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.

Greetings!

Just a quick (and hopefully stupid) question - friend of mine had a game yesterday against a necron player fielding three Doom Scythes and two Night Scythes. A lot of questionable things were happening - particularly the fliers firing BEHIND themselves.

Now, I'm aware that you can't have wounds allocated to models that the firing unit can not see. The necron player, however, argued that the weapon is described as "turret mounted" in the fluff (first paragraph of Night Scythe fluff entry) - and this substantiates its ability to turn around and look in a 360 degree arc. He then pointed out that many weapons on vehicles don't have specific definitions of if they are a turret or not, and also pointed out where the rulebook stated:

On some models, it will actually be impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target because of how it has been assembled or has been glued into place. In this case, players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings.

I would think that both necron fliers would be restrained to only having a forward LOS, but I'm interested to hear what you have to say, as stupid as the question may sound to you.

(Note: I did do a search, but came up with results on how to resolve Doom Rays, if Doom Rays can draw a line behind them, etc - but nothing specifically on this topic that I could find, but apologies if this was already covered!)

Scratch that.

So first off, it doesn't matter what the fluff says, there's no way it's actually turret mounted though. First off, it's impossible to spin it like a turret. Second, it's affixed to the hull.

I'm sure it's a mistake in the fluff. Besides that, I though it had to say "turret mounted' in the rules of the vehicle.

For the Tesla Destructors? no question. Even a cursory review of the models in question should indicate that they are fixed in a forward position just under the pilot; and therefore hull-mounted with a 45 degree firing arc facing forward from the necron vehicle.

The Deathray however? is a bit more complicated. Not only does it look a lot like a turret, but it also has the special rule of being able to fire at "...a point on the battlefield anywhere within the weapon's range..." Which would as a codex rule supercede the normal firing arc rules in my opinion anyway.


What my gaming-cohorts and I had decided on after a discussion very similar to the OPs is that all the necron planes have hull mounted weapons, but that the firing arc restrictions don't matter in the case of the Doom Scythes' Death Ray.

It would override firing arc, but not LOS rules. So you can hit enemy models out of firing arc, but you cannot wound / armour penetrate.

that logic would make Hive Guard and Smart Missiles a joke.

And Astral Aim. As the rules are currently written there is no way to actually allocate wounds to a unit that is completely out of sight. The only possible exception is (Large) Blast Weapons, and even that RAW is iffy. Probably 99.99% of people doubt that is what GW intended and do not play that way.

Yeah, sadly 6th edition borked most weapons and/or special abilities which used to allow one to wound something out of LOS. Here is to hoping for a fix at some point.

Happyjew wrote:
And Astral Aim. As the rules are currently written there is no way to actually allocate wounds to a unit that is completely out of sight. The only possible exception is (Large) Blast Weapons, and even that RAW is iffy. Probably 99.99% of people doubt that is what GW intended and do not play that way.

Barrage; no matter the size of the blast: it can always target and allocate the wounds to models completely out of LOS(also range)

Happyjew wrote:
And Astral Aim. As the rules are currently written there is no way to actually allocate wounds to a unit that is completely out of sight. The only possible exception is (Large) Blast Weapons, and even that RAW is iffy. Probably 99.99% of people doubt that is what GW intended and do not play that way.

5 out of 4 statistics are made up.

Astral Aim, Smart Missile and Impaler Cannons all have rules from 5th edition (or older?). It's pretty clear that the older army book FAQ's don't cover everything, and I don't think looking to 5th edition codex special rules to understang basic 6th edition rules is a good idea.

-Matt

coredump wrote:
that logic would make Hive Guard and Smart Missiles a joke.

Since Hive Guard ignore LOS, I would think they would ignore rules linked to LOS - and as such can always hit / wound their targets.

Anyway, good to see the general consensus is a static forward LOS.

 Kharrak wrote:

coredump wrote:
that logic would make Hive Guard and Smart Missiles a joke.

Since Hive Guard ignore LOS, I would think they would ignore rules linked to LOS - and as such can always hit / wound their targets. .

If only hats what their rule said....
(it doesn't)

As it is I've yet to meet a player who did not allow wounds to be allocated to a unit out of sight when the weapon can target a unit out of sight (or a scattered blast marker).

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kharrak wrote:

coredump wrote:
that logic would make Hive Guard and Smart Missiles a joke.

Since Hive Guard ignore LOS, I would think they would ignore rules linked to LOS - and as such can always hit / wound their targets. .

If only hats what their rule said....
(it doesn't)

A decent argument can be made for it. The Impaler cannon ignore the LOS restriction for shooting. Wounding is part of the shooting process.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kharrak wrote:

coredump wrote:
that logic would make Hive Guard and Smart Missiles a joke.

Since Hive Guard ignore LOS, I would think they would ignore rules linked to LOS - and as such can always hit / wound their targets. .

If only hats what their rule said....
(it doesn't)

A decent argument can be made for it. The Impaler cannon ignore the LOS restriction for shooting. Wounding is part of the shooting process.

Again. That's not what the Impaler Cannon rule says. It says "can shoot at any target in range, regardless of whether there is line of sight to it or not."

Yes, and on pg 12. "Shooting Sequence" starts with choosing a unit to shoot and ends with resolving the wounds. So the "whether there is LOS or not" would also apply to the wounding part of the "shooting sequence"

But I am aware of both sides of the argument.

Context means it applies to the target only, nothing further. The 'can' sides argument fails there

So lets hear the fail then.

Fragile wrote:
So lets hear the fail then.

He... just pointed it out...
The Impaler Cannon can shoot any target in range.
There's no allowance to allocate, therefore when you get to a populated wound pool it's automatically emptied when out of line of sight.

Yup. 6th edition is very clear that unless the rule itself explicitly states differently; wounds cannot be allocated to a model you do not have LOS on and are 'automatically' lost if at any point you do not have LOS on any model the unit you targetted with the shooting attack. Even if you have a rule that lets you 'shoot' the model that isn't in LOS in the first place, what you need is a rule that lets you 'wound' said model. (see the 'barrage' rules for a specific 6th ed example)

can shoot at any target in range, regardless of whether there is line of sight to it or not.

What is shooting and how do you shoot something? You follow the sequence laid out on pg 12.

Shooting Sequence.
1.Nominate unit to shoot. (Hive Guard)
2.Choose a Target. pg 12. Needs Line of Sight. However, codex rule here trumps.. "Can shoot..."
3.Roll to Hit (frequently misinterpreted as "shooting", here is where you determine "hits" )
4.Roll to Wound (easily done.)
5.Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties. Notice that this is part of the "shooting" sequence.

There is no separate step called "shooting" nor a separate step called "wounding". There are also no "subphases" that would separate the wounding from the shooting. So you get to the LOS section of wounding, where it would normally empty the pool. Since wounding is part of the shooting phase, you can replace the term "can shoot" with "can wound regardless of LOS or not)

Incorrect, you are yet again ignoring context

The permission is on targetting. Nowhere else.

Sorry fragile, but that is blatantly incorrect.

Please refer to page 16 of the 'Allocating Wounds' section to see where the rules are about LOS and applying wounds to models out of same.

AFAIK, line of sight and fire arc is not the same thing. LOS is not restricted to the fire arc. It's pretty much just being able to draw a line between the models.

Freyzor wrote:
AFAIK, line of sight and fire arc is not the same thing. LOS is not restricted to the fire arc. It's pretty much just being able to draw a line between the models.

It is restricted on vehicles as you must trace LOS down the barrel of the weapon.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect, you are yet again ignoring context

The permission is on targetting. Nowhere else.

Cite the rule that says its targetting only.

You resolve shooting by doing steps 1-5.

Pg 15 "Emptied Wound Pool" When the wound pool is empty, the "shooting attack" has been completely resolved. You can begin your next shooting attack or proceed to Assault phase.

Sorry fragile, but that is blatantly incorrect.

Please refer to page 16 of the 'Allocating Wounds' section to see where the rules are about LOS and applying wounds to models out of same.

I am aware of the rule.. and I'll cite it for you "If there are no visible models in the Target unit, all remaining wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends."

45 degrees goes up and down too. So if you're close enough to a Necron flier, it can't shoot you even if you are in front of it.

Fragile wrote:
I am aware of the rule.. and I'll cite it for you "If there are no visible models in the Target unit, all remaining wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends."

Right. And if a Hive Guard shoots at a unit he can't see, and hits, and wounds, the wound pool is populated.
Where's the permission to allocate from the wound pool?

That rules argument is just as sound as the "wraithlords don't have eyes, so they can't shoot".

 DarknessEternal wrote:
That rules argument is just as sound as the "wraithlords don't have eyes, so they can't shoot".

Erm. Okay?
Both are 100% correct by the rules. In both situations the intent is obvious. It's also irrelevant in a RAW discussion.

I think most will agree that it's not 'intended' to work that way. (ie: RAI).That said, by RAW? it currently 'does' work that way.

I really would prefer it did not as i'm partial to playing purgation squads in a lot of my grey knight lists and doom scythes in my necron ones. Still, the rule is pretty clear for the moment even if it is one i'd find short-sighted given of all the examples of weapons that ignore LOS, only barrage ones recieved an appropriate update allowing them to still wound their target.

I'll quote the relevent text from there, so you can see what is missing in the Deathrays' (and indeed, every other LOS-ignoring attack currently) writeup. The main difference is Barrage weapons check LOS from the centre of the blast template and/or where the shot lands; rather than from the model as is the case with most other weapons.
"...when determining Wound allocation, always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker instead of from the firing model..."