, not where LOS is drawn. Before committing to where the shield is I would check which arc the model is located in (and would not proceed until we agree on where it is) and then pick that facing. Unless you can move the model to a new location after the shield is placed you're shooting at the shield.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
The shield facing is determined at the start of the shooting phase. The line of sight is traced from any part of the model. And it'd done right when you're shooting. And you can't decide which armor facing you're...facing until you check line of sight. And you can check it from any point of the model.

First of all again the LoS doesn't not effect the armor facing, its where you model is standing that matters

But lets assume that the model is standing on the line between two armor facings. The rules don't cover this situation so there is nothing to support your stance that you get to choose the facing at the time of shooting.

Can you show with rules support why you are the player that gets to pick the facing the shooting attack is resolved against instead of your opponent choosing which facing gets picked?

That's what i'm talking about. So, at least we've decided that you have to stand at the exact center to achieve this situation. Imagine you do stand there. Do you roll a dice?

 CrownAxe wrote:
But lets assume that the model is standing on the line between two armor facings. The rules don't cover this situation so there is nothing to support your stance that you get to choose the facing at the time of shooting.

Can you show with rules support why you are the player that gets to pick the facing the shooting attack is resolved against instead of your opponent choosing which facing gets picked?

Or, third option: a single facing must be chosen, based on which side of the line 51% of the model is located on (or a similar test). And, like any other information about a model's location, this can be checked at any time, including before the shield is committed.

 Peregrine wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So, what's exactly prohibiting this?

The fact that facing is determined by which section the model is physically located in, not where LOS is drawn. Before committing to where the shield is I would check which arc the model is located in (and would not proceed until we agree on where it is) and then pick that facing. Unless you can move the model to a new location after the shield is placed you're shooting at the shield.

There's nothing saying that it should be decided in the movement phase. It's decided right before shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
But lets assume that the model is standing on the line between two armor facings. The rules don't cover this situation so there is nothing to support your stance that you get to choose the facing at the time of shooting.

Can you show with rules support why you are the player that gets to pick the facing the shooting attack is resolved against instead of your opponent choosing which facing gets picked?

Or, third option: a single facing must be chosen, based on which side of the line 51% of the model is located on (or a similar test). And, like any other information about a model's location, this can be checked at any time, including before the shield is committed.

And if the person placing the model is purposefully measuring it to be exactly in the middle? Do you bring a microscope?

 koooaei wrote:


...That's what i'm talking about. So, at least we've decided that you have to stand at the exact center to achieve this situation. Imagine you do stand there. Do you roll a dice?

There is no rules solution for this because the rule do not cover this at all. But there is definitely no precedent for the shooting player getting to pick the facing instead of their opponent choosing

You just have to come to an agreement with you opponent (which probably means yes you roll a die)

 koooaei wrote:
There's nothing saying that it should be decided in the movement phase. It's decided right before shooting.

Nope. The position of a model on the table is public information. You can measure range, check LOS, etc, at any time. If I want to know where a model is located relative to the dividing line between armor facings I can draw a line on the table and find out at any time, including immediately before committing the shield. The only way you would be able to change which facing you're shooting at would be to somehow move the model (various "run then shoot" abilities, etc) after the shield is committed.

And if the person placing the model is purposefully measuring it to be exactly in the middle? Do you bring a microscope?

There is no such thing as "exactly in the middle". The situation would be handled exactly like any other case of a model being right on the edge of a distance (measuring range for shooting, etc): either measure more carefully until both players are satisfied with the answer, or roll off to see which side of the line it's on. This would be done the first time the measurement is done (which, again, can be checked at any time) and the answer would stand until one or both of the relevant models moves. So yes, if it's genuinely impossible to tell which side of the line has more of the model you would 4+ it, but I could make you 4+ it and know the answer before I commit the shield.

The opponent will ask which side you as the firer believe the model is in. He will then choose that side.

I personally would say that you would hit the closest part of the model which in your picture would be the side armour.

 rawne2510 wrote:
The opponent will ask which side you as the firer believe the model is in. He will then choose that side.

I personally would say that you would hit the closest part of the model which in your picture would be the side armour.

There's something wrong with this "closest" thing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sure, it's not 100% precise but you get the idea. The model can be 'facing' one arc while being closer to another. Simply cause arcs are not decided by shape of the model but by it's...facings.

 koooaei wrote:
Sure, it's not 100% precise but you get the idea. The model can be 'facing' one arc while being closer to another.

But that isn't the question. Obviously you don't use the "closest point" test if a model is clearly in one arc like in your picture above. It's a method for resolving the "exactly on the line" case like in your first example, where it isn't possible to tell which single facing the model is in. Since, in that example, the front part of the base is slightly closer to the firing model than the side part you would rule that the model is in the target's front facing. Obviously it isn't RAW, but it's arguably better than a random 50/50 roll for handling a situation that RAW doesn't cover.

The closest option would only take effect when there is no clear ability to determine facing. The rules are specific that you would be hitting rear armour there. when the 2 players can´t determine this then it seems fair that you would target closest part of model.

The same goes for rules that are effected by range. A melta gun might be within 6" as you have shown there but over 6" to hit the rear armour. So would you get the extra dice for Armour pen or not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Sure, it's not 100% precise but you get the idea. The model can be 'facing' one arc while being closer to another.

But that isn't the question. Obviously you don't use the "closest point" test if a model is clearly in one arc like in your picture above. It's a method for resolving the "exactly on the line" case like in your first example, where it isn't possible to tell which single facing the model is in. Since, in that example, the front part of the base is slightly closer to the firing model than the side part you would rule that the model is in the target's front facing. Obviously it isn't RAW, but it's arguably better than a random 50/50 roll for handling a situation that RAW doesn't cover.

You also have to determine when do you make this roll as it effects the decision of the owner of the Knight. I would expect you to roll before I make my decision but I am sure the OP would say only when he chooses to fire which would be after the decision of shield facing.

 Peregrine wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Sure, it's not 100% precise but you get the idea. The model can be 'facing' one arc while being closer to another.

But that isn't the question. Obviously you don't use the "closest point" test if a model is clearly in one arc like in your picture above. It's a method for resolving the "exactly on the line" case like in your first example, where it isn't possible to tell which single facing the model is in. Since, in that example, the front part of the base is slightly closer to the firing model than the side part you would rule that the model is in the target's front facing. Obviously it isn't RAW, but it's arguably better than a random 50/50 roll for handling a situation that RAW doesn't cover.

Can't really go for determined as things like cover can affect the outcome greatly. 50/50 seems the only viable solution. Now the problem is when should it be determined.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 rawne2510 wrote:

You also have to determine when do you make this roll as it effects the decision of the owner of the Knight. I would expect you to roll before I make my decision but I am sure the OP would say only when he chooses to fire which would be after the decision of shield facing.

Why are you so sure?

If cover is a factor then it doesn´t matter as you would put the shield on the side that isn´t in cover.

If there is an issue with determining which facing a model is in it should always be before facing is decided. It makes no difference to the shooter but a huge difference to the target. The target has to know which facing each possible shooter is in before he makes that determination.

Why is there even an issue here? Just move to one facing, the Knight player declares the shield on that facing, then Battle Focus into a different facing and shoot.

.....What? You guys don't have Battle Focus?
Well then.



Trolling aside, I think the order of operation is correct that you must decide which facing the unit is in before the Knight declares the shield. If the unit is a single model then when it goes to fire, it will still be in that facing. LoS, closet point, etc should not matter.

Do we still resolve different models in different facings, or am I remembering a older edition?

-

You resolve each model against it respective facing.

 rawne2510 wrote:
You resolve each model against it respective facing.

That's what I thought. So what if you have a 3 model unit and measure methodically so that each model is equidistant to the Knight and the center models is exactly center of the divide of facings?

In any case, I feel like you would have to still decide which facing that model would be firing in prior to declaring the Ion shield

 koooaei wrote:

 rawne2510 wrote:
The opponent will ask which side you as the firer believe the model is in. He will then choose that side.

I personally would say that you would hit the closest part of the model which in your picture would be the side armour.

There's something wrong with this "closest" thing.

As pointed out above, there's nothing wrong with using "closest side" in a situation where a model is equally in both facings like in your first example, but in this example that model is 100% in the front arc, so why would you even get to the question of "Which facing do I use?"

I think he was trying to be smart by saying my theory was bollocks because it doesn´t work in his picture


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have a feeling he is the sort of person that doesn´t stack rules in their order of use and would argue blue in the face that a unit in combat couldn´t attack a model in a challenge as they have no models to hit solely because of the outside forces rule

 rawne2510 wrote:
I think he was trying to be smart by saying my theory was bollocks because it doesn´t work in his picture

That was my thought as well, but then like... why try to argue it in a way that makes the whole question moot? So I was forced to assume he didn't know he had put the model entirely in one arc. Or that he legitimately believes he could use the reasoning on how to determine which facing a model is in when it's perfectly on the middle line of two facings to make the claim he can fire at side armor while clearly in the front arc.

 koooaei wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So, what's exactly prohibiting this?

The fact that facing is determined by which section the model is physically located in, not where LOS is drawn. Before committing to where the shield is I would check which arc the model is located in (and would not proceed until we agree on where it is) and then pick that facing. Unless you can move the model to a new location after the shield is placed you're shooting at the shield.

There's nothing saying that it should be decided in the movement phase. It's decided right before shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
But lets assume that the model is standing on the line between two armor facings. The rules don't cover this situation so there is nothing to support your stance that you get to choose the facing at the time of shooting.

Can you show with rules support why you are the player that gets to pick the facing the shooting attack is resolved against instead of your opponent choosing which facing gets picked?

Or, third option: a single facing must be chosen, based on which side of the line 51% of the model is located on (or a similar test). And, like any other information about a model's location, this can be checked at any time, including before the shield is committed.

And if the person placing the model is purposefully measuring it to be exactly in the middle? Do you bring a microscope?

He should get to know what facing you think he's in before having to declare in the shooting phase (the two of you should agree on the facing). As pointed out, LoS can be drawn at any time, and as part of drawing that he should be able to know what quadrant of the knight's going to be hit. If you want to go the route of saying "just pick a side, I'll tell you later", then don't be surprised if your opponent says "I pick the side you declare you're able to hit" and you should just accept it

 koooaei wrote:
So, the idea is that you can fire from any point of the non-vehicle model. If you place the model so that it can trace the line of firing to 2 knight's facings, you can choose from which part of the model you shoot after the shield's facing is decided.

This is correct.

Fragile wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So, the idea is that you can fire from any point of the non-vehicle model. If you place the model so that it can trace the line of firing to 2 knight's facings, you can choose from which part of the model you shoot after the shield's facing is decided.

This is correct.

Are you saying that when your opponent says which facing is that model in you are going to lie. You would have to determine before he chooses shield side which side it is in. It can't be in both.

 rawne2510 wrote:

I have a feeling he is the sort of person that doesn´t stack rules in their order of use and would argue blue in the face that a unit in combat couldn´t attack a model in a challenge as they have no models to hit solely because of the outside forces rule

I don't even have anything in my ork list to hurt a knight at range other than a couple rokkits on trukks who'd not even bother with shooting over turboboosting. So pls quit assuming other people have certain qualities you'd want to see in them. This question is very important for other cases, for example for when you're trying to decide cover saves. Where do you check the line of firing from? Your model can stand behind a fence and shoot at something far away. It sees the target without any obscurity at all if you check from one part of the model but than you could check from another part of the model and it's definitely shooting through terrain that obscures the target and grants cover. That's what confuses me. Knight + ion shield is just one example of this question.

The picture was to visually represent that 'the closest side' concept doesn't work within the current ruleset.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

He should get to know what facing you think he's in before having to declare in the shooting phase (the two of you should agree on the facing). As pointed out, LoS can be drawn at any time, and as part of drawing that he should be able to know what quadrant of the knight's going to be hit. If you want to go the route of saying "just pick a side, I'll tell you later", then don't be surprised if your opponent says "I pick the side you declare you're able to hit" and you should just accept it

LoS can be drawn from ANY part of the model. But i guess there's an assumption in this thread that Line of Sight =/= Line of shooting. Which is also arguable.

Do as you wish. Don´t be surprised if you try to pull that crap in a tournament that a TO gets called over every time for a ruling.

You talk to your opponent and agree the facing before they have to choose their shield. Other effects will be taken into account such as where other threats are and if a model gets cover from certain angles.

You must be the only ork player I haven´t seen take Lootas then.

Rules also allow you to shoot a model if you see 0.0001% of it. So, talk about pulling crap.

Anywayz, let's go back to the question of Line of Sight =/= Line of Shooting.

Line of Sight is the ability to see a model.

Line of shooting I might suggest is a specific line you are required to shoot at because of restrictions within rules (not a term I remember seeing in the rule book)

My point still stands that you would be required to confirm with the Knight player what is considered the "Line of Shooting" for your model before he/she is required to select shield facing. The question from Knights players is always:

"OK Model A, B & C is in front arc. Model D, E & F in left arc. Hmm more worried about E and F so I will put it on left arc."

This is a normal thinking of a Knight player when deciding arcs and requires interaction with his opponent. Are you thinking about not answering or lying to him about the likely position of the firer?

So, how exactly do you determine this "Line of shooting"? When model A wants to shoot model B.

(_)... Model A
...__ Barricade
.......
.......
.......
(_)... Model B


The line of sight can be traced so that model B will be obscured and get cover or won't be obscured and won't get cover. Also note that htere's no such thing in the rulebook as line of shooting - only line of sight that can be measured from any point of the model. So, what exactly prohibits you to determine cover and vehicle facing from any point of the shooting model that you want?

 rawne2510 wrote:


You must be the only ork player I haven´t seen take Lootas then.

Lootas are not among our best units. In the most competitive lists they're completely absent. They're still nice but orks now prefer to spam s5 shots/blasts and s8 rokkits.

I just don't shoot that much. But let's try to finally determine how exactly is shooting, line of sight and facing's determined.

Ok give me your conversation with a Knight player when it comes to him/her choosing shield arc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
what is your answer when they ask which facing you consider that model to be shooting at?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You are the person that brought up Line of Shooting!!

If the game's more relaxed there'd be no issue as there'd be no knights in a fun casual game. If it would matter when determining cover, i'd just go with cover-1 and call it a day.
If it's more competitive I'd play by the brb, so would choose any part of the model to measure los from and as so, would choose which facing i'm shooting at right before shooting. This interpretation seems to be the closest to RAW.

So you are saying you would refuse to answer his question in a tournament setting

i wrote the answer pretty clearly. The firer traces los from any part of the model and by the brb it so happens that it could result in either shooting one facing or another. You can trace los at any given time of the game - including the start of the shooting phase when the knight player places a shield. So he's free to do it and place the shield wherever he wants. And than i'm free to trace another los from any part of the model to determine which facing i'm shooting at.

So you are "that guy".

Not going to bother anymore.

You're free to houserule it however you like. I'm trying to determine what's the right thing to do by the rules.

ps. glad you feel better now

Imho, conversation should look like this, no imtemt to seem hostile I can jist imagine it like this

"What firing arc is he in?"

"Both"

"Well the permissive ruleset doesn't provide enough information for us to determine a target facing or AV, so you have no shot"

Then perhaps a short book dive, and hopefully a compromise.

 Rismonite wrote:
Imho, conversation should look like this, no imtemt to seem hostile I can jist imagine it like this

"What firing arc is he in?"

"Both"

"Well the permissive ruleset doesn't provide enough information for us to determine a target facing or AV, so you have no shot"

Then perhaps a short book dive, and hopefully a compromise.

4+ ftw

1) The Ion Shield rule is written to allow knight players to position the Ion shield with the knowledge of the threats in each facing. Since there is, battle focus aside, no movement happening between positioning the shield and shooting, that information is the same status as the one valid for shooting.

2) Unless the facing the shooter will hit is absolutely obvious, the knight player will ask his opponent in which facing the shooter is considered to be. The options are facing A or facing B. Per (1) the knight player is entitled to that information.

The decision cannot be postphoned to the advantage of the shooter. Sure you can 4+ it, but that would be 4+ for B, not 4+ for A/B.

 Stephanius wrote:
1) The Ion Shield rule is written to allow knight players to position the Ion shield with the knowledge of the threats in each facing. Since there is, battle focus aside, no movement happening between positioning the shield and shooting, that information is the same status as the one valid for shooting.

Except for
1) Crystal targeting matrix
2) Skyhammer Orbital Strike Force
3) Deathwing Strike Force
4) any flyer in a Unmerciful attack pattern
and thats just off the top of my head.

 Stephanius wrote:
2) Unless the facing the shooter will hit is absolutely obvious, the knight player will ask his opponent in which facing the shooter is considered to be. The options are facing A or facing B. Per (1) the knight player is entitled to that information.

The decision cannot be postphoned to the advantage of the shooter. Sure you can 4+ it, but that would be 4+ for B, not 4+ for A/B.

Can you provide me with a rules quote which states that at the start of the shooting phase a player must declare which facing of a vehicle he is in?

Alright this has been fun and all but you guys know that it is impossible to place a model exactly in the center of that line right ? So you guys can stop theory hammering about it now since its an impossibility in its pure theoretical form.

Any situation like this on the board is purely the result of you and or your opponent not being sure of the actual location of the model and should be treated as any other uncertainty in the game. There is no need for any RAW debating here since this is not a rules situation at all. This is a case of common decency. However you and your opponent want to settle it is up to you, but I would advice against the childish "nope you can't hit me I am on the other side" solution.

ItsPug wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
1) The Ion Shield rule is written to allow knight players to position the Ion shield with the knowledge of the threats in each facing. Since there is, battle focus aside, no movement happening between positioning the shield and shooting, that information is the same status as the one valid for shooting.

Except for
1) Crystal targeting matrix
2) Skyhammer Orbital Strike Force
3) Deathwing Strike Force
4) any flyer in a Unmerciful attack pattern
and thats just off the top of my head.

Ok, you could think of additional exceptions besides Battle Focus. Great, those are however in no way different to Battle Focus, in that they permit the shooting unit to change position between declaring the Ion Shield facing the start of the shooting phase and shooting with the unit.

ItsPug wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
2) Unless the facing the shooter will hit is absolutely obvious, the knight player will ask his opponent in which facing the shooter is considered to be. The options are facing A or facing B. Per (1) the knight player is entitled to that information.

The decision cannot be postphoned to the advantage of the shooter. Sure you can 4+ it, but that would be 4+ for B, not 4+ for A/B.

Can you provide me with a rules quote which states that at the start of the shooting phase a player must declare which facing of a vehicle he is in?

Can you provide me with a rules quote that allows you to obfuscate or declare secret which facing the shooter is in?
Per default, there are no secret positions, stats or lines of sight or other status information on the board. When something is secret, it is clearly stated - such as secret mission objective cards.

At times, the markers on the board cannot be properly placed due to terrain or something may not be clear. That may be intentional from one player's perspective and advantageous if the other player fails to ask for clarification, but when the matter is addressed, a common understanding is the only way forward. I've seen it argued that sharing which unit is in which transport isn't required, as long as the information has been recorded - which obviously prevents the transport owning player from changing the content to his advantage later in the game.

The Ion Shield facing is declared at the start of the opponents shooting phase. The clear RAI is that the knight player can make an informed decision regarding the threat to each facing. Even the threat from units that can still move in the shooting phase and can therefore threaten more than one facing is known. The knight player may forget about the special rules, but that of course is his problem. There is however no provision for unilaterally declaring the position secret, refusing to clarify the information represented by the board and expecting the game to continue in good faith.

 rawne2510 wrote:
So you are "that guy".

Not going to bother anymore.

Perhaps you should find a different forum. You do not seem to understand this is about rules not how you feel about "that guy".

 Stephanius wrote:

ItsPug wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
2) Unless the facing the shooter will hit is absolutely obvious, the knight player will ask his opponent in which facing the shooter is considered to be. The options are facing A or facing B. Per (1) the knight player is entitled to that information.

The decision cannot be postphoned to the advantage of the shooter. Sure you can 4+ it, but that would be 4+ for B, not 4+ for A/B.

Can you provide me with a rules quote which states that at the start of the shooting phase a player must declare which facing of a vehicle he is in?

Can you provide me with a rules quote that allows you to obfuscate or declare secret which facing the shooter is in?
Per default, there are no secret positions, stats or lines of sight or other status information on the board. When something is secret, it is clearly stated - such as secret mission objective cards.

At times, the markers on the board cannot be properly placed due to terrain or something may not be clear. That may be intentional from one player's perspective and advantageous if the other player fails to ask for clarification, but when the matter is addressed, a common understanding is the only way forward. I've seen it argued that sharing which unit is in which transport isn't required, as long as the information has been recorded - which obviously prevents the transport owning player from changing the content to his advantage later in the game.

The Ion Shield facing is declared at the start of the opponents shooting phase. The clear RAI is that the knight player can make an informed decision regarding the threat to each facing. Even the threat from units that can still move in the shooting phase and can therefore threaten more than one facing is known. The knight player may forget about the special rules, but that of course is his problem. There is however no provision for unilaterally declaring the position secret, refusing to clarify the information represented by the board and expecting the game to continue in good faith.

Firstly there is no rules saying I have to confirm how far away a model is from another, you do however have a rule that says you can measure it yourself at any time. The position of the model is in no way secret, anymore than the text I am writing now is secret. Its right there in front of you.

Secondly, to continue your "RAI" example, which I dont believe it is, " that the knight player can make an informed decision regarding the threat to each facing." would seem to suggest that if I had 2 units in two facings that could fire either at the knight or another target I should have to declare what they are shooting at so you can make an informed decision? You can see the units on the board, you can make a judgement about which facing you want to put the shield based on the knowledge you have from the board.

Finally, if you asked me which facing the model is in in the example above I would answer as per the rules it is within both, but wholly within neither, which is RAW as there is no requirement in the shooting at vehicles rules which state that the model must be wholly within the facing it wishes to fire at..

ItsPug wrote:


Finally, if you asked me which facing the model is in in the example above I would answer as per the rules it is within both, but wholly within neither.

This isn't the issue. The issue is that the majority of the model has to in one of the 2 facings it is physically impossible to be exactly in the middle of the facings.

 oldzoggy wrote:

ItsPug wrote:


Finally, if you asked me which facing the model is in in the example above I would answer as per the rules it is within both, but wholly within neither.

This isn't the issue. The issue is that the majority of the model has to in one of the 2 facings it is physically impossible to be exactly in the middle of the facings.

Games Workshop makes a distinction between within and wholly within. Majority does not come into it. If I have part of a squad within 12" of your unit, even if the majority is more than 12" away, then I am within 12".


Noweher in the rule for shooting at vehicles does it state anything about the majority of the model either


So as long as the model is on the line between facings it is within both facings, even if the majority is in one facing it doesnt matter as per the rules it is in both. thats RAW, How you actually play it is up to yourself.

[Edit] Nevermind

ItsPug wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

ItsPug wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
2) Unless the facing the shooter will hit is absolutely obvious, the knight player will ask his opponent in which facing the shooter is considered to be. The options are facing A or facing B. Per (1) the knight player is entitled to that information.

The decision cannot be postphoned to the advantage of the shooter. Sure you can 4+ it, but that would be 4+ for B, not 4+ for A/B.

Can you provide me with a rules quote which states that at the start of the shooting phase a player must declare which facing of a vehicle he is in?

Can you provide me with a rules quote that allows you to obfuscate or declare secret which facing the shooter is in?
Per default, there are no secret positions, stats or lines of sight or other status information on the board. When something is secret, it is clearly stated - such as secret mission objective cards.

At times, the markers on the board cannot be properly placed due to terrain or something may not be clear. That may be intentional from one player's perspective and advantageous if the other player fails to ask for clarification, but when the matter is addressed, a common understanding is the only way forward. I've seen it argued that sharing which unit is in which transport isn't required, as long as the information has been recorded - which obviously prevents the transport owning player from changing the content to his advantage later in the game.

The Ion Shield facing is declared at the start of the opponents shooting phase. The clear RAI is that the knight player can make an informed decision regarding the threat to each facing. Even the threat from units that can still move in the shooting phase and can therefore threaten more than one facing is known. The knight player may forget about the special rules, but that of course is his problem. There is however no provision for unilaterally declaring the position secret, refusing to clarify the information represented by the board and expecting the game to continue in good faith.

Firstly there is no rules saying I have to confirm how far away a model is from another, you do however have a rule that says you can measure it yourself at any time. The position of the model is in no way secret, anymore than the text I am writing now is secret. Its right there in front of you.

The position isn't secret, but clearly, the intent here is to have a secrect option with perfectly 50/50 placement between facings and gain an advantage from this. Even assuming that would be possible, it would require using the Knight facings FAQ and a line laser to pull off properly. Even with that, perfect placement is unlikely. That is why people ask the other player about their understanding before making decisions based on what the positioning might look like, even ignoring distortion due to perspective.

ItsPug wrote:
Secondly, to continue your "RAI" example, which I dont believe it is, " that the knight player can make an informed decision regarding the threat to each facing." would seem to suggest that if I had 2 units in two facings that could fire either at the knight or another target I should have to declare what they are shooting at so you can make an informed decision? You can see the units on the board, you can make a judgement about which facing you want to put the shield based on the knowledge you have from the board.

I made no claim regarding target selection. To the contrary, placing units with other target opportunities as threat is both smart and fair play. The knight player is deciding the facing of the ion shield at the beginning of the opponents shooting phase. That permits him to take into account the placement of the units which could shoot each facing and gives him the chance to remember which units could still move and then shoot. That information is what the board shows and what he can know of the rules.

ItsPug wrote:
Finally, if you asked me which facing the model is in in the example above I would answer as per the rules it is within both, but wholly within neither, which is RAW as there is no requirement in the shooting at vehicles rules which state that the model must be wholly within the facing it wishes to fire at..

Actually, the vehicle rules clearly note singular "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from." BRB p.75, emphasis mine. So having the option to decide for the one or other facing isn't something the rules permit. It is assumed to be determined to by checking the position of the shooter relative to the target. If that is not possible or unclear, it follows that the players have to agree or roll off what the facing is. Only for units with models placed in more than one armor facing is there an exception and even then each model is resolved as it stands.

I conclude that there is neither rules support nor practical way to actually provoke this situation.

 Stephanius wrote:


Actually, the vehicle rules clearly note singular "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from." BRB p.75, emphasis mine. So having the option to decide for the one or other facing isn't something the rules permit. It is assumed to be determined to by checking the position of the shooter relative to the target. If that is not possible or unclear, it follows that the players have to agree or roll off what the facing is. Only for units with models placed in more than one armor facing is there an exception and even then each model is resolved as it stands.

I conclude that there is neither rules support nor practical way to actually provoke this situation.

In no way it contradicts the statement that you can choose any facing. The shot is coming at one facing. You just choose which one.

 koooaei wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:


Actually, the vehicle rules clearly note singular "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from." BRB p.75, emphasis mine. So having the option to decide for the one or other facing isn't something the rules permit. It is assumed to be determined to by checking the position of the shooter relative to the target. If that is not possible or unclear, it follows that the players have to agree or roll off what the facing is. Only for units with models placed in more than one armor facing is there an exception and even then each model is resolved as it stands.

I conclude that there is neither rules support nor practical way to actually provoke this situation.

In no way it contradicts the statement that you can choose any facing. The shot is coming at one facing. You just choose which one.

Why would the rules contradict a far-fetched player statement?
In a permissive ruleset you need to demonstrate permission to do something. There is no permission granted to make a deliberate choice which armor facing to shoot.

 koooaei wrote:
So, the idea is that you can fire from any point of the non-vehicle model. If you place the model so that it can trace the line of firing to 2 knight's facings, you can choose from which part of the model you shoot after the shield's facing is decided.

Sure, you can ignore the ion shield that way, but since you are hitting 2 armor facings simultaneously, you will have to beat the 25 net armor it has

 pumaman1 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So, the idea is that you can fire from any point of the non-vehicle model. If you place the model so that it can trace the line of firing to 2 knight's facings, you can choose from which part of the model you shoot after the shield's facing is decided.

Sure, you can ignore the ion shield that way, but since you are hitting 2 armor facings simultaneously, you will have to beat the 25 net armor it has

Got a rules quote for that? It would definitely be an argument for a 25mm base Space Marine to claim to be in both facings but change that little green dot in the example to a Wraithknight centered on two facings. It can easily fire at either side it wants. This example is no different than a open topped vehicle parked in two different facings.

Fragile wrote:
It can easily fire at either side it wants.

{citation needed}

The rules explicitly state that a model fires at THE facing that is in. THE, singular. And there are no rules for choosing which facing you are going to fire at. The inescapable conclusion here is that you must somehow, before resolving any shots, determine which single facing each firing model is located in. The only question left is exactly how to resolve the question of which single facing a model on the dividing line is located in.

 Peregrine wrote:

Fragile wrote:
It can easily fire at either side it wants.

{citation needed}

The rules explicitly state that a model fires at THE facing that is in. THE, singular. And there are no rules for choosing which facing you are going to fire at. The inescapable conclusion here is that you must somehow, before resolving any shots, determine which single facing each firing model is located in. The only question left is exactly how to resolve the question of which single facing a model on the dividing line is located in.

The rules explictly state aboute firing at a single facing. And that's correct. But they don't state or imply anything about facing a single facing. There is really no contradiction with facing multiple sides simultaniously and having to shoot only one.

For example, a marine with a plazma is standing within 12" in between the side and rear arcs of an enemy rhino. He's facing both side and read, so he chooses to shoot one of them. For example, the rear is 25% obscured, so he chooses side. But as he has to shoot at one facing, he can't spread his shots at both - he has to choose one. He shoots both his shots at the side. But he could have easilly chosen to shoot them at the rear as he's also facing it.

And there is also no contradiction with open information. The opponent is free to measure the distance to a model at any given time. He can make sure that you're facing multiple sides. But he can't make sure which facing the opponent is going to target until he actually targets it. You don't ask your opponent at the start of his shooting phase what are his devastators going to shoot at or would his jetbikes turboboost instead of shooting. The opponent declares that right before performing the action. The same with knight's shield. The knight player can only check which side the opponent's models are facing. He can't know which facing they'll choose to shoot at or if they would choose to run or go to ground or whatever is going to happen in the opponent's shooting phase with HIS models. He might even not know yet.

I hope we're clear about that. And the only thing left to find out is how exactly the line of shooting for checking cover and facings is traced. If it's separate from line of sight than the question is moot but we'd need some RAW support for that and not RAI assumptions. As for now, the rulebook says that you check los and you shoot. So the interpretation of "Line of sight = Tracing line for checking cover and facings" seems the closest to RAW. And probably RAI. If you check line of sight from any part of the model (which is what the rulebook states you should do) - what's exactly prohibiting you from tracing shots from this very part of the model? We know for sure that you don't trace it from the gun unless it's vehicle. And there is no rule of shooting from the closest parts or middles of the models or whatever.

Fragile wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So, the idea is that you can fire from any point of the non-vehicle model. If you place the model so that it can trace the line of firing to 2 knight's facings, you can choose from which part of the model you shoot after the shield's facing is decided.

Sure, you can ignore the ion shield that way, but since you are hitting 2 armor facings simultaneously, you will have to beat the 25 net armor it has

Got a rules quote for that? It would definitely be an argument for a 25mm base Space Marine to claim to be in both facings but change that little green dot in the example to a Wraithknight centered on two facings. It can easily fire at either side it wants. This example is no different than a open topped vehicle parked in two different facings.

You missed the humor of the matter entirely. There are no rules in the game for adding armor together, so it was meant to be obviously outlandish.

More seriously, the line that bisects to armor facings is infinitely thin, and as such, you will in practice never be "right on" the line, so the argument is entirely academic. The model will either be mostly in 1 facing, or just barely .000...0001% more within 1 facing or the other, but that's the facing you get. If you are so close you cannot tell, let your opponent choose, elect to take the worse option (for casual games both), or call the judges over to make a formal ruling in that setting (tournament setting).

 koooaei wrote:


The rules explictly state aboute firing at a single facing. And that's correct. But they don't state or imply anything about facing a single facing. There is really no contradiction with facing multiple sides simultaniously and having to shoot only one.

Lack of statement about being able to choose a facing means there is not permission to choose a facing. There's only statements about THE side that the model is facing. Since there's no permission to choose, that means that you don't get a choice of facing at the time you want - after he has selected the side for the ion shield. It means that there is only one facing that the model gets to shoot at. It's up to you and your opponent to determine which facing it is, but you do NOT get the choice of 2 facings.

 doctortom wrote:

 koooaei wrote:


The rules explictly state aboute firing at a single facing. And that's correct. But they don't state or imply anything about facing a single facing. There is really no contradiction with facing multiple sides simultaniously and having to shoot only one.

Lack of statement about being able to choose a facing means there is not permission to choose a facing. There's only statements about THE side that the model is facing. Since there's no permission to choose, that means that you don't get a choice of facing at the time you want - after he has selected the side for the ion shield.

You say that there is no statement about choosing a facing and than make up a statement about having to choose a facing at some specific time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What little we actually have here is:

"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from it's body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target's body".

Won't citate this but: cover is based on line of sight. So, you can check if the target is obscured or not by measuring from any part of the shooter's body.

"Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from".

It's not written in stone but i think that the facing is also determined like cover. So, from any part of the shooting model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've asked this on the facebook but i doubt they'll answer soon as the question time was over last year.

The point still is you should be speaking with your opponent to clarify this before he pics a facing. If it is that close he/she will ask you what you consider you are shooting at.

 rawne2510 wrote:
The point still is you should be speaking with your opponent to clarify this before he pics a facing. If it is that close he/she will ask you what you consider you are shooting at.

Well, it's not entirely clear so it should be spoken before the game. And would end up in the roll-off of something like this:

1-3. The shooter gets to pick the facing => ignore the ion shield.
4-6. The shooter has to nominate all the models between facings of one or more knights. Than all the models from this list that can hurt one or more knights should roll to see which of the facings of each knight they're facing - separate roll for each knight and model. All this should be done at the start of the shooting phase before the knight player gets to decide which facing he chooses.

I accept the roll off idea. But your 2 choices are wrong.

1-3 you get to choose after the shield is chosen
4--6 you have to choose 1 side before the shield is chosen


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because if you want to randomize which facing they hit if you don´t get your preference then it should be randomized if you do get your preference

Well, it's just our little cozy houserule.

1-3 is pretty clear by now. It's the point of view that LOS = the instrument of deciding the facing. The knight player is clearly at a disadvantage here.

4-6 is a point of view that LOS =/= the instrument of deciding the facing and as there are no other rules covering it, the facing is decided randomly. But it still needs further discussion. For example, there's a squad of 3 melta bikes close to a knight. They manage to get one in the side ark, another one in the front ark and the third one right in between the arks.

So, here are a couple options:
a. If the shooter can choose the facing but has to do so before the shooting starts, he's going to choose, say, the side. And the knight player decides. Hmmm, there are 2 meltas in my side facing and one in the front. I'm going to shield my side! And thansome random eldar jsj to the front and murderise the knight or something. This way the shooter still has an advantage of being able to choose the lower armor facing.

b. It could be a random roll before the knight player chooses the facing. This way it's more benefical to a knight player cause there's a 50% chance the shooter would roll the facing with higher armor.

In both cases a. and b. declaring the facing happens as an out of sequence action and doesn't necesserely mean that the shooter is going to utilise it at all. He might want to lurk the shield on one side and than just turboboost away. Anywayz, it's going to take extra at the start of each shooting phase.

c. It could be a random roll after the facing is chosen when declaring who's shooting where. Also requires extra rolling but less so than a. and b.

I'm glad we're back to a more constructive discussion.

 rawne2510 wrote:
I accept the roll off idea. But your 2 choices are wrong.

1-3 you get to choose after the shield is chosen
4--6 you have to choose 1 side before the shield is chosen


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because if you want to randomize which facing they hit if you don´t get your preference then it should be randomized if you do get your preference

No.

The position of the shooter relative to the vehicle determines the facing that is shot at.
The only exception is LOS to that facing completely blocked, there is permission to shoot another visible facing instead, but accept a better than normal cover save.
There is no permission to make any choice regarding the facing you are shooting.

A roll-off makes sense to make the game continue only if
- the position of the shooter is really too close to call the facing with certainty
AND
- and the players cannot agree on the facing.
For example when
- the shooter is queried by the knight player trying to decide the shield facing
OR
- the shooter resolves his shots and claims an unlikely armor facing.

As soon as the facing has been determined - which it will be when in questioned or used - that is the facing.

You don't get to make up a choice that you don't have any permission for and then compromise by having only a 50% chance of an unfair advantage.
That'd be just moderately less silly as the knight player claiming that all your weapons automatically have get's hot against his units, and compromise by only insisting on it on a 4+.

The issue comes from the lack of description of how the facing is decided at all. All it says is "from where the shot is coming from". And the closest thing to tracing this mysterious shot route is assuming that it IS los. And los is clearly discribed as being traced from any part of the model.

Also, your example with los being blocked to a facing => pick another facing there's los makes the problem even more obvious. There is simply no description in the rulebook of how to determine where the shot is coming from. Means we have to roll off every time or make a houserule about it or something.

 Stephanius wrote:


No.

The position of the shooter relative to the vehicle determines the facing that is shot at.
The only exception is LOS to that facing completely blocked, there is permission to shoot another visible facing instead, but accept a better than normal cover save.
There is no permission to make any choice regarding the facing you are shooting.

A roll-off makes sense to make the game continue only if
- the position of the shooter is really too close to call the facing with certainty
AND
- and the players cannot agree on the facing.
For example when
- the shooter is queried by the knight player trying to decide the shield facing
OR
- the shooter resolves his shots and claims an unlikely armor facing.

As soon as the facing has been determined - which it will be when in questioned or used - that is the facing.

You don't get to make up a choice that you don't have any permission for and then compromise by having only a 50% chance of an unfair advantage.
That'd be just moderately less silly as the knight player claiming that all your weapons automatically have get's hot against his units, and compromise by only insisting on it on a 4+.

Have you read the whole conversation. The whole issue is that he is saying that the model wishing to fire is directly on the center apex between 2 facing. He wishes to fire at the side opposite to which his opponent as set the facing. The reason for the roll off is because koooaei won´t state which facing he will shoot at till after the facing is decided. but put the odds in a negative favor to the Knight player.


"Well, it's just our little cozy houserule.

1-3 is pretty clear by now. It's the point of view that LOS = the instrument of deciding the facing. The knight player is clearly at a disadvantage here.

4-6 is a point of view that LOS =/= the instrument of deciding the facing and as there are no other rules covering it, the facing is decided randomly. But it still needs further discussion. For example, there's a squad of 3 melta bikes close to a knight. They manage to get one in the side ark, another one in the front ark and the third one right in between the arks. "

I still don´t accept this. in a 50/50 roll of you either get your way or you don´t. You can´t set it out that you get your way or you get your way a little less. The only option is you get your way or you don´t otherwise you make it a very complicated roll off as there are so many possibilities to this issue.

1. You get to choose the side you are firing at after the facing is chosen (may split each model as you see fit)
2. You get to choose the side you are firing at after the facing is chosen (all models fire at the same side)
3. You randomise the side you shoot at after facing is chosen
4. You randomise the side you shoot at before facing is chosen
5. You get to choose the side you are firing at before the facing is chosen (may split each model as you see fit)
6. You get to choose the side you are firing at before the facing is chosen (all models fire at the same side)

It's not 'My' way. It's either we assume that los determines where the shot is coming from or not. All 'my' shots are coming from the power klaws that are in no way affected by this.

 koooaei wrote:

Also, your example with los being blocked to a facing => pick another facing there's los makes the problem even more obvious. There is simply no description in the rulebook of how to determine where the shot is coming from. Means we have to roll off every time or make a houserule about it or something.

Incorrect. There is a specific rule regarding this issue when shooting at vehicles. You can shoot at a vehicle if you have LoS to any part of the vehicle. If however the facing is obscured then the vehicle receives +1 to its cover save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
It's not 'My' way. It's either we assume that los determines where the shot is coming from or not. All 'my' shots are coming from the power klaws that are in no way affected by this.

Power Klaws?? Power Klaw is a melee weapon

So, it does depend on los?

Yes but it is more than just you get your way or you randomise it. that isn´t a fair roll off.

If it IS determined by los than cause los is traced from any point of the model, you can technically choose the arc.

Fairness is a subjective matter. I don't think it's fair that the shooter can explode my trucks when he sees 1% of the model and all my truck ever gets is 5+ cover for it.

To be honest this whole conversation I suppose lies on the fact that the Knight player accepts that you model is exactly between his 2 arcs. If you are going to spend that much time fiddling around measuring to get an exact spot then the game will end after 2-3 turns maximum.

Still curious what you were on about with Power claws though. They are melee weapons

 rawne2510 wrote:
To be honest this whole conversation I suppose lies on the fact that the Knight player accepts that you model is exactly between his 2 arcs. If you are going to spend that much time fiddling around measuring to get an exact spot then the game will end after 2-3 turns maximum.

You can measure los from any part of the model, so even if the model has a toe in another facing, it can choose to measure from a toe. Oh, the wonders of true los, right?

 rawne2510 wrote:
Still curious what you were on about with Power claws though. They are melee weapons

Yeah

Melee against a walker if front arc only


Automatically Appended Next Post:
unless it is immobilised

 koooaei wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 koooaei wrote:


The rules explictly state aboute firing at a single facing. And that's correct. But they don't state or imply anything about facing a single facing. There is really no contradiction with facing multiple sides simultaniously and having to shoot only one.

Lack of statement about being able to choose a facing means there is not permission to choose a facing. There's only statements about THE side that the model is facing. Since there's no permission to choose, that means that you don't get a choice of facing at the time you want - after he has selected the side for the ion shield.

You say that there is no statement about choosing a facing and than make up a statement about having to choose a facing at some specific time.

No, I'm saying that you and the opponent agree one which facing it is It's not a matter of choosing a facing, it's a case of making sure you two agree that you both are thinking it's the same facing.. He might say it's obviously only in one facing while you might think it's the other. You two should agree on what facing it is.

He is saying its both

And I refute that. If he wants to pretend that agreeing to the side that can be hit is "choosing" a side, fine. But, the opponent should be allowed to know what he thinks is the side that can be hit instead of trying to say "that's for me to know and you to find out". IIf he tried this in a tournament, the other player would be in bounds to have the tournament organizer come over and rule what side the model is firing at if he doesn't want to say, making his little tactic come to naught.

 rawne2510 wrote:
Melee against a walker if front arc only


Automatically Appended Next Post:
unless it is immobilised

He's saying his only weapons against knights are power klaws, so shooting arcs on them makes no difference to him as he won't be shooting anyway. He's saying he's not arguing this for an advantage for himself, because he won't actually get an advantage out of it. He's just arguing the side he thinks is right or playing devil's advocate.

Thought I'd clarify that for you since he doesn't seem to want to.

At least that's what we're forced to assume, otherwise there was no reason to bring it up.

 rawne2510 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

Also, your example with los being blocked to a facing => pick another facing there's los makes the problem even more obvious. There is simply no description in the rulebook of how to determine where the shot is coming from. Means we have to roll off every time or make a houserule about it or something.

Incorrect. There is a specific rule regarding this issue when shooting at vehicles. You can shoot at a vehicle if you have LoS to any part of the vehicle. If however the facing is obscured then the vehicle receives +1 to its cover save.

You shoot at the facing you are able to see and its gets +1 to its cover save.

 rawne2510 wrote:
../

Have you read the whole conversation. The whole issue is that he is saying that the model wishing to fire is directly on the center apex between 2 facing. He wishes to fire at the side opposite to which his opponent as set the facing. The reason for the roll off is because koooaei won´t state which facing he will shoot at till after the facing is decided. but put the odds in a negative favor to the Knight player.

...

Yes, I have read the entire conversation and participated previously.
I have understood the roll off idea and reject it as silly, because it is based on a flawed premise.

 koooaei wrote:
The issue comes from the lack of description of how the facing is decided at all. All it says is "from where the shot is coming from". And the closest thing to tracing this mysterious shot route is assuming that it IS los. And los is clearly discribed as being traced from any part of the model.

Also, your example with los being blocked to a facing => pick another facing there's los makes the problem even more obvious. There is simply no description in the rulebook of how to determine where the shot is coming from. Means we have to roll off every time or make a houserule about it or something.

No. Line of Sight is immaterial in this, strawman argument use aside.

The position of the shooter determines the facing. It is not mysterious. There are exactly four sitauations
a) shooter is in front of the vehicle, hits the front. (*)
b) shooter is on the right side of the vehicle, hits the right side. (*)
c) shooter is on the left side of the vehicle, hits the left side. (*)
d) shooter is behind the vehicle, hits the back. (*)

It will be always (*) a), b), c) or d). That's it.
(*) Exception: the facing you are positioned for is completely blocked, but an ajecent facing is visible as per vehicle cover rules. BRB, p.77

If two players cannot agree on the shooting unit's position relative to the facings - because it's not obvious or because one of them is being obtuse - either measure to determine in which facing more of the model is positioned or roll off to make the call if that cannot be reliably determined.

It is a useless argument anyway, since it is nearly impossible to actually place a model on the table perfectly stradling the line between the facings in the first place. Keep in mind that the line is drawn across the corners of the Knight's shoulder pads, which tend to be about 20cm up from the table. Even if someone would bring a square and a line laser and assuming that the knight is standing straight so there is no tilt to compensate for, they'll have a hard time getting it "right". If they then explain to the bemused onlookers what they are trying to do they'' ll most likely be laughted at for brazenly attempting to cheat and not understanding the squence of events in the vehicle rules.

 Stephanius wrote:
It is a useless argument anyway, since it is nearly impossible to actually place a model on the table perfectly stradling the line between the facings in the first place. Keep in mind that the line is drawn across the corners of the Knight's shoulder pads, which tend to be about 20cm up from the table. Even if someone would bring a square and a line laser and assuming that the knight is standing straight so there is no tilt to compensate for, they'll have a hard time getting it "right". If they then explain to the bemused onlookers what they are trying to do they'' ll most likely be laughted at for brazenly attempting to cheat and not understanding the squence of events in the vehicle rules.

Why would they laugh? You can easily do this topic with a vehicle or passengers in an open topped vehicle without debate. Why couldnt you do this with a large model?

Jacksmiles wrote:

 rawne2510 wrote:
Melee against a walker if front arc only


Automatically Appended Next Post:
unless it is immobilised

He's saying his only weapons against knights are power klaws, so shooting arcs on them makes no difference to him as he won't be shooting anyway. He's saying he's not arguing this for an advantage for himself, because he won't actually get an advantage out of it. He's just arguing the side he thinks is right or playing devil's advocate.

Thought I'd clarify that for you since he doesn't seem to want to.

At least that's what we're forced to assume, otherwise there was no reason to bring it up.

100% correct

Fragile wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
It is a useless argument anyway, since it is nearly impossible to actually place a model on the table perfectly stradling the line between the facings in the first place. Keep in mind that the line is drawn across the corners of the Knight's shoulder pads, which tend to be about 20cm up from the table. Even if someone would bring a square and a line laser and assuming that the knight is standing straight so there is no tilt to compensate for, they'll have a hard time getting it "right". If they then explain to the bemused onlookers what they are trying to do they'' ll most likely be laughted at for brazenly attempting to cheat and not understanding the squence of events in the vehicle rules.

Why would they laugh? You can easily do this topic with a vehicle or passengers in an open topped vehicle without debate. Why couldnt you do this with a large model?

The initial premise was that the shooting model had to be placed EXACTLY on the line dividing the facings. This is very difficult to do in practice and important to insert uncertainty into the situation, which can them be resolved by the made up solution granting the solution provider the discussed unfair advantage. Later the premise was changed to just being on the line, as long as the model is in two facings able to draw LOS. Of course, the rules do not support either premise.

Laughter is a common reaction to someone doing something ridiculous or cheeky. ;-]

Rules don't support you having to choose the facing you're facing at the start of the shooting phase. It's like forcing the opponent to declare what units are going to move, shoot, run, charge, manifest spells, what their targets and directions of movement would be - before the game starts. So that you could place the models without suffering disadvantages. Don't forget to ask if he's going to steal the ini or not before you start placing the models. Rules don't support him keeping it secret.

Fragile wrote:

 rawne2510 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

Also, your example with los being blocked to a facing => pick another facing there's los makes the problem even more obvious. There is simply no description in the rulebook of how to determine where the shot is coming from. Means we have to roll off every time or make a houserule about it or something.

Incorrect. There is a specific rule regarding this issue when shooting at vehicles. You can shoot at a vehicle if you have LoS to any part of the vehicle. If however the facing is obscured then the vehicle receives +1 to its cover save.

You shoot at the facing you are able to see and its gets +1 to its cover save.

No you still shoot at the facing you are within but get the bonus

It still doesn't help us determine a facing when we're in between a couple of them.

No it doesn´t. You need to accept that no Knight player is going to accept your premise and that a TO will be called each time. In a pick up game you are going to have to roll off that you get to pick your side to shoot at before or after the shield is decided. Remembering that this scenario is very unlikely to happen and really didn´t need 3 pages on it.

It's pretty easy to achieve when you have something like bikers, deepstrikers - especially droppods - or mages that can move something across the board.

And if the knight player doesn't accept the concept that seems to be the closest to raw simply because he is using knights...doesn't it make him TFG actually?

How do you solve this situation? CSM stayed in back armour arc. But he can't see dreadnought's back. BRB says that vehicle will get +1 to a cover? But which armour is faced by CSM? If you think that armor facing depends on LOS CSM is faced side armour. But in this case you can ignore ion shield because of it.(armour facing depends on LOS). Otherwise CSM shots are resolved on dreadnought's back.
P.S. Sorry for my English. It's not my native language.

Reading the thread and the BRB, I have to say that the model can effectively ignore the ion shield. The reason is:
"A model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy, weather with a power sword, gun or psychic power... for one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target's body" (pg 14)
"if, when you come to allocate a wound, the target model's body is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save" (pg 37)
So when we ask where a shot comes from, we determine it as the point of view from the firer (as shown with the cover saves). This point of view can be from any part of the firers body.
So then applying this to the following rule: "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from." (pg 75) this allows us to effectively chose the facing we shoot at if the shooters body is in both arcs.

Not that this bothers me as I like to run Burning Chariots

ahnob wrote:
How do you solve this situation? CSM stayed in back armour arc. But he can't see dreadnought's back. BRB says that vehicle will get +1 to a cover? But which armour is faced by CSM? If you think that armor facing depends on LOS CSM is faced side armour. But in this case you can ignore ion shield because of it.(armour facing depends on LOS). Otherwise CSM shots are resolved on dreadnought's back.
P.S. Sorry for my English. It's not my native language.

You resolve against the rear armour because that is the side you are shooting at. LoS to side armour is what is letting you shoot at the model but that is all. The model will get a 3+ cover save

JakeSiren wrote:
Reading the thread and the BRB, I have to say that the model can effectively ignore the ion shield. The reason is:
"A model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy, weather with a power sword, gun or psychic power... for one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target's body" (pg 14)
"if, when you come to allocate a wound, the target model's body is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save" (pg 37)
So when we ask where a shot comes from, we determine it as the point of view from the firer (as shown with the cover saves). This point of view can be from any part of the firers body.
So then applying this to the following rule: "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from." (pg 75) this allows us to effectively chose the facing we shoot at if the shooters body is in both arcs.

Not that this bothers me as I like to run Burning Chariots

Seems legit

rawne2510 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 rawne2510 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

Also, your example with los being blocked to a facing => pick another facing there's los makes the problem even more obvious. There is simply no description in the rulebook of how to determine where the shot is coming from. Means we have to roll off every time or make a houserule about it or something.

Incorrect. There is a specific rule regarding this issue when shooting at vehicles. You can shoot at a vehicle if you have LoS to any part of the vehicle. If however the facing is obscured then the vehicle receives +1 to its cover save.

You shoot at the facing you are able to see and its gets +1 to its cover save.

No you still shoot at the facing you are within but get the bonus

JakeSiren wrote:Reading the thread and the BRB, I have to say that the model can effectively ignore the ion shield. The reason is:
"A model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy, weather with a power sword, gun or psychic power... for one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target's body" (pg 14)
"if, when you come to allocate a wound, the target model's body is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save" (pg 37)
So when we ask where a shot comes from, we determine it as the point of view from the firer (as shown with the cover saves). This point of view can be from any part of the firers body.
So then applying this to the following rule: "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from." (pg 75) this allows us to effectively chose the facing we shoot at if the shooters body is in both arcs.

rawne2510 wrote:

ahnob wrote:
How do you solve this situation? CSM stayed in back armour arc. But he can't see dreadnought's back. BRB says that vehicle will get +1 to a cover? But which armour is faced by CSM? If you think that armor facing depends on LOS CSM is faced side armour. But in this case you can ignore ion shield because of it.(armour facing depends on LOS). Otherwise CSM shots are resolved on dreadnought's back.
P.S. Sorry for my English. It's not my native language.

You resolve against the rear armour because that is the side you are shooting at. LoS to side armour is what is letting you shoot at the model but that is all. The model will get a 3+ cover save

Incorrect, most of you.

From Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets:

It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case, they may take the shot against the facing they can see, but to represent such an extremely angled shot, the vehicle receives a cover save one point better than that given by the cover obscuring the vehicle’s other facing.

My apologies on that one.

 Charistoph wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:Reading the thread and the BRB, I have to say that the model can effectively ignore the ion shield. The reason is:
"A model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy, weather with a power sword, gun or psychic power... for one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target's body" (pg 14)
"if, when you come to allocate a wound, the target model's body is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save" (pg 37)
So when we ask where a shot comes from, we determine it as the point of view from the firer (as shown with the cover saves). This point of view can be from any part of the firers body.
So then applying this to the following rule: "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from." (pg 75) this allows us to effectively chose the facing we shoot at if the shooters body is in both arcs.

Incorrect, most of you.

From Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets:

It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case, they may take the shot against the facing they can see, but to represent such an extremely angled shot, the vehicle receives a cover save one point better than that given by the cover obscuring the vehicle’s other facing.

That's true, I had forgotten about that situation. However I believe my core argument is still correct. If you are on the line you still get to chose which arc you are firing in. In the situation where one facing is obscured it basically means whether or not you chose to give a +1 cover save or not.

A shooter is permitted to resolve their shots against THE singular facing he is in relative to the target vehicle. There is no provision for a choice. The BRB authors did consider a unit comprised out of multiple models across two facings, even there each individual model is counted as wholly within one facing.

Ergo : You get to choose which facing you shoot by moving around your target to that facing. If you are on the line, it's either majority or roll off. The End.

 Stephanius wrote:
A shooter is permitted to resolve their shots against THE singular facing he is in relative to the target vehicle. There is no provision for a choice. The BRB authors did consider a unit comprised out of multiple models across two facings, even there each individual model is counted as wholly within one facing.

Ergo : You get to choose which facing you shoot by moving around your target to that facing. If you are on the line, it's either majority or roll off. The End.

Your choice is chosing where on your model the shot comes from. This point determines the armour facing that you are shooting at as well as cover saves and other factors. I see no rules issues doing it this way as shown in my rules quotes earlier in the thread. Your "majority" has no basis in the rules as near as I can tell.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
From Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets:

It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case, they may take the shot against the facing they can see, but to represent such an extremely angled shot, the vehicle receives a cover save one point better than that given by the cover obscuring the vehicle’s other facing.

That's true, I had forgotten about that situation. However I believe my core argument is still correct. If you are on the line you still get to chose which arc you are firing in. In the situation where one facing is obscured it basically means whether or not you chose to give a +1 cover save or not.

It is not a choice of which side you shoot. This is detailing a situation where you are in the Rear arc, but literally cannot see it, but you can see the Side Arc. It is a choice of giving a +1 Cover Save or not firing at all. You do not choose which side you shoot at here.

 Charistoph wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
From Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets:

It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case, they may take the shot against the facing they can see, but to represent such an extremely angled shot, the vehicle receives a cover save one point better than that given by the cover obscuring the vehicle’s other facing.

That's true, I had forgotten about that situation. However I believe my core argument is still correct. If you are on the line you still get to chose which arc you are firing in. In the situation where one facing is obscured it basically means whether or not you chose to give a +1 cover save or not.

It is not a choice of which side you shoot. This is detailing a situation where you are in the Rear arc, but literally cannot see it, but you can see the Side Arc. It is a choice of giving a +1 Cover Save or not firing at all. You do not choose which side you shoot at here.

Then we are talking about different situations as I was initially talking about when a model was on the line in both arcs. As you quoted me I assumed you were then talking about a situation where by a model was in both arcs but terrain was positioned in such a way that the shooter could only see one facing regardless of which arc they were shooting from, hence my comment above.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
A shooter is permitted to resolve their shots against THE singular facing he is in relative to the target vehicle. There is no provision for a choice. The BRB authors did consider a unit comprised out of multiple models across two facings, even there each individual model is counted as wholly within one facing.

Ergo : You get to choose which facing you shoot by moving around your target to that facing. If you are on the line, it's either majority or roll off. The End.

Your choice is chosing where on your model the shot comes from. This point determines the armour facing that you are shooting at as well as cover saves and other factors. I see no rules issues doing it this way as shown in my rules quotes earlier in the thread. Your "majority" has no basis in the rules as near as I can tell.

No. You are confusing shooting rules and line of sight with the "shooting at vehicles, vehicles and armour values" rules.

Shooting rules say that if you have LOS to your target, you can shoot it. Agreed, but that has nothing to do with armour facings.
You do NOT shoot an armor facing, you shoot the entire vehicle. As such checking LOS, range, cover all deal with one target model, not four model-parts.

Vehicle Facing and Armour Values. BRB p.75
Shots are resolved aginst the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from.
To see what facing a shot is comming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below).
If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of the target vehicle (...) shots are resolved separattely for each facing.

The third sentence clarifies that the position of the firing models determines "where the shots are comming from".
Which actually makes sense, since the shooting rules only cover being able to see, hit and damage an entire model, not part of a model and we are dealing with model parts here.

Since the rules make no provision for models on the line between two facings, each model must be treated as standing in and shooting from one facing.
The logical way to do that is to check in which facing more of the model is positioned, or failing that, rolling 4+ for it.

 Stephanius wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
A shooter is permitted to resolve their shots against THE singular facing he is in relative to the target vehicle. There is no provision for a choice. The BRB authors did consider a unit comprised out of multiple models across two facings, even there each individual model is counted as wholly within one facing.

Ergo : You get to choose which facing you shoot by moving around your target to that facing. If you are on the line, it's either majority or roll off. The End.

Your choice is chosing where on your model the shot comes from. This point determines the armour facing that you are shooting at as well as cover saves and other factors. I see no rules issues doing it this way as shown in my rules quotes earlier in the thread. Your "majority" has no basis in the rules as near as I can tell.

No. You are confusing shooting rules and line of sight with the "shooting at vehicles, vehicles and armour values" rules.

Shooting rules say that if you have LOS to your target, you can shoot it. Agreed, but that has nothing to do with armour facings.
You do NOT shoot an armor facing, you shoot the entire vehicle. As such checking LOS, range, cover all deal with one target model, not four model-parts.

Vehicle Facing and Armour Values. BRB p.75
Shots are resolved aginst the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from.
To see what facing a shot is comming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below).
If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of the target vehicle (...) shots are resolved separattely for each facing.

The third sentence clarifies that the position of the firing models determines "where the shots are comming from".
Which actually makes sense, since the shooting rules only cover being able to see, hit and damage an entire model, not part of a model and we are dealing with model parts here.

Since the rules make no provision for models on the line between two facings, each model must be treated as standing in and shooting from one facing.
The logical way to do that is to check in which facing more of the model is positioned, or failing that, rolling 4+ for it.

Ok, so how do you determine what part of the shooter the shots are coming from? I ask because if the shooter is sitting behind a chest high ruins wall, is shooting at an otherwise unobscured vehicle, and isn't using a specific point on their body as determined by the controlling player for the shot, what cover save does the vehicle receive? If we go with the majority of the shooter then the Vehicle would get a 4+ cover save.


Side note: Ugh, never realized how badly the below bolded part was written. "My Lascannon shot is coming from your side armour". Me thinks they meant "shot is hitting"

Vehicle Facing and Armour Values. BRB p.75
Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from.
To see what facing a shot is coming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below).[/b][/i]
If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of the target vehicle (...) shots are resolved separattely for each facing.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
A shooter is permitted to resolve their shots against THE singular facing he is in relative to the target vehicle. There is no provision for a choice. The BRB authors did consider a unit comprised out of multiple models across two facings, even there each individual model is counted as wholly within one facing.

Ergo : You get to choose which facing you shoot by moving around your target to that facing. If you are on the line, it's either majority or roll off. The End.

Your choice is chosing where on your model the shot comes from. This point determines the armour facing that you are shooting at as well as cover saves and other factors. I see no rules issues doing it this way as shown in my rules quotes earlier in the thread. Your "majority" has no basis in the rules as near as I can tell.

No. You are confusing shooting rules and line of sight with the "shooting at vehicles, vehicles and armour values" rules.

Shooting rules say that if you have LOS to your target, you can shoot it. Agreed, but that has nothing to do with armour facings.
You do NOT shoot an armor facing, you shoot the entire vehicle. As such checking LOS, range, cover all deal with one target model, not four model-parts.

Vehicle Facing and Armour Values. BRB p.75
Shots are resolved aginst the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from.
To see what facing a shot is comming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below).
If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of the target vehicle (...) shots are resolved separattely for each facing.

The third sentence clarifies that the position of the firing models determines "where the shots are comming from".
Which actually makes sense, since the shooting rules only cover being able to see, hit and damage an entire model, not part of a model and we are dealing with model parts here.

Since the rules make no provision for models on the line between two facings, each model must be treated as standing in and shooting from one facing.
The logical way to do that is to check in which facing more of the model is positioned, or failing that, rolling 4+ for it.

Ok, so how do you determine what part of the shooter the shots are coming from? I ask because if the shooter is sitting behind a chest high ruins wall, is shooting at an otherwise unobscured vehicle, and isn't using a specific point on their body as determined by the controlling player for the shot, what cover save does the vehicle receive? If we go with the majority of the shooter then the Vehicle would get a 4+ cover save.

...

We are not drawing LOS at this point. Checking LOS, range and so on happens before we roll to hit. That is already done, or we wouldn't be trying to check armour penetration.

We are instructed to check the relative position of the shooting model to the target vehicle. There is no destinction for model parts, parts you drew LOS from earlier or anything else. Each model has to pen against the armour facing determined by its relative position. In fact, you could replace the model with an empty base as position marker and it would not matter for determining the facing
.

 Stephanius wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
A shooter is permitted to resolve their shots against THE singular facing he is in relative to the target vehicle. There is no provision for a choice. The BRB authors did consider a unit comprised out of multiple models across two facings, even there each individual model is counted as wholly within one facing.

Ergo : You get to choose which facing you shoot by moving around your target to that facing. If you are on the line, it's either majority or roll off. The End.

Your choice is chosing where on your model the shot comes from. This point determines the armour facing that you are shooting at as well as cover saves and other factors. I see no rules issues doing it this way as shown in my rules quotes earlier in the thread. Your "majority" has no basis in the rules as near as I can tell.

No. You are confusing shooting rules and line of sight with the "shooting at vehicles, vehicles and armour values" rules.

Shooting rules say that if you have LOS to your target, you can shoot it. Agreed, but that has nothing to do with armour facings.
You do NOT shoot an armor facing, you shoot the entire vehicle. As such checking LOS, range, cover all deal with one target model, not four model-parts.

Vehicle Facing and Armour Values. BRB p.75
Shots are resolved aginst the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from.
To see what facing a shot is comming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below).
If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of the target vehicle (...) shots are resolved separattely for each facing.

The third sentence clarifies that the position of the firing models determines "where the shots are comming from".
Which actually makes sense, since the shooting rules only cover being able to see, hit and damage an entire model, not part of a model and we are dealing with model parts here.

Since the rules make no provision for models on the line between two facings, each model must be treated as standing in and shooting from one facing.
The logical way to do that is to check in which facing more of the model is positioned, or failing that, rolling 4+ for it.

Ok, so how do you determine what part of the shooter the shots are coming from? I ask because if the shooter is sitting behind a chest high ruins wall, is shooting at an otherwise unobscured vehicle, and isn't using a specific point on their body as determined by the controlling player for the shot, what cover save does the vehicle receive? If we go with the majority of the shooter then the Vehicle would get a 4+ cover save.

...

We are not drawing LOS at this point. Checking LOS, range and so on happens before we roll to hit. That is already done, or we wouldn't be trying to check armour penetration.

We are instructed to check the relative position of the shooting model to the target vehicle. There is no destinction for model parts, parts you drew LOS from earlier or anything else. Each model has to pen against the armour facing determined by its relative position. In fact, you could replace the model with an empty base as position marker and it would not matter for determining the facing
.

Where does it say we check the relative position of the shooting model? Read it again, it's talking about the relative position of the shot, which comes from a point on the models body, or did you forget "Shots are resolved aginst the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from. To see what facing a shot is comming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below)"

So we check where the shot is coming from (a point on the firing model), then check which arc it lands in by using the imaginary lines. I don't see how your position is supported by the rules.

"The Ork with the Melta Gun, which firing arc is he in?"

"The front and the side"

"Ok, my Ion Shield will be on Side Armor then"

"Alright I am going to fire the Melta Gun at the knight, I am going to fire from this model's right hand, striking the front arc as per all the fancy and legal measuring I am about to do."

"Aw ya dang dirty Ork, why you do that, I wanted you to shoot from his left hand, striking his side?"

"Harr harr harr"

A hostile hulking walking robot with blades whirling and guns blazing is rapidly crossing the field. The sound of explosions everywhere around you. You run up to the robot's side but there's only time to get so far before getting blasted to bits. You line up your trusty meltagun and...everything suddenly goes silent.
The robot asks: "Where are you gona shoot?".
You think: "Well, the side should probably have more weak points than the front and i can see it as well.
"The side" - you say.
"Ok" - says the enormous death-dealing robot. A thin blue shell apears over it's side. "Proceed".
"Darn, i should have chosen the front" - you think to yourself before aiming at the side with a shield and pulling a trigger.

 koooaei wrote:
A hostile hulking walking robot with blades whirling and guns blazing is rapidly crossing the field. The soulnd of explosions everywhere around you. You run up to the robot's side but there's only time to get so far before getting blasted to bits. You line up your trusty meltagun and...everything suddenly goes silent.
The robot asks: "Where are you gona shoot?".
You think: "Well, the side should probably have more weak points than the front and i can see it as well.
"The side" - you say.
"Ok" - says the enormous death-dealing robot. A thin blue shell apears over it's side. "Proceed".
"Darn, i should have chosen the front" - you think to yourself before aiming at the side with a shield and pulling a trigger.

I charge the enemy and wipe them out. I am then surrounded by Vindicators in their turn.

"Curses, if only I were able to kill all but one enemy so these Vindicators wouldn't attack me!"

OR

The enemy charge into your lines and slaughter a unit, leaving all but one expendable guardsman surrounded by enemies in the swirling melee.
Your Leman Russ Demolisher brings it's cannon round, but the Company Commander yells out over the vox.

"Are you mad, man? You might hit our own soldier! We'll just have to wait until he dies in a matter of moments, wait for them to move, shoot and charge, and THEN you can destroy them!"

Realise how stupid that logic is now?

It all comes down to who has the priority. The shooter, who's arc must be decided, or the Knight, who's arc must be decided. Given that the shooter should only be able to hit one side, as per the rules, and the impossibility of being equidistant, I would give the Knight priority. If you want to bypass the shield, bait it out instead of relying on playing a psuedo-shell game.

In fact, better yet, write both intentions down on a piece of paper. Shooter writes their angle, Knight writes theirs. Reveal at the same time. If it works, it works.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Realise how stupid that logic is now?

I guess i'm too obscure

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
A shooter is permitted to resolve their shots against THE singular facing he is in relative to the target vehicle. There is no provision for a choice. The BRB authors did consider a unit comprised out of multiple models across two facings, even there each individual model is counted as wholly within one facing.

Ergo : You get to choose which facing you shoot by moving around your target to that facing. If you are on the line, it's either majority or roll off. The End.

Your choice is chosing where on your model the shot comes from. This point determines the armour facing that you are shooting at as well as cover saves and other factors. I see no rules issues doing it this way as shown in my rules quotes earlier in the thread. Your "majority" has no basis in the rules as near as I can tell.

No. You are confusing shooting rules and line of sight with the "shooting at vehicles, vehicles and armour values" rules.

Shooting rules say that if you have LOS to your target, you can shoot it. Agreed, but that has nothing to do with armour facings.
You do NOT shoot an armor facing, you shoot the entire vehicle. As such checking LOS, range, cover all deal with one target model, not four model-parts.

Vehicle Facing and Armour Values. BRB p.75
Shots are resolved aginst the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from.
To see what facing a shot is comming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below).
If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of the target vehicle (...) shots are resolved separattely for each facing.

The third sentence clarifies that the position of the firing models determines "where the shots are comming from".
Which actually makes sense, since the shooting rules only cover being able to see, hit and damage an entire model, not part of a model and we are dealing with model parts here.

Since the rules make no provision for models on the line between two facings, each model must be treated as standing in and shooting from one facing.
The logical way to do that is to check in which facing more of the model is positioned, or failing that, rolling 4+ for it.

Ok, so how do you determine what part of the shooter the shots are coming from? I ask because if the shooter is sitting behind a chest high ruins wall, is shooting at an otherwise unobscured vehicle, and isn't using a specific point on their body as determined by the controlling player for the shot, what cover save does the vehicle receive? If we go with the majority of the shooter then the Vehicle would get a 4+ cover save.

...

We are not drawing LOS at this point. Checking LOS, range and so on happens before we roll to hit. That is already done, or we wouldn't be trying to check armour penetration.

We are instructed to check the relative position of the shooting model to the target vehicle. There is no destinction for model parts, parts you drew LOS from earlier or anything else. Each model has to pen against the armour facing determined by its relative position. In fact, you could replace the model with an empty base as position marker and it would not matter for determining the facing
.

Where does it say we check the relative position of the shooting model? Read it again, it's talking about the relative position of the shot, which comes from a point on the models body, or did you forget "Shots are resolved aginst the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from. To see what facing a shot is comming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below)"

So we check where the shot is coming from (a point on the firing model), then check which arc it lands in by using the imaginary lines. I don't see how your position is supported by the rules.

As I said above, the first two sentences talk about shots, the third sentence clarifies that the position of the shooting models is what matters.
Besides, I also bet RAI for "where did that shot come from?" was simply "that model there, behind the rhino", not "that cleverly positioned models left foot".

 Stephanius wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
A shooter is permitted to resolve their shots against THE singular facing he is in relative to the target vehicle. There is no provision for a choice. The BRB authors did consider a unit comprised out of multiple models across two facings, even there each individual model is counted as wholly within one facing.

Ergo : You get to choose which facing you shoot by moving around your target to that facing. If you are on the line, it's either majority or roll off. The End.

Your choice is chosing where on your model the shot comes from. This point determines the armour facing that you are shooting at as well as cover saves and other factors. I see no rules issues doing it this way as shown in my rules quotes earlier in the thread. Your "majority" has no basis in the rules as near as I can tell.

No. You are confusing shooting rules and line of sight with the "shooting at vehicles, vehicles and armour values" rules.

Shooting rules say that if you have LOS to your target, you can shoot it. Agreed, but that has nothing to do with armour facings.
You do NOT shoot an armor facing, you shoot the entire vehicle. As such checking LOS, range, cover all deal with one target model, not four model-parts.

Vehicle Facing and Armour Values. BRB p.75
Shots are resolved aginst the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from.
To see what facing a shot is comming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below).
If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of the target vehicle (...) shots are resolved separattely for each facing.

The third sentence clarifies that the position of the firing models determines "where the shots are comming from".
Which actually makes sense, since the shooting rules only cover being able to see, hit and damage an entire model, not part of a model and we are dealing with model parts here.

Since the rules make no provision for models on the line between two facings, each model must be treated as standing in and shooting from one facing.
The logical way to do that is to check in which facing more of the model is positioned, or failing that, rolling 4+ for it.

Ok, so how do you determine what part of the shooter the shots are coming from? I ask because if the shooter is sitting behind a chest high ruins wall, is shooting at an otherwise unobscured vehicle, and isn't using a specific point on their body as determined by the controlling player for the shot, what cover save does the vehicle receive? If we go with the majority of the shooter then the Vehicle would get a 4+ cover save.

...

We are not drawing LOS at this point. Checking LOS, range and so on happens before we roll to hit. That is already done, or we wouldn't be trying to check armour penetration.

We are instructed to check the relative position of the shooting model to the target vehicle. There is no destinction for model parts, parts you drew LOS from earlier or anything else. Each model has to pen against the armour facing determined by its relative position. In fact, you could replace the model with an empty base as position marker and it would not matter for determining the facing
.

Where does it say we check the relative position of the shooting model? Read it again, it's talking about the relative position of the shot, which comes from a point on the models body, or did you forget "Shots are resolved aginst the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from. To see what facing a shot is comming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below)"

So we check where the shot is coming from (a point on the firing model), then check which arc it lands in by using the imaginary lines. I don't see how your position is supported by the rules.

As I said above, the first two sentences talk about shots, the third sentence clarifies that the position of the shooting models is what matters.

You mean this one? "If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of the target vehicle (...) shots are resolved separately for each facing." where it tells us to resolve the shots separately if you are hitting different facings? Rather then the first sentence that says we use where the shot is coming from on the model?
Ok, let's assume you are 100% right regarding how you determine armour facing. As written the rules don't distinguish between a vehicle shooting at a vehicle, a MC shooting at a vehicle, or a biker shooting at a vehicle.
So if we have a Predator tank with Las Sponsons. The Predator moves so that it is half and half on the imaginary dividing line. Each sponson is clearly in separate armour arcs. So, by your argument both Las shots hit the same armour facing as it is the position of the shooting models that is what matters, not where the shot is coming from. Did I understand your argument correctly?

JakeSiren wrote:

...

You mean this one? "If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of the target vehicle (...) shots are resolved separately for each facing." where it tells us to resolve the shots separately if you are hitting different facings? Rather then the first sentence that says we use where the shot is coming from on the model?
Ok, let's assume you are 100% right regarding how you determine armour facing. As written the rules don't distinguish between a vehicle shooting at a vehicle, a MC shooting at a vehicle, or a biker shooting at a vehicle.
So if we have a Predator tank with Las Sponsons. The Predator moves so that it is half and half on the imaginary dividing line. Each sponson is clearly in separate armour arcs. So, by your argument both Las shots hit the same armour facing as it is the position of the shooting models that is what matters, not where the shot is coming from. Did I understand your argument correctly?

You did understand my argument clearly.

The relative position of the whole model will also work fine for vehicles, however I agree with you that you can end up with silly situations when combining sponsons limited fire-arcs with close proximity to the target. In that case I would indeed borrow from the vehicle shooting rules and use firing arcs to help determine the hit armor facing.

Note that in this case the armour facing is still determined by the position of the model and not a choice the shooter makes in the shooting phase.
That might also be the reason for the funky wording "where the shot is comming from", i.e. "that model there, to the tank's side" or "that sponson here, in the rear facing".


In the interest of clarity, I've made three diagrams as a summary.
(note: I'm aware that even that knight's facings are not perfect 90 degree angels, but as a visual aid I figured it was fine.)


This is what the BRB illustration and rules talks about. Each model is sitting nice and pretty in one facing.

My reading as to possible shots the units can take:
Cawl: rear
Breacher unit 1: 1x rear, 2x right side
Breacher unit 2: 1x rear, 2x left side




This is what the thread is primarily about. Koooaei's claim that he can make a deliberate choice to shoot different facings - either because the model is in two facings or because he can trace LOS for the shooting from any part of the model.

My reading as to possible shots the units can take:
Cawl: rear
Breacher unit 1: 2x right side, 1x rear. 1B is further into the side than the rear. 1A further to the rear.
Breacher unit 2: 2x rear, 1x left side. 2A and 2B are further into the rear than to the side.

Koooaei's reading would be - if I understood correctly:
Cawl: rear
Breacher unit 1: 1x rear, 2x rear OR(*) right side
Breacher unit 2: 1x left side, 2x rear OR(*) left side
(*) to be decided by the shooter when shooting, not to be declared for the ion shield.




JakeSiren then pointed out that vehicles with limited fire arcs might be very close.

My reading on the predator would be:
Autocannon and left sponson left side, right sponson rear.

I'm guessing the opposite view would be:
Autocannon shoots rear OR side
Sponsons shoot side and rear respectively.

 Stephanius wrote:

I'm guessing the opposite view would be:
Autocannon shoots rear OR side
Sponsons shoot side and rear respectively.

Actually, no. The opposite view is that LOS = Line of shooting. Los for vehicle is measured from the weapon's barrel. So, The autocannon's gona trace to side. Now is you place it directly in the middle, it's gona be a roll-off. But it's gona happen right before shooting cause you measure los before shooting.

It's also a far less cumbersome system than measuring the percentage of the model in one side or another - especially cause it can't be done with just bases - the bodies matter. It's understandable why you want the knight side to have an advantage - such a well painted model.

 koooaei wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

I'm guessing the opposite view would be:
Autocannon shoots rear OR side
Sponsons shoot side and rear respectively.

Actually, no. The opposite view is that LOS = Line of shooting. Los for vehicle is measured from the weapon's barrel. So, The autocannon's gona trace to side. Now is you place it directly in the middle, it's gona be a roll-off. But it's gona happen right before shooting cause you measure los before shooting.

ok, the line diving the facings is tangential to the turret's mount, rather than running through the turret's pivot point, so turning the turrent may place the muzzle on the line, but it won't place the gun on the line. That may however be sufficient for 40k physics, and I'm not certain that any rule explicitly forbids you to shoot in a 30 or even 90 degree angle from your guns muzzle, any more than any rules prohibit tanks from moving sideways.

The point remains, you claim a choice of facing for that gun, I was just wrong about the exact way you'd claim it.

 koooaei wrote:

It's also a far less cumbersome system than measuring the percentage of the model in one side or another - especially cause it can't be done with just bases - the bodies matter. It's understandable why you want the knight side to have an advantage - such a well painted model.

Thank you for the compliment ... even if it does come with an accusation of bias! That is a Cerastus Knight Atrapos, which requires at least as many knights of other types in an Oathsworn detachment. It's the only knight I have, which means that I cannot play it as ally to my Cult Mechanicus or even if I would play War Convocation, couldn't play it there either. CM and Skitarii have no LOW slots, I'd need to put 500 points minimum into CAD requirements to unlock a LOW slot or play ally games. That is not something I like to do. In fact, I usually see knights only on the opposing side. So I'm right in the boat with your greenskins where knights are concerned - shooting at them. Granted, two shots haywire from the breachers are nicer than some rocket orks. However, the knight as vehicle target is only relevant due to the ion shield rule. In principle the claim of a facing choice applies to all vehicles.

I find it funny that you'd consider rolling off or trying to get away with a deliberate choice of facing more cumbersome than eyeballing it. If you look at the second picture, it is very easy to see which model is in which facing. No measuring as such needed. That is also my experience when playing. The only questions that have ever come up are to establish a common understanding, i.e. "That guy and that guy are in the rear, the others in the side." "ok".

 Stephanius wrote:

...
JakeSiren then pointed out that vehicles with limited fire arcs might be very close.

My reading on the predator would be:
Autocannon and left sponson left side, right sponson rear.

Thank you for the awesome visual aids. They really help in discussions like this.

So I wanted to discuss the situation of the Predator specifically. To me it doesn't appear that you are applying what you have been arguing consistently. As I mentioned before, the rules for shooting at vehicles don't differentiate between a vehicle shooting at a vehicle, or a Breacher shooting at a vehicle. So what rule are you using to allow the left sponson and right sponson to hit different sides?

I would like to say that I don't disagree with your conclusion for the Predator, as I believe that you have used Line of Sight of the weapons. But you should also be consistent and also use Line of Sight for the Breachers - which allows you to specify any point on their body as being where the shot comes from and would therefore determine which armour arc they are shooting in.

Holy feth Balls! You've painted your Cawl already?!?!

 kronk wrote:
Holy feth Balls! You've painted your Cawl already?!?!

Yup!

Say hello to my little friend!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

...
JakeSiren then pointed out that vehicles with limited fire arcs might be very close.

My reading on the predator would be:
Autocannon and left sponson left side, right sponson rear.

Thank you for the awesome visual aids. They really help in discussions like this.

So I wanted to discuss the situation of the Predator specifically. To me it doesn't appear that you are applying what you have been arguing consistently. As I mentioned before, the rules for shooting at vehicles don't differentiate between a vehicle shooting at a vehicle, or a Breacher shooting at a vehicle. So what rule are you using to allow the left sponson and right sponson to hit different sides?

I would like to say that I don't disagree with your conclusion for the Predator, as I believe that you have used Line of Sight of the weapons. But you should also be consistent and also use Line of Sight for the Breachers - which allows you to specify any point on their body as being where the shot comes from and would therefore determine which armour arc they are shooting in.

It's not as clean as I'd like, I agree, but I actually didn't use LOS.

For a vehicle which is unable to hit the facing that the majority of the model is in with at least one of its weapons, I treated those like the rules for units with multiple models in more than one facing. I used the location of the weapons - since that is where the shots came from.

I still don't think LOS "any part of the model" is applicable for non-vehicles. Yes, it is used to check if you have the option to take a shot, but that doesn't make the shot come from the models left foot. The shot comes from the whole model for non-vehicles. If it didn't, we could use that to deny cover saves left and right: "no cover, see, my guy can see all of your guy from the hand he has stretched out" or "no cover, my dood is shooting with his left foot this time to avoid that skimmer nose he would otherwise have in the view.".

Iirc there is no restriction on measuring from the closest point of a vehicle hull or fire hatch so embarked crews that can shoot have always been able to do this if they park the hull or fire hatch anywhere along the areas that differentiate sides from front or rear.

 Stephanius wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

...
JakeSiren then pointed out that vehicles with limited fire arcs might be very close.

My reading on the predator would be:
Autocannon and left sponson left side, right sponson rear.

Thank you for the awesome visual aids. They really help in discussions like this.

So I wanted to discuss the situation of the Predator specifically. To me it doesn't appear that you are applying what you have been arguing consistently. As I mentioned before, the rules for shooting at vehicles don't differentiate between a vehicle shooting at a vehicle, or a Breacher shooting at a vehicle. So what rule are you using to allow the left sponson and right sponson to hit different sides?

I would like to say that I don't disagree with your conclusion for the Predator, as I believe that you have used Line of Sight of the weapons. But you should also be consistent and also use Line of Sight for the Breachers - which allows you to specify any point on their body as being where the shot comes from and would therefore determine which armour arc they are shooting in.

It's not as clean as I'd like, I agree, but I actually didn't use LOS.

For a vehicle which is unable to hit the facing that the majority of the model is in with at least one of its weapons, I treated those like the rules for units with multiple models in more than one facing. I used the location of the weapons - since that is where the shots came from.

The rules don't allow you to treat vehicles as a unit with multiple models. And you basically used LoS for the weapons on the vehicle to determine the armour facing - "When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them at the target and then trace line of sight from each weaons' mounting and along its barrel..." pg 74

 Stephanius wrote:

I still don't think LOS "any part of the model" is applicable for non-vehicles.

What about open topped chariots? Such as the Tzeentch Burning Chariot? Where I can sit it in between the arcs and specify where on the Chariot model the LoS, and therefore shot is drawn from?

 Stephanius wrote:
Yes, it is used to check if you have the option to take a shot, but that doesn't make the shot come from the models left foot. The shot comes from the whole model for non-vehicles. If it didn't, we could use that to deny cover saves left and right: "no cover, see, my guy can see all of your guy from the hand he has stretched out" or "no cover, my dood is shooting with his left foot this time to avoid that skimmer nose he would otherwise have in the view.".

Completely wrong. Let's look at the bolded sentence and assume you are correct for a moment. Say a Breacher is behind a ruin's wall which comes up chest high on it. If the shot is coming from the entire Breacher's body then the wall would be blocking over 75% of the shot. Which gives the Knight a 4+ cover save.
Alternatively, we use Line of Sight, which the shot would be coming from the Breachers head (assuming the controlling player is maximizing damage), and would not grant the Knight a cover save from the chest high wall.


Do you see all of the problems created by avoiding using Line of Sight as the origin of the shot? And how the rules work properly when you do use LoS as the origin? To demonstrate how the process would work:

Shooter would decide on where LoS is determine from, or where the shot is determined from. They consult the rule book on determining the armour facing.
Step 1: "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from"
Ok, so we know that we are considering where the shot comes from, but how to do we determine the armour facing?
Step 2: "To see what facing a shot is coming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle"
Ok, awesome, so now we know we need to resolve the shot against front / side / rear armour. But what happens if I have shots in different facings?
Step 3: "Shots are resolved separately for each facing"
Sweet, so for my Predator each Las Sponson is resolved separately on each facing. Too easy.

See how much easier that is? We don't have to make exceptions for vehicles. We don't have to give extra cover saves. It. Just. Works. RAW.

 Stephanius wrote:


I still don't think LOS "any part of the model" is applicable for non-vehicles. Yes, it is used to check if you have the option to take a shot, but that doesn't make the shot come from the models left foot. The shot comes from the whole model for non-vehicles. If it didn't, we could use that to deny cover saves left and right: "no cover, see, my guy can see all of your guy from the hand he has stretched out" or "no cover, my dood is shooting with his left foot this time to avoid that skimmer nose he would otherwise have in the view.".

But that's how it IS within the current ruleset.

It used to specify to measure los from the "eyes" of the model for all purposes back in 5-th and probably 6. But that raised a lot of problems with models without eyes being unable to shoot, run and charge. Unless you slap a couple eyes on them somewhere. Sure, it opened up a lot of modelling possibilities. Imagine placing a bunch of eyes on a spawn! But that triggers a whole bunch of other problems like modelling for advantage.

So, gw decided to go to "los from any part for f@#k's sake".

Thank you Sir!

A further explanation for that abstraction is that though the model is in a fixed pose it's obvious that the thing the model represents is supposed to be moving around.

The model is not shooting out of it's left foot. It's down on a knee or going prone to take the shot. The models head being behind cover and shooting out of it's elbow means the model is peaking around the corner to take the shot.

It's very easy to explain how any given model is "shooting" when you understand that drawing LOS from any part of the body is an abstraction representing a reasonable amount of movement.