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

Sorry Vis, but you are the one who is wrong on this.

You are given permission to shoot at the vehicle by drawing LOS to the vehicle. You then determine what facing you are in.

At thsi point you have permission to shoot at the facing you are in. Please show where this permission is removed.

In less than 20 lines, and without irrelevant multiposts.

visavismeyou wrote:
Again, that section is too early in the rules... Ok, this is how I'm going to play from now on...

Being early in the rules has nothing to do with anything.

visavismeyou wrote:
I'm going to add 1 to every die roll because the rules say I can modify some die rolls...

"May" has more than one definition and you know it.

visavismeyou wrote:
I'm only going to measure to the base of every model, if a model does not have a base then I cannot measure to it... because the rules do not permit me to do so...

Another rule does permit you to do so.

visavismeyou wrote:you say you can see 100% of the turret... therefore the vehicle does not have cover... This is nonsense (and you havn't explicitly stated this but this is coterminous with what you've said).

Of course this is nonsense, it has nothing to do with anything I said. Cover specifically mentions that you only count the facing you are in.

visavismeyou wrote:
Do you see what happens when you stop reading too soon in a rules section? The rules dont make any sense... So stop doing it... admit you're wrong... the rules as they are written... taken as the "Rules" and not just one line... are as I have explicated, Scott and Soup, you're wrong.

You get even more problems when you skip the first rules in every section. You say that the quote allowing you to draw line of sight to the hull or turret means nothing because it is early.

visavismeyou wrote:
So you can never have attacks over 10?

Are you suggesting this is false?

Oh for crying out loud.

"May have to modify the dice roll" does not have "may" on it's own to allow you to modify the dice roll, it has the "may have to" which specifically expresses obligation under specific circumstances.

May be allowed to
May run out of breath
May take a cookie from the jar if you want to
You may dance, I don't care
May I say you look stunning?

Same word, at least 3 different meanings. The word on it's own does not express obligation.

You may stop posting.

visavismeyou wrote:Again, TLOS is required to fire, the rulebook gives permission to fire at the facing that the model is in, the rulebook demonstrates that TLOS is required in order to fire, whenever a model cannot see its target, (and dont fool yourself, the target is the facing)

The target is not the facing - it's the vehicle. The phrase "target vehicle" is used in the vehicle rules. At no time is LoS to a specific facing given as a requirement.

visavismeyou wrote:I already have and you have yet to quote any RAW which states you are permitted to draw LOS to any facing but the facing the model is in

We have quoted this repeatedly. Once more for you:

when a unit targets a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret

No mention of facings. If I can see the vehicle I can attempt to shoot it. You yourself have agreed that the vehicle is the target and not the facing. The shot is worked out according to the arc that the firing model is in. You have no choice in this matter unless you cannot see any of the facing you are in. In this case, in accordance with P62 you may target the facing you can see. Nothing prevents you from working the shot as normal against the facing you cannot see because, one, you are still allowed to target the vehicle (you do not need LoS to any specific facing) and, two, the rule on P62 is not imperative.

The above is the summary of our stance on the rule. I have tried to keep it short and concise to aid understanding. I think your points would suffer less if you did the same.

visavismeyou wrote:You're proving my argument correct and invalidating your own, thanks, I wish I thought of force weapons while I was writing my last post! To further clarify why this is a death knell for your argument is that the force weapon gives you the EXPLICITLY STATED choice between using the weapon as normal or using the psychic power of force weapon... Again, this is the death knell of your argument, thanks!

This is not the death knell of our argument. This is both a strawman and also, if true, evidence that the RAI are for rules such as the 'extraordinary claim' on P62 to be mandatory. We all agree on the rules as intended in this thread and have stated so many times. The RAW, however, are completely different and is the subject of the rather cyclical 'debate'.

Edit for reading force weapon rules

visavismeyou wrote:2) Yes it is. Force weapons is an explicit permission... You're proving my argument correct and invalidating your own, thanks, I wish I thought of force weapons while I was writing my last post! To further clarify why this is a death knell for your argument is that the force weapon gives you the EXPLICITLY STATED choice between using the weapon as normal or using the psychic power of force weapon... Again, this is the death knell of your argument, thanks!

Would you care to quote this explicitly stated choice?

Scott-S6 wrote:Would you care to quote this explicitly stated choice?

Looks like you may take the test and use the rules for force weapons or otherwise the attack is worked out as per normal. Actually, it sounds kinda similar to something...

Edit: Can't believe this thread is now five pages...

Edit for despair

It appears that there are two ways that a rule is being read, and thats making the ywo arguements here on this LOS issue. And both sides seem to be aware that its the rreading of this line that is critical:

"at least 50%of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted"


1) One reading is that the vehicle is being targeted.

2) The other reading is that its the facing thats being targeted.


Lets examine what supports either position.


For 1 we have the general Los rules, trace a los from the firing unit to the target unit. Any part of the target unit that isnt decorative can be used as a target. Good solid rule, the only weakness is that it IS a general rule, and this rule we are examining is a more specific rule, so it could possibly be changing the general.

For 2 we actually have two possible support points.

A) The cover rules tell us that is only the one facing that we consider when we determine if the vehicle is in cover. If more than 50% of the facing we are in is hidden, then it gets cover. It doesnt matter if we can also see the entire side of the vehicle (which might be longer than the front in the case of many vehicles) we are only using the one facing. This does lend some support to the idea that only the facing we are in is the target, because its the only par that matters to for cover saves.

B) The existence at all of the rule allowing the 3+ shot at a second facing. There is no cover better than 3+ in the game, so if we are allowed to shoot at a vehicle even tho we cant see the facing we are in....there is absolutely no point to this rule and its simply extraneous material taking up space in the rule book. While GW is often not solid on their rules writing it is usually because they leave things out and dont explain enough. It would be unusual to put in a rule that accomplishes nothing.


So the debate seems to rest on which way this line should be read, lets see if we can examine and dig up further proof for either point of view.


Sliggoth

Hey Sliggoth

There are several times (I think we decided 3) the BRB describes a 'target vehicle'. One I can see just now is on P60 just above the diagram. While A) is a good point, I think the instances of 'target vehicle' outweighs the cover evidence for target facing. I think it was thebetter1 who also came up with the fact that damage is done to the vehicle, not to the facing.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with B). While 3+ is the best cover save (other than with stealth etc) there are other reasons to want to use the rule or not, most obviously to shoot at a favourable armour value. That said, we all agree on the RAI is that you can't shoot a facing you can't see but believe (apart from visavismeyou) that the RAW allows this.

Yes, there are several times that the BRB talks about a target vehicle, they are all in the general rules it appears. So if the specific rule here is actually meant to be read the other way then it would obviously over ride the general. I was hoping to find more specific support for the point.

The point with B is that the only time this rule kicks in is if the primamry facing is completely blocked. If the 3+ rule were meant to be able to be used at other times then it would obviously just be another firing option. But its presented as only being an option when the primary facing is hidden, thereby telling us that the facing being hidden is key.


Sliggoth


PS My own reading fo this rule is that its one of the truly rotten bits of writing by GW and they really should let someone like gwar at least proof read their documents.

With regard to specific rules I don't think they are there to be found. I personally think it's taken as read that the vehicle is the target as that's what you need to see, measure to and damage but obviously ymmv.

In the case of B), I absolutely agree that the only time you can shoot at a facing the arc of which you are not in (what a horrible sentence) is when your facing is completely obscured (as on p62). The point of contention is that, even in this situation you still don't have to because it says 'may' instead of 'must' or similar. Agree that it is bad writing but to be honest it happens so rarely that I don't think it's too big a deal. I wouldn't still be here if I wasn't so petty.

GW really need to make a rule of thumb section to make general statements how to interpret things. Now, take this game Talisman. It's an old game, which in it's latest edition has the Gamesworkshop and Citadel logos printed on it's manual. It's got about 20 pages worth of rules, and one of them is dedicated to a section to clear up rules conflicts.
"Do versus do not" is one thing that stands out. All in all the rules aren't that complicated, it's essentially a very advanced form of Pachisi (Se: Fia med knuff, De: Mensch ärgere Dich nicht), you move either clockwise or counter clockwise around the board the number of steps the dice indicate and do what the square tells you.

Now, of course, there are so many sections of rules in Warhammer games that general rules of thumb is difficult to write. A guide telling you to apply the most specific case of a rule first opens up to interpretation with regards to Glory Hogs and Scalpel Shorts (is it more specific when an IC joins a unit or when a unit has to target only a specific kind of unit?).

But why not treat the previous editions as proof reading?

Regardless, the rules simplified:
* Can I shoot on this vehicle? Yes, provided the model can draw line of sight to any part of the hull or turret. Decorations and gun barrels aren't parts of hull or turrets.
* What armour value am I using? Look at the model and draw a 90 degree line extending from the corners of the model where there's a natural difference between the front, side or rear. If you're in a section for the rear, you're shooting at the rear.
* Vehicles can get cover saves, when do they get a cover save? When the facing your model is shooting at is covered more than 50% if you look at it from the model's eyes.
* The vehicle's facing is completely covered, but I can see a different part of the hull, can I shoot it? If it's completely covered, yes. But the other facing get a 3+ cover save!

Now. Here's two of the opposing views:
* Ok, but what if I don't want to shoot at that facing, is there any rules against targeting the original facing?
* Alright, but the facing is completely covered, why am I even allowed to shoot at the vehicle?
Yes, they are variations on the same theme. The problem is, that neither of these two questions are answered. The way me, Scott, and Soup read it, and I think Gwar! and a few others who do the wise thing of keeping away from this thread, is that since I have already been given permission to shoot, in fact been instructed specifically to only shoot at the original facing, is that I still can.

The whole flame fest is more or less all about how to interpret the words "may shoot at" as whether it gives option or forces you to take this action.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You are given permission to shoot at the vehicle by drawing LOS to the vehicle.

Wrong, the rules give permission... not the fact that you can draw LOS... what if you're out of range but you have perfect LOS...

Sliggoth wrote:So the debate seems to rest on which way this line should be read, lets see if we can examine and dig up further proof for either point of view.

In the shooting at vehicles rules use "target" or "targetting" four times:

"target vehicle" twice on P60.

On P62, it mentions "the facing of the vehicle being targetted" which could be read either way. (the facing being targetted or the facing of the vehicle which is the target)

P62 also uses "target" to refer to the vehicle unit (as a facing cannot suffer a glancing/pentrating hit).

So, out of four uses of "target/targetting" in the vehicle rules you have three that definately refer to the vehicle and one that may refer to the facing. Given the context (i.e. the other three uses) it seems likely that the same meaning was intended.

visavismeyou wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You are given permission to shoot at the vehicle by drawing LOS to the vehicle.

Wrong, the rules give permission... not the fact that you can draw LOS... what if you're out of range but you have perfect LOS...

another low value post.

Yes, the rules give permission to fire IF you are in range AND los of the target unit. Sorrry for ignoring the "ran ge" part that is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

Now please show how permission to shoot at the facing you are in is REMOVED. You have yet to even attempt to do so - you keep saaying it is removed but have yet to provide an actual rules quote.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Now please show how permission to shoot at the facing you are in is REMOVED. You have yet to even attempt to do so - you keep saaying it is removed but have yet to provide an actual rules quote.

Yes, I have, I have quoted the rules and explained how you people are misunderstanding and misrepresenting the word "May". Taken as a whole (the only way to take the rule book) models are only allowed to shoot at targets the model can see, then you are told that a model must target a facing of a vehicle. At this point, (god I've repeated myself about 10 times now...) anyway at this point, the rules do not allow a model which cannot see the facing it is in to shoot at that facing. Thus, if the rulebook stopped before the extraordinary claim that I have quoted over and over again, the model would not be allowed to fire at all, then the rules go on to make an extraordinary claim which allows the firer to shoot at a different facing if that model can see that other facing. Again, it is all about TLOS.

You're wrong, I've quoted RAW in my previous posts which clearly states each point I have just restated above, the rulebook is very clear when taken as a whole, when you take things out of context you can make magic terminators that can fly 60 inches every shooting phase... You can do whatever you want... If you're interested in the rules, the above is the only way to understand the RAW of firing at a vehicle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:

Sliggoth wrote:So the debate seems to rest on which way this line should be read, lets see if we can examine and dig up further proof for either point of view.

In the shooting at vehicles rules use "target" or "targetting" four times:

"target vehicle" twice on P60.

On P62, it mentions "the facing of the vehicle being targetted" which could be read either way. (the facing being targetted or the facing of the vehicle which is the target)

P62 also uses "target" to refer to the vehicle unit (as a facing cannot suffer a glancing/pentrating hit).

So, out of four uses of "target/targetting" in the vehicle rules you have three that definately refer to the vehicle and one that may refer to the facing. Given the context (i.e. the other three uses) it seems likely that the same meaning was intended.

irrelevant point is irrelevant... You still don't know what a prepositional phrase is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mahtamori wrote:GW really need to make a rule of thumb section to make general statements how to interpret things.

They did, they chose to use the English language, that is how we are to interpret things, those who disagree with me are taking the rules out of context and misunderstanding simple words like "May" and not knowing the rules of a prepositional phrase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:2) Yes it is. Force weapons is an explicit permission... You're proving my argument correct and invalidating your own, thanks, I wish I thought of force weapons while I was writing my last post! To further clarify why this is a death knell for your argument is that the force weapon gives you the EXPLICITLY STATED choice between using the weapon as normal or using the psychic power of force weapon... Again, this is the death knell of your argument, thanks!

Would you care to quote this explicitly stated choice?

but also confer to the
wielder one additional psychic power

Roll to hit and wound as normal, allowing any
invulnerable saving throws the victim might have.
The psyker may then take a Psychic test to use the
weapon’s power against any one opponent that
suffered an unsaved wound by the weapon in
that player turn.

May take a test to use the power... "May" is conferring permission to use the power, not to give a choice to use the psychic power or fly 120 inches in any direction... Again, you are not given a choice that is out of the context of the permission, you are given a choice to do what you are given permission to do or not. You have the choice to use the psychic power that the force weapon confers onto the model using such a weapon... or not... It is explicitly stated that this permission (the bold part) is to use the weapons power...

This is the type of thing you need in order to be right about shooting at something which you normally would not be allowed to shoot at. The rulebook sets up rules which only allow the firer to shoot at what the model can see, over and over and over again the rulebook gives permission to shoot at what the model can see, then it moves on to say that the target is the facing of a vehicle (please stop ignoring this prepositional phrase and please stop taking it all out of context) you would then need explicit permission to give a choice along with a disjunction something like:

"The model may shoot at the facing it can see but it is not in and that facing would get a 3+ cover save, or (disjunction) the model may shoot at the facing it cannot see but the model IS in and that facing would get a 4+ cover save" This is not stated anywhere in the rulebook either implicitly or explicitly and you would need it to be explicitly permitted in order to say its RAW, until you can demonstrate it is explicitly permitted you are making up a fantastical reading of the RAW.

Since I have yet to see anyone ask me to clarify, I will do it of my own volition since I now have time (I've been busy lately).

At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is
being targeted (i.e. its front, side or rear) needs to be
hidden by intervening terrain or models from the
point of view of the firer for the vehicle to claim to
be in cover.

The subject of the sentence about targeting and facing is, in fact, the facing, the vehicle is in the prepositional phrase and as such is not the subject of the sentence, the facing, however, is the subject of the sentence... thus, and this is irrefutable by the way, the facing is BEING TARGETED. The vehicle cannot be targeted independently... ever... the following situation can NEVER occur:

"I am shooting at that vehicle"
"oh yea? Which facing are you targeting?"
"I'm not targeting the facing, i'm targeting the vehicle!"
"Oh ok, you're shooting at my vehicle but not one of its facings, OK!"

This is complete nonsense, you cannot target a vehicle without targeting a facing of it. Again, this is irrefutable, if you disagree with what I've just said, please go reread an elementary English textbook on the relevant topics. Finally, the rules must be taken as a whole, you cannot take things out of context, every time the vehicle section talks about targeting, it is always talking about targeting a facing of a vehicle, period...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thebetter1 wrote:Being early in the rules has nothing to do with anything.

Yes, when you take something out of the context of the rules, you can make them sound however you want, as you have demonstrated.

thebetter1 wrote:
"May" has more than one definition and you know it.

Yep it does, so which definition confers choice? Please, point this out to me.

thebetter1 wrote:Another rule does permit you to do so.

Thank you for making my point for me!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

thebetter1 wrote:You get even more problems when you skip the first rules in every section. You say that the quote allowing you to draw line of sight to the hull or turret means nothing because it is early.

Wrong, I never said that, you are, yet again, in error.

Why you ask?

Oh because I said that the section you quoted is too early in the rules... Does that mean that I think we should skip it? Or that it means nothing? Nope, I then moved on to demonstrate what... what did I demonstrate, I demonstrated how you have been taking things out of context and relying on these out of context partial rules in order to make a fantastical reading of the RAW. So, what was I trying to say? I was trying to say that when you take things out of context you make an error in your reasoning... Then you took what I said out of context and made an error in your reasoning!!!! LOL!!! Good job making my point for me! yet again...

That section about the turret and hull being visible is only a very small section of the whole rule and needs to be taken IN CONTEXT with the rest of the rules, I never dismissed it, I never disregarded it, I never suggested we should skip over it, I actually explicitly stated that it follows the same pattern as the rest of the rulebook, the writers say things very generally and simply then move on to more complicated and precise rules. Same thing here, they talk about very general things, what you have to see in order to shoot, then they move on to more specific things...

QED... yet again...

Ah yes, wall o text again.

You target units. then you determine which facing you are in.

"May" does not remove that you have LOS to the unit, which is what, step 2 of shooting?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah yes, wall o text again.

You target units. then you determine which facing you are in.

"May" does not remove that you have LOS to the unit, which is what, step 2 of shooting?

The facing is being targeted not the vehicle, please reread the rulebook and pay attention to the prepositional phrases. Thus, in your explanation, the facing would be the "unit" not the vehicle.

Step 1, page 15, TARGET UNIT.

A facing is not a unit.

Page 60: When a unit fires at a vehicle....As the whole unit must fire at the same target

Please read YOUR rulebook.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Step 1, page 15, TARGET UNIT.

A facing is not a unit.

Page 60: When a unit fires at a vehicle....As the whole unit must fire at the same target

Please read YOUR rulebook.

I never said the facing is a unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah yes, wall o text again.

I forgot to respond to this, I'm sure that your fear of responding to walls of text is why you completely missed the things you have asked for from me. I have already demonstrated the permission you asked for in several previous posts, I'm sure you didnt read those either and just responded without knowing all the facts.

No, I read them. You just seem incapable of providing a concise argument, instead your "style2 seems to be to proivde inane responses and then claim your argument is buried in there.

Again, explain where you are targeting *just* a facing; I have shown twice now why you are targeting a vehicle.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, explain where you are targeting *just* a facing; I have shown twice now why you are targeting a vehicle.

No, you have not, no one has shown a single place in the rules which gives permission to shoot at a facing which you cannot see. I have quoted the rulebook which demonstrates that you cannot shoot at what you cannot see and that you target the facing. The rules of the English language disagree with you, the only things you, and others, have quoted are out of context.

So the rules for shooting at vehicles which state you target the vehicle are taken out of context?

No, sorry, thats so laughably wrong...

visavismeyou wrote:No, you have not, no one has shown a single place in the rules which gives permission to shoot at a facing which you cannot see.

P60 says when a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret. This lets you fire at the 'target vehicle'. You then can go about checking range rolling to hit. P60 then clearly states that only once this has been done do you even consider drawing the dividing lines for working out armour facings. This concisely proves that armour facings have nothing to do with working out LoS when shooting at vehicles.

Its ok Soup, the response will respond that you have ignored context...

nosferatu1001 wrote:So the rules for shooting at vehicles which state you target the vehicle are taken out of context?

No, sorry, thats so laughably wrong...

Taking things out of context must be like your weekend hobby... I didn't say the rules are out of context... I said you and others have taken them out of context and misrepresented them, but I'm not expecting much since you said that I said that the facing is a unit when I clearly stated that in your explanation the facing would be the unit, trying to demonstrate your error to you using your explanation seemed like a good idea, then you misunderstood it...

OK, so, I'll try to explain this again. The rulebook has a pattern, they speak in general terms, then get more and more specific, throughout the book you can see this in every section, that is why I explained that you cannot take rules out of context and you cannot rely on the early rules to explain the whole situation, you must incorporate the early rules with the later rules in order to understand them completely. If you continued with your erred interpretation of the rulebook then you would get the absurdities such as being able to modify any die roll on a whim, being able to move through other models etc. You see, this is what you guys are doing, if you take the first line of the movement rules section you dont get any restriction against moving through other models, so one could just take that first rule out of context and say that the BRB allows us to move through other models because there is no restriction from it in that rule... You must continue reading in that section in order to understand the movement rules and you must take the whole section together, qua, ignoring pg 62 because on pg 60 it says you target the vehicle...

The shooting at vehicle parts that you're talking about are the general rules, you only pay attention to the general ones and ignore the more specific ones... Notice in the specific ones they... have a prepositional phrase... that prepositional phrase is what you guys have been ignoring. The later rules must be incorporated in order to understand the section as a whole, taking p 60 prima facie without understanding it in context with p 62 is what you are doing and it is in error. The early shooting at vehicle rules say you target a vehicle, I've never denied this, the later rules also say you target a vehicle, i've never denied this, however, there is a prepositional phrase which is essential... you target the vehicle's facing or the facing OF THE VEHICLE... Again, the facing of a vehicle is still a facing which is on a vehicle thus when you target the facing... you're targeting the vehicle... Your misrepresentation of the vehicle section is ignoring this fact...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soup and a roll wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:No, you have not, no one has shown a single place in the rules which gives permission to shoot at a facing which you cannot see.

P60 says when a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret. This lets you fire at the 'target vehicle'. You then can go about checking range rolling to hit. P60 then clearly states that only once this has been done do you even consider drawing the dividing lines for working out armour facings. This concisely proves that armour facings have nothing to do with working out LoS when shooting at vehicles.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Its ok Soup, the response will respond that you have ignored context...

what Nos said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

p60 wrote:When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its
hull or turret

early rule, general, must be taken in context with:

p62 wrote:At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is
being targeted

and

p62 wrote:If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or
penetrating hit,

The previous quote never said the vehicle can be obscured... rather, the vehicle's facing or the facing of the vehicle. In context it makes sense... out of context it does not...

p11 wrote:Infantry move up to six inches (6") in the Movement
phase.

Taken out of context one could erroneously conclude:
Oh so I can move my models through other models?

Once you obey context:

p11 wrote:A model may not move into or through the space
occupied by another model

The previous rule makes sense.

Show that you stop targetting the vehicle when you are targetting the facing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Show that you stop targetting the vehicle when you are targetting the facing.

You have to show that permission to target the vehicle, gained as soon as you can draw LOS to the unit, is removed. You have not done so.

Untilo you do so you are stil spouting air...and until you do I wont bother responding. you're on your usual "I'm right" loop and noone can persuade you you are wrong.

Since this all appears to be getting a little heated, and nobody has presented anything new to the discussion, I think it's time to give it a rest.