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.

Example:

A unit of 2 Tau Broadsides are able to split their fire between 2 targets. Night Fighting is in effect.

The 1st Broadside fails its Night Fighting check. BRB: (if the check is failed), "the unit cannot fire at all in this Shooting phase". To the best of my knowledge the Tau codex has nothing to override this.

Can the 2nd Broadside now attempt to fire?

Thanks.

Not that it helps you in the slightest but PotMS would ask a similar question.

I'd say yes, the broadside unit can take (ie, test for) the second shot. Not RAW but I'd say RAI.

Different target, different check I would say.

Though I do find it odd that PotMS would require sight at all...

Units must fire at the same time regardless of number of targets. Even though its rules simultaneous it is real life sequential which may cause some confusion. Before you can roll for night fight you must declare what in your unit is shooting what. You cannot choose to shoot one at a time and then move on to another target once you have killed the initial target.

As such you declare the units target(s) then roll for night fight sight distance and apply this roll to all targets of the unit. Nothing allows you to check multiple times.

That seems like a reasonable interpretation too, thanks, Icemyn.

It's a little bit different from the night fight guidelines, ie, "first select a target..." but we're pretty obviously off GW's "expected" path here. Making the multi-searchlighters live with one roll is a good compromise.

Randall Turner wrote:That seems like a reasonable interpretation too, thanks, Icemyn.

It's a little bit different from the night fight guidelines, ie, "first select a target..." but we're pretty obviously off GW's "expected" path here. Making the multi-searchlighters live with one roll is a good compromise.

Yah, I'd go along with that one too. One check to cover both targets makes sense anyway, of sorts. If one target is so far away in the dark that you can't see it why should the next be visible at potentialy better range?

To me it makes more sense to do a check for each target.

For example, my squad of 5 rocket long fangs wants to shoot at two things in night fight. I declare both targets at once and who in the unit is shooting at each one, then check night fight for each target. if one test is failed then those models do not shoot, but the other models are still free to be able to shoot at the other declared target.

I have always played:


Declare your targets then roll once and apply the result to both shots.

I would say this is another thing that's up to the TO. There really isn't any RAW for this exact situation.

lol sure there is - you miss the roll, your firing phase is over.

It's highly unlikely that the 2 targets are the same distance away though so this brings up another issue.

By not allowing 2 rolls to be made are you then ok with the first Broadside checking distance to a unit say 12" away then (if successful) allowing the second Broadside to shoot at a a target at 48" using the same roll? Doubt it....

As a beloved night fighting necron player, I would INSIST on two separate rolls. I would treat the split firing unit as "two" units for fairness. But, thats just my call.

wildboar wrote:It's highly unlikely that the 2 targets are the same distance away though so this brings up another issue.

By not allowing 2 rolls to be made are you then ok with the first Broadside checking distance to a unit say 12" away then (if successful) allowing the second Broadside to shoot at a a target at 48" using the same roll? Doubt it....

When you check Nightfighting, you're determining the "spotting distance" that the unit can attack targets within. If you roll 22" as your spotting distance then the first Broadside can attack the target within 12" but the second is out of luck for the target at 48".

Basimpo wrote:As a beloved night fighting necron player, I would INSIST on two separate rolls. I would treat the split firing unit as "two" units for fairness. But, thats just my call.

In terms of fairness they're probably equivalent. I was partial to the single roll b/c it was closer to the night fight rule's wording, is all. To be clear, though, the "single roll" in that case would be for spotting distance, and it would be possible to acquire one target and not the other. (Yeah, I'm being captain obvious again.) Make a reasonable ruling, no stress.

+1 to Gavin Thorne
You pick targets first and then you roll for NF distance once. You may shoot any targets within that distance. I don't see why having multiple targets should provide multiple NF rolls

copper.talos wrote:+1 to Gavin Thorne
You pick targets first and then you roll for NF distance once. You may shoot any targets within that distance. I don't see why having multiple targets should provide multiple NF rolls

Because how do you determine if the "squad" passed or failed to spot when one is in range and one is not with only one roll? And since the NF rule says that the "squad" does not get to shoot if the check is failed, you can't determine a pass or fail definitively on a 50/50 ratio.

Whoa, kev, you're saying to play it RAW? ie the first fail prohibits further shooting?

I mean, we can go further down that road. The night-fighting rules only give a unit permission to fire on a single target, I think. (re-reading.. ) pretty much. You know I play Necron and all, I don't *want* to get searchlit twice, but it seems another case of concatenated special rules with undefined interactions. ie, I think RAW you're not wrong, and maybe aren't even being strict enough. But I don't think a TO would rule as strictly.

I'm going to go necro the Chronometron rolling for leadership thing again now..

Randall Turner wrote:I'm going to go necro the Chronometron rolling for leadership thing again now..

Huzzah! I already (somehow) brought back the EL vs SA thing. Now we can bring back Chrono and Leadership tests (and by extension Scatter rolls, and NF spotting rolls). I'm thinking either Hexrifle vs FNP or ES vs FNP next.

You roll once and apply that vision range to both broadsides.

If the longer range target is not in vision range but the shorter range one is then you can fire at the closer one but not the one out of vision range. The suit shooting at the closer target doesn't care whether his buddy can see a further away target, if he can see his target then he's gonna shoot it.

If the shorter range one is not in range then the longer range one will most likely not be either (I'll get back to this) so neither will be able to shoot.

The one exception would be if the suit shooting at the longer range target had a Blacksun Filter, which doubles his Night Fighting vision range. Only the model equipped with the BSF gets this benefit so you could have a case where the suit shooting at a target 21" away can't see it as you rolled 20" for spotting distance but the suit shooting at a target 30" away can see its target as it has a BSF and therefore can see double the rolled range up (so up to 40" in this example). In this situation the suit shooting at the longer range target can fire but the suit shooting at the closer target cannot.

So as you can see (or not, depending on your roll), Night Fighting rules with Tau can get pretty complicated compared to other forces.

A Town Called Malus wrote:You roll once and apply that vision range to both broadsides.

If the longer range target is not in vision range but the shorter range one is then you can fire at the closer one but not the one out of vision range. The suit shooting at the closer target doesn't care whether his buddy can see a further away target, if he can see his target then he's gonna shoot it.

If the shorter range one is not in range then the longer range one will most likely not be either (I'll get back to this) so neither will be able to shoot.

The one exception would be if the suit shooting at the longer range target had a Blacksun Filter, which doubles his Night Fighting vision range. Only the model equipped with the BSF gets this benefit so you could have a case where the suit shooting at a target 21" away can't see it as you rolled 20" for spotting distance but the suit shooting at a target 30" away can see its target as it has a BSF and therefore can see double the rolled range up (so up to 40" in this example). In this situation the suit shooting at the longer range target can fire but the suit shooting at the closer target cannot.

So as you can see (or not, depending on your roll), Night Fighting rules with Tau can get pretty complicated compared to other forces.

Since it is still one unit though and you declare your firing before determining your range through night fight rules, if you can't see the farther one then you've failed your check, period. Per the rules. This is why I believe it would be multiple checks because as you said, one suit doesn't care if the other can't see their own personal target. Just like how PotMS doesn't care if the marine driver can't see that flanking monstrous creature.

As for the BSF, you're right it does only work for the one suit but if the non-modified night fight roll didn't allow the non-BSF suit to fire, then RAW neither would fire. Again though, I don't feel that this is how it was intended, but maybe it was. It makes much more sense for multiple night fight rolls in these scenarios, allowing the suits (or the vehicle with PotMS) to act "as if" they were separate from one another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Randall Turner wrote:Whoa, kev, you're saying to play it RAW? ie the first fail prohibits further shooting?

I mean, we can go further down that road. The night-fighting rules only give a unit permission to fire on a single target, I think. (re-reading.. ) pretty much. You know I play Necron and all, I don't *want* to get searchlit twice, but it seems another case of concatenated special rules with undefined interactions. ie, I think RAW you're not wrong, and maybe aren't even being strict enough. But I don't think a TO would rule as strictly.

I'm going to go necro the Chronometron rolling for leadership thing again now..

No, not necessarily, I was simply pointing out a flaw in copper.talos' statement. And another, apparently, in the bronie above me.

Kevin949 wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:You roll once and apply that vision range to both broadsides.

If the longer range target is not in vision range but the shorter range one is then you can fire at the closer one but not the one out of vision range. The suit shooting at the closer target doesn't care whether his buddy can see a further away target, if he can see his target then he's gonna shoot it.

If the shorter range one is not in range then the longer range one will most likely not be either (I'll get back to this) so neither will be able to shoot.

The one exception would be if the suit shooting at the longer range target had a Blacksun Filter, which doubles his Night Fighting vision range. Only the model equipped with the BSF gets this benefit so you could have a case where the suit shooting at a target 21" away can't see it as you rolled 20" for spotting distance but the suit shooting at a target 30" away can see its target as it has a BSF and therefore can see double the rolled range up (so up to 40" in this example). In this situation the suit shooting at the longer range target can fire but the suit shooting at the closer target cannot.

So as you can see (or not, depending on your roll), Night Fighting rules with Tau can get pretty complicated compared to other forces.

Since it is still one unit though and you declare your firing before determining your range through night fight rules, if you can't see the farther one then you've failed your check, period. Per the rules. This is why I believe it would be multiple checks because as you said, one suit doesn't care if the other can't see their own personal target. Just like how PotMS doesn't care if the marine driver can't see that flanking monstrous creature.

As for the BSF, you're right it does only work for the one suit but if the non-modified night fight roll didn't allow the non-BSF suit to fire, then RAW neither would fire. Again though, I don't feel that this is how it was intended, but maybe it was. It makes much more sense for multiple night fight rolls in these scenarios, allowing the suits (or the vehicle with PotMS) to act "as if" they were separate from one another.

But if you can see the closer target you've passed the check. The rules as they are written in the main rulebook does not take into account one unit firing at multiple targets so applying those rules exactly as they are written is illogical.

You roll the vision range for the unit as a whole but then resolve whether the target is in vision range separately for the different targets and models firing at them.

My interpretation is supported by the Tau Codex. Under the BSF wargear entry it says that in a unit with one model with a BSF and others without, only the model with the BSF may fire at ranges beyond the normal 2d6*3" distance. So although other models in the unit cannot possibly see the target the BSF equipped model can still fire.

This strongly suggests that failing the vision check for one model in a split firing unit does not affect the shooting of models in that unit which pass the vision check due to them firing at a different target or having equipment which increases their vision range.

Doing it this way means you roll less dice (remember that all battlesuits have acute senses so rolling separate vision ranges for each suit could result in rolling for the vision range a total of six times) and so the game flows better.

A Town Called Malus wrote:But if you can see the closer target you've passed the check. The rules as they are written in the main rulebook does not take into account one unit firing at multiple targets so applying those rules exactly as they are written is illogical.

You roll the vision range for the unit as a whole but then resolve whether the target is in vision range separately for the different targets and models firing at them.

My interpretation is supported by the Tau Codex. Under the BSF wargear entry it says that in a unit with one model with a BSF and others without, only the model with the BSF may fire at ranges beyond the normal 2d6*3" distance. So although other models in the unit cannot possibly see the target the BSF equipped model can still fire.

This strongly suggests that failing the vision check for one model in a split firing unit does not affect the shooting of models in that unit which pass the vision check due to them firing at a different target or having equipment which increases their vision range.

Doing it this way means you roll less dice (remember that all battlesuits have acute senses so rolling separate vision ranges for each suit could result in rolling for the vision range a total of six times) and so the game flows better.

Only if the closer target is the only target, or you passed the check for the farther target as well. I know the rulebook doesn't cover this specific situation, which is why it really comes down to a house call.

The BSF rules are not quite like you interpret them for this situation. Look at it this way, I have a cryptek with a 36" range weapon and he is accompanying warriors or immortals...lets say he miraculously rolls two 6's on the NF roll, that gives him range. Now, technically the rest of the squad can't shoot, they're out of range, but that doesn't mean I failed the NF check. It's the same reasoning for the BSF, they made it so ONE model (or however many you give that to) can double the result, which means the "unit" didn't fail the check, only one model happens to be able to see so the rest are effectively out of range. Keep in mind however, this is running in a situation where the entire unit is firing at the same target (which is, obviously, the norm).

It seems that there are three equally unsupported solutions.

First: If the "unit" is out of range of at least one target you have failed your test.

Second: If the "unit" is in range of at least one target you have passed your test.

Third: Treat the firers as separate units for the purposes of NF checks and roll NF for each target applying the results separately to each firer.

Two of these options seem to favor either the firer or the target respectively, while the remaining option seems both fair and balanced.

So, er, is there a consensus? I do think the single night fighting check roll for the unit is the closest to the rules (ie. the single roll applies to each part of the unit that fires separately, taking into account that part's wargear eg. blacksun).

My opponent is demanding he uses two rolls if I can't produce a FAQ saying it's a single roll. I don't really care although I prefer to follow the rules of the game, so we'll play it his way probably regardless of consensus.

Sethorly wrote:So, er, is there a consensus? I do think the single night fighting check roll for the unit is the closest to the rules (ie. the single roll applies to each part of the unit that fires separately, taking into account that part's wargear eg. blacksun).

My opponent is demanding he uses two rolls if I can't produce a FAQ saying it's a single roll. I don't really care although I prefer to follow the rules of the game, so we'll play it his way probably regardless of consensus.

The rules do imply a single check. No FAQ required as it says "the unit" and "fails the check" with no allowances for additional checks.

I dunno, Kev convinced me it's probably better to treat it as two separate, completely unrelated firing attacks.

I don't think it matters as far as end result, though. And it's not specified in the rules. Pick one!

zeshin wrote:

Sethorly wrote:So, er, is there a consensus? I do think the single night fighting check roll for the unit is the closest to the rules (ie. the single roll applies to each part of the unit that fires separately, taking into account that part's wargear eg. blacksun).

My opponent is demanding he uses two rolls if I can't produce a FAQ saying it's a single roll. I don't really care although I prefer to follow the rules of the game, so we'll play it his way probably regardless of consensus.

The rules do imply a single check. No FAQ required as it says "the unit" and "fails the check" with no allowances for additional checks.

I am, personally, entirely inclined to agree with this method as it is per the RAW, HOWEVER in a friendly game I will ABSOLUTELY allow separate rolls in these specific situations. Mainly because it is both advantageous and disadvantageous for both parties.

I definitely agree. "How I would play it" would be separate rolls for additional targets, because that captures what I feel is the intent while being fair to both sides.

Randall Turner wrote:I dunno, Kev convinced me it's probably better to treat it as two separate, completely unrelated firing attacks.

I don't think it matters as far as end result, though. And it's not specified in the rules. Pick one!

Ya, it's a tough situation because I see the RAW in the situation but I disagree with it.