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.

The Issue I have is kinda different. So I'll do my best to explain.

Eldar(Me) vs SM

OK my buddy has a dread standing with his side against the wall. I move my farseer around the back side of the building placing him where he can see all of the back side of the dread but still on the back side of the building. What this means is that the dreads right side armor can't be seen at all due to a building however I can see all of the Dreads back side complete nothing blocking any of it at all. The left side of the Dread has his drop pod there. I fire off with my spear, it hits. He wants a cover save I stat that only his right side has cover I can't see that part but all of his rear. I know a dread is wider then it is thick. So it's less then 50% in cover so no cover save. I then go to roll on the pen chart and he says it has to be his side armor when all I can see is it's rear I can't even see it's side at all. So my question is what is the right move here.

I got my buddy to let me roll on the rear sense that's all I can see but I feel like he was a little hurt here I don't want something like this to ever come up again with him. I don't think a game is worth that much effort for us.

Thanks for the help.

What Armour facing was the Farseer in?

Was he in the Side Arc? If so, he would have gotten a 3+ cover save.

Was he in the Rear Arc? If so, no cover.

As Gwar indicated, which armor facing you hit has nothing whatsoever to do with what armor you can see. The rule is that the hit is resolved against the armor facing you are FACING. So take the top down view of the vehicle. If the firing model is in the side arc, the shot is resolved against the side arc.

The cover save is based on how much of THAT FACING you can see. If you can't see ANY of the side facing, but are standing in the side arc, the cover save improves by +1.

My question then is if it's true LoS and I can't see none of the side but all of the back then why am I forced to shot at the side. I can't even see it. That was the question at hand and by drawing line of arc my guy would have been on his side. However I can't see any of his side at all only his back side. All I could see was the rear.

drade79 wrote:My question then is if it's true LoS and I can't see none of the side but all of the back then why am I forced to shot at the side. I can't even see it. That was the question at hand and by drawing line of arc my guy would have been on his side. However I can't see any of his side at all only his back side. All I could see was the rear.

Because the rules say so.

You have to shoot at side if you are in side. If you can't see any of the side, instead of not being able to fire at all, you can fire but he gets a 3+ save.

It's for simplicity. Remember that it's a game.

In terms of why in "realistic" or "in the game world" reasons, many actual real-life armored vehicles have sloped armor, and attacks from a given angle, even when striking a weaker area, are still better protected against.

"True LOS" is still full of multiple abstractions. For example, if you can see ONE model in a unit, you can potentially kill every one of the guys in that unit with shooting. Or if you can see ANY part of a vehicle's hull, you can potentially get a Weapon Destroyed result against a weapon which might be completely hidden from the firing model's view.

drade79 wrote:My question then is if it's true LoS and I can't see none of the side but all of the back then why am I forced to shot at the side. I can't even see it.

Because you're not choosing a facing of the vehicle as a target, you're choosing the vehicle as a target. The direction from which the shot is coming just determines the armour you're going up against.

Ok but I couldn't see the side doesn't that mean I don't get to shoot at it because I couldn't draw LoS to it.

No. That's not what the rules say. As we've explained, the rulebook lets you shoot anyway, but gives the targeted vehicle +1 to its cover save.

drade79 wrote:Ok but I couldn't see the side doesn't that mean I don't get to shoot at it because I couldn't draw LoS to it.

You are right. You shouldn't be able to shoot it.

However, the rules say that INSTEAD of not being able to shoot it at all, you can, but with a 3+ cover save.

Ok cool... I just don't understand then I can see 100% of the rear and none of the side but I have to fire at side. Making this not true LoS just can you see anything that functions on the model out side of banners, wings ect.

Sounds a bit silly to me but I understand now. Instead of my buddy telling me you have to fire at his side, and not really giving me a reason. Thanks for the clear up guys.

One other thing where is the rule to say that he gets +1 making it a 3+ cover in the book for me I want that rule out for the next tourney I play in.

drade79 wrote:I just don't understand then I can see 100% of the rear and none of the side but I have to fire at side. Making this not true LoS just can you see anything that functions on the model out side of banners, wings ect.

Again, 'True' LOS just determines whether you can see the model.

One other thing where is the rule to say that he gets +1 making it a 3+ cover in the book for me I want that rule out for the next tourney I play in.

Sorry, you might need to explain that one a little more for an answer...

Bottom left part of BRB page 62.

It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see the facing they are in (fron, side, or rear), ....

Shooting at a facing you can't see gives the vehicle a fortification-type cover save. Not +1. Just remember, you can only shoot at the facing you are in.

P.s. I'm uncertain by RAW, but by convention decorations aren't counted as part of a vehicle's hull. So you'll be hard pressed to convince your opponent you're allowed to shoot at a flag and wreck the vehicle.

Yeah Flags and banners are "out-side" The rule I understand that as I said. I think my real issue is when a person says True LoS it doesn't mean my models true LoS is to the rear it means my models true LoS is to the other model doesn't matter what I am firing at as long as I can see the allowed parts of firing at for the model.

Thanks guys

drade79 wrote:Ok cool... I just don't understand then I can see 100% of the rear and none of the side but I have to fire at side.

You don't, as on P62. If you are in the side arc but can't see the side of the vehicle at all you shoot at the rear armour. The 3+ cover save represents the difficulty of damaging a vehicle from such an obtuse angle as well as the smaller target.

I think everybody has been getting at this but it wasn't clear to me from reading the posts. I might just be slow...

Edit: I've read back over the posts and, according to my rule book, I disagree with you all. I assume I have a dodgy book then, because that's two mods and a Gwar!.

drade79 wrote:Yeah Flags and banners are "out-side" The rule I understand that as I said. I think my real issue is when a person says True LoS it doesn't mean my models true LoS is to the rear it means my models true LoS is to the other model doesn't matter what I am firing at as long as I can see the allowed parts of firing at for the model.

Thanks guys

Because to determine what armor arc you are in it matters where YOUR model is standing in relation to the vehicle *NOT* what armor facing you choose to 'see'. If your firing model is in the side arc then you're firing at the 'side armor' of the vehicle...if that side arc is more than 50% covered by terrain the vehicle gets a cover save, if that side arc is completely covered then the vehicle's cover save is improved to a '3+'.

It simply represents that even though you can clearly 'see' the back armor, the angle of the shot your model is having to take is so difficult that there is a very high chance that your shot will miss. You always have to remember that cover saves are an abstraction that not only represent the cover physically stopping the shot, but also the difficulty of actually spotting and properly aiming at the target through the obstruction.

Mannahnin wrote:As Gwar indicated, which armor facing you hit has nothing whatsoever to do with what armor you can see

Gwar! wrote:You have to shoot at side if you are in side. If you can't see any of the side, instead of not being able to fire at all, you can fire but he gets a 3+ save.

Just double-checked with a friend's book. Final part of the left hand column, P62. You shoot at the rear armour with a 3+ cover if you're in the side arc but can only see the back of the vehicle.

drade79 wrote:Ok but I couldn't see the side doesn't that mean I don't get to shoot at it because I couldn't draw LoS to it.

(real world explanation here, because this rule represents reality quite well)

The thing with armour is that the angle of the hit is very important. If you shoot at a 10cm thick piece of armour from a 45 degree angle you now have 14cm of armour to penetrate. Furthermore, much of the energy of the shot will be deflected away by the angle of incidence.

In order to penetrate armour you need to be close to 90 degrees to the armour surface, this is why the ability to fire on the move was so crucial to the current generation of battle tanks - it allowed them more control over the angle of the shot.


Back to the rules:

You were in the side arc - you had a good angle to be firing at the side amour but you couldn't see any of the side. What the rules tell you to do in this case is to fire at the arc you can see (so you'd use the rear armour value) but the target gets a 3+ save to represent the extra difficulty in penetrating armour at an angle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:Because you're not choosing a facing of the vehicle as a target, you're choosing the vehicle as a target. The direction from which the shot is coming just determines the armour you're going up against.

Gwar! wrote:You have to shoot at side if you are in side. If you can't see any of the side, instead of not being able to fire at all, you can fire but he gets a 3+ save.

Actually guys, you take the armour value that you can see and then they get the save.

BRB_P62 wrote:cannot see any part of the facing that they are in but can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case they may take the shot against the facing they can see

What happened to quoting rules to back up your points? I am dissapoint.

It's bizarre. Mahtamori even quoted p62 but still didn't pick it up. I wonder if the OP is still about.

Soup and a roll wrote:It's bizarre. Mahtamori even quoted p62 but still didn't pick it up. I wonder if the OP is still about.

Indeed. So, from the rules as written, we have:

1. You may shoot at vehicles where the facing you are in is completely obscured, provided you see a different part of the vehicle's hull.
2. If the facing you are in is completely obscured from line of sight, but a different facing is not, then you may shoot at that facing instead.
3. If you are shooting at a facing you are not in, the model get a 3+ cover save, regardless if that facing is obscured or not.

The relevant passage is in BRB, page 62, bottom left section of page, last paragraph.

<..> may take the shot against the facing they can see <...> vehicle receives a 3+ cover save.

(Just trying to limit the amount of text quoted)

Interesting that you can choose which armour to shoot. Have to weigh up armour values vs better save. Would also be relevant if you didn't want to do any damage (for example a berserk chaos dreadnought and friendly fire).

Thats not true at all. The whole point is you CANNOT choose what to fire at. You HAVE to shoot at the facing you are in. If that facing is 100% obscured, only then can you shoot at another facing you can see, with a 3+ save.

If you can't see another facing... well it's not in LOS then!

If you are in an arc that is completely obscured, but can see another arc, you use the AV of the arc you can see, but as mentioned above the target vehicle also receives 3+ cover.

Soup and a roll wrote:Interesting that you can choose which armour to shoot.

There's no choice - if the facing you're in is entirely obscured then you MUST shoot instead at the facing you can see and grant the 3+ cover save.

The point I was making is that several people (who should have known better, you know who you are) said that you shoot at the facing you are in with a 3+ cover save which is incorrect.

Scott-S6 wrote:The point I was making is that several people (who should have known better, you know who you are) said that you shoot at the facing you are in with a 3+ cover save which is incorrect.

It's amazing how you can have a rule right in your head for years, and then at some odd moment a previous edition rule pops in and replaces it...

Some of the changes between 3rd-4th-5th have been incredibly subtle.

The switch between 90degree arcs for vehicles in 3rd and corners in 4th/5th was a real stealth change. No mention whatever in the text and with the vehicle in the example being close to square it could easily have been an error!

ETA - what happened to people giving answers backing it up with explanation or quotes? After the tenets were formalised everyone was very good but it seems to have slipped...

Edit: Posting 101. Don't make corrective posts when extremely tired.

Gwar! wrote:Thats not true at all. The whole point is you CANNOT choose what to fire at. You HAVE to shoot at the facing you are in. If that facing is 100% obscured, only then can you shoot at another facing you can see, with a 3+ save.

If you can't see another facing... well it's not in LOS then!

You don't need line of sight to the facing you are shooting, just to the vehicle (hull or turret). P62 says you may take the shot against the side you can see. If you don't then the shot would be performed as normal against an obscured vehicle with covers saves as normal. Seems pretty cut and dried.

Scott-S6 wrote:The point I was making...

To be pedantic, that was my point and you're a point thief.

To be doubly pedantic, you said:

Gwar! wrote:You have to shoot at side if you are in side. If you can't see any of the side, instead of not being able to fire at all, you can fire but he gets a 3+ save.

So, I would still be resolving against side armour? Nope.
Mannahnin, Insaniak and Yakface all made the same mistake as well.

[/smugmode]

Scott-S6 wrote:To be doubly pedantic, you said:

Gwar! wrote:You have to shoot at side if you are in side. If you can't see any of the side, instead of not being able to fire at all, you can fire but he gets a 3+ save.

So, I would still be resolving against side armour? Nope.
Mannahnin, Insaniak and Yakface all made the same mistake as well.

[/smugmode]

Perhaps this is a dead thread, but I'm super confused, Gwar clearly stated that you resolve against the side you can see when you cannot see the arc you are in. You're not being pedantic, you're being wrong.

Gwar! wrote:Thats not true at all. The whole point is you CANNOT choose what to fire at. You HAVE to shoot at the facing you are in. If that facing is 100% obscured, only then can you shoot at another facing you can see, with a 3+ save.

If you can't see another facing... well it's not in LOS then!

Furthermore, I think everyone misunderstood the OP (even the op), I may be wrong, but I think you guys confused him before he provided the relevant details and then made an error, then everyone just assumed his model was in the side arc and that he and his opponent made the correct ruling on which arc he was in. From his limited explanation, it seemed to me that the farseer was in fact in the rear arc, if the OP is still around, you have to think about the picture on P60 of the rulebook where GW draws lines through the corners of a vehicle to demonstrate which armor facing the model is firing at. To do this, you extend the straight line out from the vehicle and then see if the model is inside the rear armor arc or the side armor arc (Which triangle the firer is standing in).

My understanding of what the OP described is that the Dread had his back arc at a 90 degree angle to a building's wall, the farseer was standing at the corner of that wall and another wall which was parallel to the dread's back. Thus, the farseer would have been in the rear arc of the dread and the entire previous conversation was completely irrelevant. I may be misunderstanding his explanation though, but thats what "...Dread standing with his side against the wall" meant to me.