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.

One of the biggest non-arguments I ever had at a GT was over Tau broadsides in a unit trying to shoot one at a time (as in not selecting all their targets at once).

one little thing: I always find it cool when playing on someone else table and the owner tell everyone, before the game starts:
My table is 4" by 7".
Just a little bit of sportmanship

mauleed wrote:
When you're rules argument involves mind reading, it's generally not a very good rules argument.

When the case is obvious and as you've said you never miss your intended target , then it's not mind reading, it's identifying a cheater.

You know when you overguess, don't you? Even if the other person doesn't know you have broken the rules, you know that you have. So I'll say it out loud and with gusto. The rules say you can't target something you can't see. If a person overguesses deliberately, and it beggers belief that they don't know what they are doing, then they are choosing a new target, not the one that they have said they are targetting, and not one they could legally target, and as well they have ignored the rules of cannons regarding the best guess.

That's not mind reading, it's being alert.

The person who chooses to overguess to target a model he cannot legally target is a cheater, by the word of the rules. If a person is telling people "wink wink nudge nudge, I'm aiming at the unit 10" in front" and guess 20", they have exposed themselves as a cheat. Cannons do not ignore line of sight. They had no intention of hitting the target, and choose to do something that would fail. It's cheating pure and simple. You know it, which is why you suggested mind reading was required to know intent.

You did not choose, I note, to address the line of sight rules. Instead, you try to say I'm saying mind reading is required. It is not. Just a desire on both sides to respect the rules, not attempt to bypass them. That Gav suggested it as a possible option is not a suprise. Have you read any of the battle reports? Expecting designers to follow the rules seems to be a stretch.

In the end it's no different then the person who slips that extra inch of movement in during the movement phase or says, "Of course I have a ward save". The other person may not know they been cheated, but the cheater does. Shame on anyone who makes the choice to cheat, but it's thier shame, not mine. I've given you the rules and all you've come back with if it requires mind reading it doesn't count. Here's the truth, if a person knows they are cheating or are caught making an error it's up to them to address thier behavior.

So ultimately I'm saying the guesser needs to read thier own darn mind and choose not to cheat. If you have an actual counterarguement using the rules to support you please tell me where the rules allow you to choose that illegal target.

Here are the pages and rules I used to reach this position

Line of Sight (p.26 paragraph 1)
Firing a cannon (p.87 paragraph 2, final line)
Intent (based on the charge ruling in the current Warhammer 7 FAQ page 2 first paragraph of answer of first charge question.)

If you can find a page which supports your position, please give me the location.

That's alot of talk about people cheating without you referencing a rule being broken. (and no, a page number with no explaination doesn't cut it).

The rules are crystal clear on the point: I pick whatever model I want to target, and guess any distance I want. And that's exactly what the overguesser does....something explicitly allowed in the rules.

But you keep on with the longwinded posts. I'm sure someone somewhere is reading all of that.

mauleed wrote:That's alot of talk about people cheating without you referencing a rule being broken. (and no, a page number with no explaination doesn't cut it).

The rules are crystal clear on the point: I pick whatever model I want to target, and guess any distance I want. And that's exactly what the overguesser does....something explicitly allowed in the rules.

But you keep on with the longwinded posts. I'm sure someone somewhere is reading all of that.

It is crystal clear you intend to cheat.

Don't sugar coat it.

Just because the rules don't explicitly say you can't, you say they say you can. That's not an arguement, that a cheater's excuse.

Actually, the RAW explicitly allows him to do so. Same went for 40k in 3rd ed.

Consider it poor sportsmanship if you like, but it is by definition not cheating. Exploiting a glitch, maybe, but it breaks no rule.

mauleed wrote:That's alot of talk about people cheating without you referencing a rule being broken. (and no, a page number with no explaination doesn't cut it).

The rules are crystal clear on the point: I pick whatever model I want to target, and guess any distance I want. And that's exactly what the overguesser does....something explicitly allowed in the rules.

But you keep on with the longwinded posts. I'm sure someone somewhere is reading all of that.

To be perfectly clear the lines are


p.26 "Only those who have line of sight to the target can shoot and the rest automatically miss."

p.87 " (remember the target must be visible from the machine itself)"

FAQ Using the deliberate failed charge as an example "Declaring a charge you know can not be completed ... is cheating)

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Actually, the RAW explicitly allows him to do so. Same went for 40k in 3rd ed.

Consider it poor sportsmanship if you like, but it is by definition not cheating. Exploiting a glitch, maybe, but it breaks no rule.

If you do something you know will fail, for your own advantage you have cheated. You can't charge a unit you obviously cannot reach for the exact same reason.
The action is not legal, so it fails because completing the action = cheating.

I have a mate I played the other day, and I ahd either locked everything in combat, deepstriking or dead. and I got him to deepstrike shoot with the Zoanthroape which forced my templars to assualt, it the lictor following my men just behind. at the end of the turn I started my turn and he accused me of cheating and skipping his turn. I tried to explain it to him for about 15 minutes, but he wouldn't relent and forfeited... The moral don't let people cheat!!!

efarrer wrote:

mauleed wrote:That's alot of talk about people cheating without you referencing a rule being broken. (and no, a page number with no explaination doesn't cut it).

The rules are crystal clear on the point: I pick whatever model I want to target, and guess any distance I want. And that's exactly what the overguesser does....something explicitly allowed in the rules.

But you keep on with the longwinded posts. I'm sure someone somewhere is reading all of that.

To be perfectly clear the lines are


p.26 "Only those who have line of sight to the target can shoot and the rest automatically miss."

p.87 " (remember the target must be visible from the machine itself)"

FAQ Using the deliberate failed charge as an example "Declaring a charge you know can not be completed ... is cheating)

That's the rub. You are saying you are targeting the Glade Riders but in reality you are targeting the Treeman out of LOS behind them. Tell me how that's not breaking the above rule. Just because you say you are targeting the Glade Riders (even though you know that you are not)?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Both sides of this argument are being intentionally dense. PLEASE STOP IT.

Side 1: The RULES AS WRITTEN allow you to pick a unit you can see, then pick a range at which your cannonball starts it's path of carnage.

Side 2: When you intentionally choose a range which cannot possibly hit the named target, you are not actually targeting that unit.

Using RAW, there is TECHICALLY nothing wrong with overguessing. This is however, the worst kind of .

This could be solved with a rule (either in the rulebook or a house rule) that if the cannon shot misses the named target (i.e the path of the cannon ball after land+bounce doesn't impact the named unit) then it misses all models it would have otherwise hit.

After 15+ posts on this topic, hasn't it become painfully obvious sides have been taken and no one is moving from them? Let's move on, shall we?

Viperion

efarrer wrote:
knowing the measure of your finger tip to elbow

The tip of my thumb to the end of my palm (if that makes any sense) is 6 inches, and power to me for congradulating my opponent with an occasional thumb's up.

When I first started I was a horrible measurer, but after playing one opponent over and over and over again and guessing my D-Cannons all the time I can guess 24" to about a half an inch, 1/4" is pushing it :p. But it came in handy later when I had a multimelta land speeder zipping around.

I knew a guy who would fudge his movement, adding about a half an inch. "it's just relaxed" he would say, the greatest Weird Pete rules lawyer of all time. That's the only thing I would really consider cheating, other than padding lists. Oh and picking up a couple extra dice for the to-wound roll, sometimes you have to keep an eye on that.

What to do? They're your friends, presumably. If they are pushed to cheat you can either take it as a compliment or walk away. The measuring thing you can figure out by measuring from deployment. In a store environment it's a different story, but they are just the guys at the store. No offence to the guys at the store.

efarrer wrote:

smart_alex wrote:At the risk of sounding pedantic, I hope you know Pythagorean Theorem has nothing to do with angles. Pythagorean Theorem only deals with triangle side and hypotenuse lengths. If you were going to use angles you would need the law of sine’s and cosines, even then you need at least one known side length. If anyone has those tables (sine/cosine) memorized in their head and don't need a calculator, then they deserve to win hands down.

It has to do with a single 90 degree angle.

That much is a given. He is talking about measuring the other two angles. you dont need to measure a 90 degree angle, it's perpendicular. If you have to explain that to anyone, they probably dont know anything about math. He meant the other two. Also, pyth. thm. only works for right triangles anyways. So why would you measure anything else? Measuring the other two angles does you no good. Measuring the lengths does though.

Personally I dont think you should measure. Its called guessing for a reason. I use Pyth thm, I estimate the two other lengths of a triangle then figure out the hypotenuse, or resultant vector of the two. Im usually within an inch or less. I dont see how this is cheating at all. As long as you dont measure. Reguardless I think the guessing is fun, it keeps the kiddies away. Nobody enforces that though. Everyone just says there in no more guessing. I dont see it anywhere in the rules or FAQ that guessing is gone. If that is the case then why are the 5th ed codices still coming out with weapon ranges that have "G"s infront of them? IDK.

And I don't see anything wrong with Pythagoreaning. It's the same as calculating averages before rolling eg if my 14 guardians shoot and charge those 5 terminators are they going to do anything?.

There's some tricks to Pythagoreaning (say 3 and 4 gives 5 or 2' and 3' gives < 48", and it can come in handy for longer ranges. But I find it easier to just guess anyway using the fact that the table is 4' across.

Tacobake wrote:And I don't see anything wrong with Pythagoreaning. It's the same as calculating averages before rolling eg if my 14 guardians shoot and charge those 5 terminators are they going to do anything?.

There's some tricks to Pythagoreaning (say 3 and 4 gives 5 or 2' and 3' gives < 48", and it can come in handy for longer ranges. But I find it easier to just guess anyway using the fact that the table is 4' across.

THe problem was the person was saying he measured the a+b= and then did the calculation to get the c, all the while telling his opponent that that was not "measuring" the distance to the target.

efarrer wrote:

Tacobake wrote:And I don't see anything wrong with Pythagoreaning. It's the same as calculating averages before rolling eg if my 14 guardians shoot and charge those 5 terminators are they going to do anything?.

There's some tricks to Pythagoreaning (say 3 and 4 gives 5 or 2' and 3' gives < 48", and it can come in handy for longer ranges. But I find it easier to just guess anyway using the fact that the table is 4' across.

THe problem was the person was saying he measured the a+b= and then did the calculation to get the c, all the while telling his opponent that that was not "measuring" the distance to the target.

sounds like premeasuring, to me

mauleed wrote:

efarrer wrote:A beginner who overguesses is making an honest error in judgement. A longterm player who overguesses to hit a target behind has changed his target. He is not aiming at the target he has stated he is aiming at... in fact creating a situation wherin he abuses the spirit and letter of the rules. HE is not aiming at the initial target but rather the illegal target. This is a form of cheating for the following reasons:

1. The stated target is not the intended target.
2. The player has full knowledge of the illegality of the shot (ie. the number guessed is not correct for the stated target and thus not his best guess).
3. The new target is not a valid target (being out of line of sight).

By using a guess which is intended to target an illegal target, with full knowledge that you are intending to hit a target other than the stated target, you have broken the letter of the rules. You know the game well enough to win without abusing the rules. Why break the spirit and letter of the rules?

When you're rules argument involves mind reading, it's generally not a very good rules argument.

When it's completely obvious that someone is overguessing, no "mind reading" is necessary. When it's less than obvious, the sportmanlike thing would be to say nothing and let them take the shot. If my opponent is wearing an eye patch, I will give them the benefit of the doubt regardless.

Sound good?

I don't see a lot of difference between different sorts of assistance in estimating the range of a shot. The table is littered with models on 1 inch bases between 0 and 2 inches apart. It is not usually difficult to use these as a guide to ranges.

The whole thing about guess weapons and no pre-measurement is silly and childish and smacks of playing with toy soldiers.

Just let people measure everything. End of problem.

Viperion wrote:Both sides of this argument are being intentionally dense. PLEASE STOP IT.


This could be solved with a rule (either in the rulebook or a house rule) that if the cannon shot misses the named target (i.e the path of the cannon ball after land+bounce doesn't impact the named unit) then it misses all models it would have otherwise hit.

Viperion

Sure, let's totally re-write the rules for cannons, mortars, Helstorm rocket batteries, the EarthShaker, the Hellcannon, the Doom Divers, & stone throwers. Let's simplify. Eliminate both the artillery die and the scatter die from the game. Get rid of the round templates, and just say that artillery shots do either d6 or 2d6 hits, at strength whatever, with no armor saves. If you can see it, you can shoot at it using your ballistic skill.

I can't tell if I'm being sarcastic, or if I am actually starting to like this idea... .

skullspliter888 wrote:I ran a IG army in a RTT in WA my first battle was with a Tau player i was shooting at his broadsides with shield drones the guy never said who was making the save and when rolled a 2 he said the Broadside was making the save now at this time i knew nothing about tau .

The shield drone rules were changed to accomodate majority toughness and saves, bro.

fellblade wrote:

Viperion wrote:Both sides of this argument are being intentionally dense. PLEASE STOP IT.


This could be solved with a rule (either in the rulebook or a house rule) that if the cannon shot misses the named target (i.e the path of the cannon ball after land+bounce doesn't impact the named unit) then it misses all models it would have otherwise hit.

Viperion

Sure, let's totally re-write the rules for cannons, mortars, Helstorm rocket batteries, the EarthShaker, the Hellcannon, the Doom Divers, & stone throwers. Let's simplify. Eliminate both the artillery die and the scatter die from the game. Get rid of the round templates, and just say that artillery shots do either d6 or 2d6 hits, at strength whatever, with no armor saves. If you can see it, you can shoot at it using your ballistic skill.

I can't tell if I'm being sarcastic, or if I am actually starting to like this idea... .

I think guessing and scatter dice and the such are traditional inclusions from the grand old days of beer and pretzel war-gaming.

I definately agree that it sounds like a workable idea, especially if BS gets involved.

I agree with pariah. There is no way to proove they are overguessing. You would have to be able to proove that you can read thier mind. I would just let them, then dock em on sports. Although one could argue that it is simply a tactic. Although a slightly underhanded one, Ive seen worse.

Well, for the case of using a Cannon to overshoot intentionally against a unit...this is my way of handling it.

You're guessing 30" for a unit clearly 10" from your cannon?

Are you stupid?

No?

Do you think I'm stupid?

Go ahead and measure.

I'll break your tape, and then your arm.

Funny thing is, I've only had to do it once.

I've never had a problem since--and I despise playing Fantasy, by 10th edition the rules will still suck, they'll just suck differently.

Yeah. I'm sure you broke someone's arm over a game of Warhammer. :S

Stelek, no one believes any of your crap.

Anyway, I tell people I'm doing it now. And if they don't like it, too bad. It's legal, and encouraged by GW. That's more than I need to do it with a clear conscience.

If someone wants to fantasize about breaking my tape measure over it, that's even better.

mauleed wrote:Stelek, no one believes any of your crap.

Only thing I've agreed with you so far on. Bloody immature thing for him to say.

Oh right, immature.

You guys can't seem to figure out how to play a damn children's game honestly.

I'm glad no one believes me. Saves the shock for the in-game first meeting.

Yes, what's a children's game without a broken arm or two?

mauleed wrote:Anyway, I tell people I'm doing it now. And if they don't like it, too bad. It's legal, and encouraged by GW. That's more than I need to do it with a clear conscience.

Fair enough. If, by some happy chance, I have the opportunity to game with you, let's play something other than Fantasy, 'kay?

Sure, just as long as you don't get upset when my lascannon guy moves and shoots his bolter.

Hey, it's not like I'm going to complain if you do it to me. I'm not looking for a leg up, I'm just looking to play by the rules, even if you or I don't like them.