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.

In a perfect world, cover saves would be figured from the starting position (like they are with the Tantalus) and would require the vehicle to have Line of Sight when it BEGINS it's turbo boost. That would make the MOST sense.

Fragile wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Tau Smart Missile Systems and Seeker Missiles.....
Tyranid Hive Guard.....

Both have weapons that do not need line of sight to shoot.
But GW in their stellar rule writing manner never gave them an exception to needing Line of Sight to wound....... So by strict RaW, you could shoot at a unit out of sight, but never be allowed to wound it.

Its very clearly not as intended, but it is the way it would be if you followed strict RaW.

Hive Guard require LOS. In the old codex they did not need LOS, but now they do (and they were straight up given Ignores Cover.


Since it hasn't been mentioned yet, I'll just throw this out there:
Nova powers and Beam powers can potentially target and hit units out of sight.
Astral Aim straight up gives permission to target units out of sight.

HJ, Impaler cannons are homing

Derp. Shows how much chance I've had to play the new codex. I really need to get some more games in...

JubbJubbz wrote:
I would play that they do not need LoS

RAW I would say its entirely nonsensical as others have pointed out there's no rules for wound allocation outside of shooting attacks or close combat attacks.

If you try to follow the shooting rules there's also the paragraph right next to the line of sight one requiring that the target be in range. If you are going to argue they follow the line of sight for shooting why not the range for shooting? The attacks range is undefined so its even further fubared

The range is defined; as a single opponent they pass over (paraphrasing), so range is taken care of.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:
In a perfect world, cover saves would be figured from the starting position (like they are with the Tantalus) and would require the vehicle to have Line of Sight when it BEGINS it's turbo boost. That would make the MOST sense.

This would be nice to see, indeed.

JubbJubbz wrote:
If you try to follow the shooting rules there's also the paragraph right next to the line of sight one requiring that the target be in range. If you are going to argue they follow the line of sight for shooting why not the range for shooting? The attacks range is undefined so its even further fubared

Range isn't an issue - the 'range' of the attack is 'a unit that the reavers moved over'...



I would suggest treating it as a close combat attack (since that's essentially what the fluff says it is) but that raises issues as to how much of the close combat rules need to be applied to the situation.


Basically, it's a mess, and GW didn't factor in anything that wasn't a standard shooting or close combat attack when they wrote the casualty removal rules for this edition.

This is why the revolving codex approach sucks. The game needs a single set of rulebooks actually all written for the same edition.

 insaniak wrote:
I would suggest treating it as a close combat attack (since that's essentially what the fluff says it is) but that raises issues as to how much of the close combat rules need to be applied to the situation.

This also seemed logical to me, but the rules specifically allow cover saves against the bladevanes, which brings up some confusion when it comes to CC attacks.

 Jimsolo wrote:
This also seemed logical to me, but the rules specifically allow cover saves against the bladevanes, which brings up some confusion when it comes to CC attacks.

Yeah, that would be an issue. But really, whichever way you go here causes rules issues, so assuming that it's just one specific case where a cover save is allowed againast a close combat attack makes as much sense as any other way to do it, in my book.

If it's ever FAQd, I rather suspect that GW will just say something to the effect of 'Yes, of course you can remove casualities from outside LOS' without bothering to actually fix the rules behind it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
This also seemed logical to me, but the rules specifically allow cover saves against the bladevanes, which brings up some confusion when it comes to CC attacks.

Yeah, that would be an issue. But really, whichever way you go here causes rules issues, so assuming that it's just one specific case where a cover save is allowed againast a close combat attack makes as much sense as any other way to do it, in my book.

If it's ever FAQd, I rather suspect that GW will just say something to the effect of 'Yes, of course you can remove casualities from outside LOS' without bothering to actually fix the rules behind it.

You might very well be right. Given that it allows cover saves and (thanks to the FAQ) a fixed origin point, I kind of thought it was easier to treat it as a shooting attack. Either way it's still screwed up.

Despite all the talk of hitting v wounding in regards of requiring line of sight, in all the "examples" give so far the rules for those attacks specifically say that models out of line of sight can be hit.

It's not a huge leap to accept that "can be hit" = "can be wounded"

No such grant is given for Vector Strikes and fly over attacks.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Despite all the talk of hitting v wounding in regards of requiring line of sight, in all the "examples" give so far the rules for those attacks specifically say that models out of line of sight can be hit.

It's not a huge leap to accept that "can be hit" = "can be wounded"

No such grant is given for Vector Strikes and fly over attacks.

Nope thats the way everyone but a WAAC TFG would play it.

We are just discussing that it is actually not the way it is in the rules, even if it was obviously the intention.

I've actually found it to be incredibly common for players to accept that hits can be generated on a model that can't legally have a wound allocated to it. Out of my opponents, it's probably more common than the reverse idea.

Bladevanes are neither a shooting nor cc attack. They are their own special snowflake.

The whole "out of sight" piece deals explicitly with "models in the firing unit". Even if you want to ignore that sentence, the one stating that wounds would be lost directly references "shooting attack". ergo, they only apply when shooting. Heck, you don't even make "to hit" rolls. You just roll to see how many attacks you have and skip straight to doing the to wound roles.

As bladevanes aren't a shooting attack, the out of sight thing just doesn't apply.

So we either end up without the ability for bladevanes to work at all (not shooting/not cc) OR we use a bit of sense and cut the garbage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:
In a perfect world, cover saves would be figured from the starting position (like they are with the Tantalus) and would require the vehicle to have Line of Sight when it BEGINS it's turbo boost. That would make the MOST sense.

100% agree.

clively wrote:
Bladevanes are neither a shooting nor cc attack. They are their own special snowflake.

The whole "out of sight" piece deals explicitly with "models in the firing unit". Even if you want to ignore that sentence, the one stating that wounds would be lost directly references "shooting attack". ergo, they only apply when shooting. Heck, you don't even make "to hit" rolls. You just roll to see how many attacks you have and skip straight to doing the to wound roles.

As bladevanes aren't a shooting attack, the out of sight thing just doesn't apply.

So we either end up without the ability for bladevanes to work at all (not shooting/not cc) OR we use a bit of sense and cut the garbage.

Find permission to allocate wounds without using the shooting rules.

If you can not, then why are you cherry picking rules to use from the shooting section?