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.

I can't find any wording in the book that equate gaining Stealth/Shroud being based on the distance between the firing unit and the target unit.

The only reference to the firing unit is found in the 36" can't target at all rule.

It's measured from unit to unti. It says so.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
It's measured from unit to unti. It says so.

I just can't find that wording and no one has been able to show me where it says that.

It's essential to the whole way that night fighting works and there's nothing definetive.

It's under night fighting.

Pg 124.

....

Measure from the firing unit to the target.

over 36"? Can't Target.
under 36"? Target.
under 12"? No Cover Bonus.
Over 12" but under 24"? +1 Cover Bonus.
Over 24" but under 36"? +2 Cover Bonus.

What's the question?

BRB page 4 wrote:Distances between units are always measured to and from the closest models in each of the units (see diagram below).

BRB page 124 wrote:The shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away - such units are completely hidden in the darkness. Units between 24" and 36" inches away are treated as having the Shrouded special rule. Units between 12" and up to 24" away are instead treated as having the Stealth special rule. Units less than 12" away can be shot at normally

Explicitly between units.

That's where I'm coming from on this. I've always played it as the distance from the firing model and apply the normal rules for shooting.

The rule is written as follows.

The SHOOTING UNIT cannot pick a target more than 36" away....Fine the shooting unit can't pick a target.

Then it changes to reference the target unit not the shooting unit. This would seem to follow the normal rules for shooting as a model may not fire if it's weapons cannot hit a unit. Those rules are as follows.

Units between 24" and 36" away are treated as having the shrouded special rule.

This would mean that if closest model in target unit fall within that range for a firing model, it would gain Shrouded. The entry doesn't mention unit to unit, or shooting unit to target.

Units between 12" and up to 24" away are instead treated as having the stealth special rule.

Same issue, no mention of unit to unit.

There are other issues with the wording that could cause someone to be obtuse, but it's better not to even bring that up.

It's simple, you measure closest to closest to determine if a unit is over or under 24" away. If even one model in the defending unit is under 24" away then the entire unit only gets stealth.

Same for 36", if one model is 35" away, the entire unit can be hit and killed.

I believe this is clarified in the faq as well.

 Kevin949 wrote:

I believe this is clarified in the faq as well.

That rung a bell and I went to check, but it's not there in the BRB listing. I think that it was in the last edition FAQ but it's not there anymore.

I just need something definetive, and I don't think that I'm gonna find it.

Bummer.

Thanks, though.

 Idolator wrote:
That's where I'm coming from on this. I've always played it as the distance from the firing model and apply the normal rules for shooting.

The rule is written as follows.

The SHOOTING UNIT cannot pick a target more than 36" away....Fine the shooting unit can't pick a target.

Then it changes to reference the target unit not the shooting unit. This would seem to follow the normal rules for shooting as a model may not fire if it's weapons cannot hit a unit. Those rules are as follows.

Units between 24" and 36" away are treated as having the shrouded special rule.

This would mean that if closest model in target unit fall within that range for a firing model, it would gain Shrouded. The entry doesn't mention unit to unit, or shooting unit to target.

Units between 12" and up to 24" away are instead treated as having the stealth special rule.

Same issue, no mention of unit to unit.

There are other issues with the wording that could cause someone to be obtuse, but it's better not to even bring that up.

The whole paragraph on page 124 "Picking a Target..." is in the context of targeting a unit while shooting.
"The shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away - such units are completely hidden.. "
It then lists more cases of 'such units', i.e. the ones picked as a target.

"Units between 24" and 36" away.."
"Units between 12" and up to 24" away.. "
"Units less than 12" away.. "

So we have 4 cases of units being picked as a target, each in a range band.

Distances between units are measured from the closest model to closest model (page 4, "measuring distances', 3rd paragraph).

The only time we're called to measure the distance between these units is in step 2 of the shooting sequence.

Night Fighting effects are based on that distance and at that point in the shooting sequence, since you are never asked to measure the distance between units again, only the distance to individual models, i.e. to determine the next closest to allocate wounds to.

The Night Fighting rules even specify that if an attack scatters, the extra distance gained is NOT counted to re-determine night fighting effects. Which is strange because that extra explanation is not needed.

Idolator, there is no contention on this rule, except in your own head.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
Idolator, there is no contention on this rule, except in your own head.

I admit that. I thought that i had already admitted that. I was looking for clarification. It's why i asked the question.

Thanks for the input.

It's a context thing. A distance is between two things, right? If you're only given one side, it is reasonable to assume that the first side has not changed

A<-->B
"<--->B
"<--->B

We can assume that the quotes above are further references to A, as opposed to being references to something else (firing model).

Pyrian wrote:
It's a context thing. A distance is between two things, right? If you're only given one side, it is reasonable to assume that the first side has not changed

A<-->B
"<--->B
"<--->B

We can assume that the quotes above are further references to A, as opposed to being references to something else (firing model).

Yeah, I see what you mean. If everyone wan't to read it that way, I'm fine with it. I just wish that GW would pick a term and stick to it. At least in the same paragraph. It went from shooting unit to target, then jumped to the trageted unit and just refered to it as unit.

I was reading it wrong. Oh, well.

I just wish that GW would pick a term and stick to it

Amen, and this ain't the only thing.

"units between" means you can only be considering the distance between the 2 units, which is measured closest to closest.

If they meant to talk about model to model distance they would have to explicitly state so

Also important to note is that if a unit is exactly 24" it would gain both Stealth AND Shrouded.

 Heartless wrote:
Also important to note is that if a unit is exactly 24" it would gain both Stealth AND Shrouded.

You can't be exactly 24" away.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

 Heartless wrote:
Also important to note is that if a unit is exactly 24" it would gain both Stealth AND Shrouded.

You can't be exactly 24" away.

You can actually, but even so you cannot gain both.

The rule say units between 24" and 36" for Shrouded
and between 12" and up to 24" for Stealth.

if you are exactly 24" away you gain Stealth ONLY.

Being exactly at 24 is not "in between" 24 and 36.

You want to argue the semantic on "exactly"? I don't.

Either way.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
You want to argue the semantic on "exactly"? I don't.

Either way.

No, it is arguing rules, which given they are based in language does mean some semantic analysis is necessary

"between" means once you are past 24" you gain Shrouded. At 24" you are not between 24" and 36" away, because ...well, theyre different phrases with totally different meanings

You can't be exactly at 24". You sir, are incable of being exactly at anything. You always be a litlle over or under. See? This is semantics. This is why arguing about it is dumb.

Since you are measuring from two fixed points, the closest edges of two bases, you can in fact be exactly 24" apart. This is the distance from one unit to another where they tell you to measure from closest to closest not the average or mean between all members of both units.

I think you're missing my point. You can't even draw a line exactly 24" long with a ruler.

I have to assume then that you go with calipers and check your equipment before each measurement. I hold the tape up and it comes up at 24" then it's 24" not about 24". That is all we can do. If you want to look at it like we can never be precise then I want you to prove before you shoot that each inch on your tape measure is correct and to measure out the 1" around each model when you move around my units. You can't do it. If the tape reads 24" it's 24".

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
You can't be exactly at 24". You sir, are incable of being exactly at anything. You always be a litlle over or under. See? This is semantics. This is why arguing about it is dumb.

As you are measuring between two objects, you can be.

Please, stop calling things you disagree with "dumb", it just makes people less willing to engage with you.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
You can't be exactly at 24". You sir, are incable of being exactly at anything. You always be a litlle over or under. See? This is semantics. This is why arguing about it is dumb.

As an aside I have to assume then that you always move your models to less then max as otherwise you would be knowingly breaks the rules as you can't exactly measure the distance? If the answer is no, drop it.

Yes, actually. WHen I move something, I assume it's essentially 5.9" away. For mathematical purposes, anyway. Units start 24.1" apart at deployment, etc.

The issue is the word "exactly", it's much like "perfect". WHen most people say "exactly" they don't actually mean "exactly" they mean "almost exactly".

See? Like I said, semantics. But I guarantee you, no matter how hard you try, you can't ever get anything exactly 24" apart.

And I'll call it dumb if it's dumb. Thee are a lot of dumb arguments here.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
Yes, actually. WHen I move something, I assume it's essentially 5.9" away. For mathematical purposes, anyway. Units start 24.1" apart at deployment, etc.

The issue is the word "exactly", it's much like "perfect". WHen most people say "exactly" they don't actually mean "exactly" they mean "almost exactly".

See? Like I said, semantics. But I guarantee you, no matter how hard you try, you can't ever get anything exactly 24" apart.

And I'll call it dumb if it's dumb. Thee are a lot of dumb arguments here.

If you feel that most of the arguments are dumb, then perhaps YMDC is not the place for you.

 Happyjew wrote:

If you feel that most of the arguments are dumb, then perhaps YMDC is not the place for you.

I would say that the majority of arguments are dumb. In general, not just here.

Here it may even be more prevalent. We are, after all, discussing how our dolls imaginarily shoot at one another.

I've accepted that premise and spend plenty of time making sure that my dolls are as pretty as I can make them.

His argument was, technicaly, valid. All we ever discuss in this forum are technicalities.