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.

DeathReaper wrote:"One of the vehicles weapons is destroyed" P.61

if something is destroyed, you can not look down its barrel...

Then I guess it comes down to your interpretation of destroyed, since the rulebook does not define whether "destroyed" means to treat the physical plastic as not existing, or simply that the "wargear" item is no longer part of the model's set of equipment. In the former, you're correct. However since we've marched down this silly road, one could argue that even if a weapon is destroyed, if the physical plastic part is still attached, then the barrel still exists and can therefore be used for line of sight.

But of course now we're getting into a debate about the existential link between the amorphous "profile" of a model and the physical model itself, which is an absurd line of discussion.

Now that we've taking this to it's most absurd extent, I think it's best to put this argument to bed. I'll concede this one. You can't use searchlights if you can't fire.

By the rules the weapon is destroyed. You're trying to use the fact that the physical model isn't destroyed to justify your position because you don't have a single rule to support it.

Ghaz wrote:By the rules the weapon is destroyed. You're trying to use the fact that the physical model isn't destroyed to justify your position because you don't have a single rule to support it.

*sigh* Did you even read my last post? I admitted that it was absurd. I was simply pointing out that the term "destroyed" is not specified in the rules, and the resulting interaction between what would normally be a clear ruleset and the LOS rules (which are based on the literal, physical construction of a model) creates an area in the rules open to interpretation. This is much like how a model with no "eyes" cannot draw line of sight. Everyone gets around this by interpreting the "spirit" of the rules in a certain way; there are no problems because nobody questions the interpretation.

The OP implicitly questioned the interpretation of a "weapon destroyed" result by reasoning that a vehicle could still pick a target and draw line of sight before being unable to shoot. Since nobody seemed to really go after this claim, instead opting to go for a "You can't shoot therefore you can't use searchlights" argument, I decided to take the idea further. I was looking to bring the argument as far as possible until the resulting game would be unplayable, as doing so ensures that you've exhausted all the arguments down a particular line of reasoning. I succeeded in doing so, as DeathReaper was able to bring up new points until we reached the logical conclusion of: "Playing this way breaks the game."

The important point is: Doing anything other than treating a vehicle's weapon as nonexistent both physically and rules-wise after a weapon destroyed result creates a system in which models and equipment have no correlation, which ultimately breaks the game. Ergo, it is better and more correct to play that a vehicle cannot use a searchlight if it has no weapons from which to draw line of sight, even though the Shooting Phase permissions to shoot do not specifically require the vehicle to have a weapon (which is not normally a necessary restriction for obvious reasons).

Ghaz wrote:By the rules the weapon is destroyed. You're trying to use the fact that the physical model isn't destroyed to justify your position because you don't have a single rule to support it.

I'm sorry, but by this interpretation the entire argument put before me becomes hypocritical. You're physically interpreting the rules in a very narrow and unjustifiable way, assuming the definition of destroyed. We assume that it means that something is completely destroyed - Which isn't correct. We would use COMPLETELY if we meant COMPLETELY destroyed. Therefore, the use of the word Destroyed is not as definitive as completely ruined and unusable, more it means the weapon is longer functioning, you have not a single English rule to support this.

It's almost the exact opposite of saying something is missing something, but is perfect; where perfect definitively means complete.

furthermore, a weapon could have its firing mechanism blown off, enough to justify that the weapon itself is still functioning, but can simply not shoot. (a lascannon missing a battery pack can still be aimed down, yet technically it is destroyed.)

Oh and, another thing. Calling the weapon destroyed by your definition would suggest that it is unfixable, yet a techmarine has its ways.

Xca|iber wrote:
Then I guess it comes down to your interpretation of destroyed, since the rulebook does not define whether "destroyed" means to treat the physical plastic as not existing, or simply that the "wargear" item is no longer part of the model's set of equipment. In the former, you're correct. However since we've marched down this silly road, one could argue that even if a weapon is destroyed, if the physical plastic part is still attached, then the barrel still exists and can therefore be used for line of sight.

But of course now we're getting into a debate about the existential link between the amorphous "profile" of a model and the physical model itself, which is an absurd line of discussion.

Now that we've taking this to it's most absurd extent, I think it's best to put this argument to bed. I'll concede this one. You can't use searchlights if you can't fire.

Not that the above statement isn't saying the same thing, but I think it is necessary to suggest that the very idea that searchlights can't fire is absurd. As our friendly Modhammer player had already said above.

Scipio Africanus wrote:

Ghaz wrote:By the rules the weapon is destroyed. You're trying to use the fact that the physical model isn't destroyed to justify your position because you don't have a single rule to support it.

I'm sorry, but by this interpretation the entire argument put before me becomes hypocritical. You're physically interpreting the rules in a very narrow and unjustifiable way, assuming the definition of destroyed. We assume that it means that something is completely destroyed - Which isn't correct. We would use COMPLETELY if we meant COMPLETELY destroyed. Therefore, the use of the word Destroyed is not as definitive as completely ruined and unusable, more it means the weapon is longer functioning, you have not a single English rule to support this.

It's almost the exact opposite of saying something is missing something, but is perfect; where perfect definitively means complete.

furthermore, a weapon could have its firing mechanism blown off, enough to justify that the weapon itself is still functioning, but can simply not shoot. (a lascannon missing a battery pack can still be aimed down, yet technically it is destroyed.)

Oh and, another thing. Calling the weapon destroyed by your definition would suggest that it is unfixable, yet a techmarine has its ways.

Okay, I was on your side at the beginning of this, but there are some holes in your argument:

First, English definitions do not substitute for rules. Destroyed is a subjective term that can have many interpretations (as I pointed out). It does not require the term "totally" or "completely" to imply that condition any more than it needs the term "partially" or "mostly" to imply those conditions. As such, we are left with only what the rules tell us to do. We are never told to quantify the level of destruction inflicted on a weapon, and so we leave it's condition ambiguous beyond simply "destroyed", just as we would for a model that has become a "casualty" and so on.

Second, we have a problem of consistency. Assuming we're even allowed to do it (we're not), who gets to determine how "destroyed" a weapon is? The attacking player gets to choose which weapon is destroyed; do they also get to quantify it? If the controlling player gets to decide, what's to stop them from removing "annoying" weapons that give enemies line of sight or block the vehicle's movement while keeping a gun that's useful for line of sight? What's to stop someone from saying the weapon is destroyed and the barrel is now bent at an angle, allowing it to "see" around corners? We're already in Modhammer territory here, I don't think I need to go further.

If we go by what's represented on the model as the final law on how a model can draw line of sight (e.g. a form of WYSIWYG), then we run into other problems. Sure, it's more consistent, but now you have to say that any model without eyes cannot draw LOS, because there are no rules pertaining to eyeless models and therefore, as we do with an undefined "destroyed" term, we go to the model to see what it can still do. No eyes, no LOS. Gun barrels on vehicles, LOS is okay. Surely you see how this is getting unfair for certain armies. And if we start treating vehicles and infantry differently, then we're in Modhammer again, since we're adding rules to facilitate gameplay.

All of this coming down to the fact that while there's nothing explicitly wrong with your argument from a RAW standpoint, given the ambiguous definition of "destroyed" as it relates to 40k vehicle weaponry, it's also not explicitly correct, and therefore not a good way to expect to play unless your local group agrees with you (as most people will not like having this interpretation sprung on them when its convenient for you). In the FLGS case, the whole point is moot as you all could be playing 40k with D100s and baseball rules.

My only problem with the searchlight bit is if the rhino or whatever still had its gun its range would be limited to 24" (for a storm bolter say) after the gun is gone however the searchlight has no range. I have to go with its cant be fired on its own as it is not a weapon and i know the rules dont specifically mention a weapon but it does say check for range and whats the range of a spot light? who knows...

SO under your perception of the rules the searchlight "magically" gains unlimited range, seems about right, doesn't it?

jgehunter wrote:SO under your perception of the rules the searchlight "magically" gains unlimited range, seems about right, doesn't it?

well if I'm searchlighting with a hunter seeker missle with unlimited range I suppose it could be possible but alas you still just roll 3d6 for spotting no matter the range of the weapon. Anyways, I think this has been brought up so many times now it really needs a FAQ though I am leaning towards not letting you aim a spotlight if you have no weapon but that's just me. I'm not gonna convince anyone here.

I'm not sure this is relevant, but it goes along with the OP's argument...

If an infantry unit with no shooting weapon somehow had some special ability which activated upon shooting (say the unit has the rule and one shooting weapon, but that guy dies, say a Unit of TH/SS termies with a cyclone and some such rule), would they still be able to shoot without actually having any weapons to shoot with? Just curious.

Firstly, to say you fire "nothing" is semantically trying to equate doing nothing to an action. Nothing, is not something. "Doing nothing" is not doing something.
1) So no - if you fired "nothing" you did not shoot.

Lets say, you can shoot "nothing". Did you hit a target to illuminate it? No
2) You did not hit any target, so no unit is illuminated by your searchlight.

Lets again, say you hit that unit with "nothing". (As if shooting "nothing" isn't absurd enough).
3) Your range with "no weapon" is 0. You may illuminate a unit within 0 inches.

Why stop there? How many times can a unit shoot "nothing" per turn? You may fire your 0" range nothing weapon of nothingness an infinite number of times.

If the weapon system is used to aim the searchlight, if the weapon is destroyed, so is the aiming system.

So, if the vehicle has 2 weapons, why doesn't the first weapon knocked out take the searchlight with it?
As mentioned, how can a Dreadnought with 2 CCW aim its searchlight?

As an Eldar player, who gets no searchlights anyway, I say it can't be used if there are no weapons left.
But, as a SM player, is the smoke launcher a weapon? It is used in place of shooting, so can it be used to aim the searchlight?

Reading the RAW, I'm thinking that no shooty means no searchy.

Skinnereal wrote:If the weapon system is used to aim the searchlight, if the weapon is destroyed, so is the aiming system.

So, if the vehicle has 2 weapons, why doesn't the first weapon knocked out take the searchlight with it?
As mentioned, how can a Dreadnought with 2 CCW aim its searchlight?

As an Eldar player, who gets no searchlights anyway, I say it can't be used if there are no weapons left.
But, as a SM player, is the smoke launcher a weapon? It is used in place of shooting, so can it be used to aim the searchlight?

Reading the RAW, I'm thinking that no shooty means no searchy.

It is used in place of shooting but it is not itself shooting, I don't get what you are trying to say.

Skinnereal wrote:It is used in place of shooting, so can it be used to aim the searchlight?

No it's not - it's used during the movement phase. It has nothing to do with shooting, besides the fact that it disallows shooting from the smoking unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

Skinnereal wrote:Smoke Launcher...It is used in place of shooting, so can it be used to aim the searchlight?

No it's not - it's used during the movement phase. It has nothing to do with shooting, besides the fact that it disallows shooting from the smoking unit.

OK, noted. Thanks.

Skinnereal wrote:So, if the vehicle has 2 weapons, why doesn't the first weapon knocked out take the searchlight with it?

Because you can not destroy a searchlight as there is no allowance to do so in the BRB.

Skinnereal wrote:As mentioned, how can a Dreadnought with 2 CCW aim its searchlight?.

The Dread with 2 CCW's usually has, for space marines, a storm bolter, and a meltagun under the CCW's (One on the right arm, one on the left arm). So a dread with 2 CCW's can usually still shoot.

If the DCCW is destroyed, the ranged weapon on that same arm is destroyed as well, so if both DCCW's are destroyed, the dread can no longer shoot, unless it has a HKM, and therefore can not use its searchlight.

The guard codex allows you to check line of sight for things like orders that has nothing to do with the unit drawing line of sight actually shooting a gun. Now this may be infantry and not a tank but whats to stop you from also doing this with a tank. Yes it may have no guns but the first part of this is to pick a target and then see if it is even close enough for you to catch a gaze at. Feth I could try and draw line of sight on a unit with every vehicle in my army just to make sure my men can hit it with their guns and never fire a tank. the search lights didn't fall off if all of the guns did so why can't i use them. Just my view of the thing.

White Ninja wrote:The guard codex allows you to check line of sight for things like orders that has nothing to do with the unit drawing line of sight actually shooting a gun.

Sure, some special rules require LOS to be checked. That's different from targeting a unit to shoot it, which is what Searchlights require.

White Ninja wrote:Now this may be infantry and not a tank but whats to stop you from also doing this with a tank. Yes it may have no guns but the first part of this is to pick a target and then see if it is even close enough for you to catch a gaze at. Feth I could try and draw line of sight on a unit with every vehicle in my army just to make sure my men can hit it with their guns and never fire a tank. The search lights didn't fall off if all of the guns did so why can't i use them. Just my view of the thing.

You can check LOS with a vehicle, if a special rule requires it. What you can't do is use a Searchlight unless you're shooting at something.

Also all this stupid stuff attacking people and claiming that in the case without a gun the search light could be used at any distance is ignorant. Since they are only ever used for night fighting they can only ever have a range of what you can spot a unit at. Since it can only really be used with a max range of 36 inches its not unreasonable to still let them use it. Also since the order of operations is 1) pick target 2) check sight range 3) fire guns why cant i do part 1 and 2 even if i have no gun to fire still.
Sorry If this comes out sounding angry but all of this "how many times a turn can you fire nothing" aggravates me and isn't productive to the question at hand.

Slightly off-topic, do you need to successfully spot the target to light it up? I never really read the actual rules for Searchlights until recently, and I noted it said "Once the target has been acquired...", so it seems that you must pass the night fighting test to actually see the unit.

White Ninja wrote:...since the order of operations is 1) pick target 2) check sight range 3) fire guns why cant i do part 1 and 2 even if i have no gun to fire still.

Because P.16 tells us that "In order to select an enemy unit as a target, at least one model in the firing unit must have LoS to at least one model in the target unit."

A vehicle with no weapons can not have LoS to anything. This is because vehicle LoS is drawn by tracing "the line of sight from each weapons mounting along its barrel" (brb 58)

A vehicle with all of its weapons destroyed can not "See" anything.

@HJ Yes you actually need to "See" the target unit within your spot distance and fire upon a unit to light it with a searchlight.

Mannahnin wrote:
This certainly isn't realistic, but the rules are clear on this.

Actually, I'd say this is quite realistic IMHO.

Contrary to what we, as the all-seeing general want a unit to do, shining a searchlight puts the vehicle using it at risk...however in the real world, a searchlight essentially helps the firer spot the target he's shooting at (even though in the game it doesn't actually help the vehicle with the searchlight on it).

So if the vehicle doesn't have a weapon to fire, the models onboard are not going to risk their necks lighting up their own vehicle when they have nothing at all to shoot with. Its only when the guy manning the bolter yells to 'swing the light around so I can see what the hell I'm shooting at' that they would bother to put themselves in danger by using their searchlight.

Related...if a rhino has only a storm bolter and attempts to acquire a target that happens to be 30'' away. Can that rhino searchlight the enemy even if he is unable to fire weapons due to the enemy being out of range?

I do not see where it says you need to shoot at the enemy to searchlight it.

helixthief wrote:Related...if a rhino has only a storm bolter and attempts to acquire a target that happens to be 30'' away. Can that rhino searchlight the enemy even if he is unable to fire weapons due to the enemy being out of range?

You could do that. You would spot the target, illuminate the target, but automatically miss with the stormbolter due to range.

helixthief wrote:I do not see where it says you need to shoot at the enemy to searchlight it.

It's been explained repeatedly. If you're not following, I suggest reading the thread again.

I read the thread, then tried to find where it says that in my books and do not see it. I have the Black Read rule book and the SM codex. Is there are page # of either of those?

helixthief wrote:I do not see where it says you need to shoot at the enemy to searchlight it.

you need to be able to shoot at something to illuminate it.

If you miss your shots you have still spotted it and fired at it, but you are out of range, so you auto miss.

You have still acquired a target, and illuminated it with the spotlight.

The thread covers this, with page numbers for reference, explicitly.

For example: P.16 tells us that "In order to select an enemy unit as a target, at least one model in the firing unit must have LoS to at least one model in the target unit." So as long as you have LoS, and make your spot distance roll for nightfighting you will use the spotlight regardless if you hit or not.

...and regardless if you shoot or not.

(im not talking about aiming or shooting with nothing, I mean when you have a weapon you just dont fire it)


I am correct saying you dont need to shoot at something to illuminate it right?

You select your target

Roll for night fighting (it is within the 2d6x3)

and choose not to shoot at it, or cant shoot at it

it is still illuminated, right?

White Ninja wrote:Also all this stupid stuff attacking people and claiming that in the case without a gun the search light could be used at any distance is ignorant. Since they are only ever used for night fighting they can only ever have a range of what you can spot a unit at. Since it can only really be used with a max range of 36 inches its not unreasonable to still let them use it. Also since the order of operations is 1) pick target 2) check sight range 3) fire guns why cant i do part 1 and 2 even if i have no gun to fire still.
Sorry If this comes out sounding angry but all of this "how many times a turn can you fire nothing" aggravates me and isn't productive to the question at hand.

My fault about the first part¡ I'll concede that.

And to the second part, you can't check sight without a weapon.

helixthief wrote:...and regardless if you shoot or not.

(im not talking about aiming or shooting with nothing, I mean when you have a weapon you just dont fire it)

The Searchlight rules require it. "Having fired at it, they will illuminate the unit." It's an intrinsic part of the process. You have to successfully spot the target, and shoot at it, and then you light it up. The Night Fighting rules also include similar wording making clear that you have to be shooting to spot an enemy unit.

Like it or no, searchlights are tied to weapon systems. If all your weapon systems are destroyed, so are your searchlights.

How do Tau Markerlights work?

Markerlights aren't really shooting, can't take cover saves, etc. I would think that those rules might fit into this conversation. Unfortunately, I don't have a Tau codex handy (at work).