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.

Deminyn wrote:there is no way to adjuticate guessing,

And this is why WFB should move to a "place-scatter-adjust" mechanic as in 40k.

Deminyn wrote:I'm supposed to guess as accurately as I can to hit my target with any guess weapon right?

Right.

Deminyn wrote:So I take my cannon and I happen to know that the enemy unit is 24" away. (First turn, both on the line or something else like that) What do I have to guess legally? 24" for the frong of the unit, 26" for the centre of mass...
Oh, and would it be wrong of me to guess 20" or 18" like I really would b/c the cannonball will bounce?

Same thing with firing a stone thrower at the middle of the enemy line. You have to declare a target, so you say the skaven slaves in the centre, but really you want to be in the centre of mass of the slaves & clanrats & giant rats & what not, so you aim for the rear right slave and try to guess bang on him and hope that wherever it lands, it hits something.

Both of those examples would be fine at any of the GTs I've attended. The cannon wouldn't raise an eyebrow from anyone. Aiming for the back corner of the targeted unit wouldn't cause any batted eyelashes either, from my experience. You're still trying to hit a unit you can see.

Deminyn wrote:Well, here's a funny one for ya...

I'm supposed to guess as accurately as I can to hit my target with any guess weapon right? So I take my cannon and I happen to know that the enemy unit is 24" away. (First turn, both on the line or something else like that) What do I have to guess legally? 24" for the frong of the unit, 26" for the centre of mass...
Oh, and would it be wrong of me to guess 20" or 18" like I really would b/c the cannonball will bounce?

Same thing with firing a stone thrower at the middle of the enemy line. You have to declare a target, so you say the skaven slaves in the centre, but really you want to be in the centre of mass of the slaves & clanrats & giant rats & what not, so you aim for the rear right slave and try to guess bang on him and hope that wherever it lands, it hits something.

So RaI both those are fine yet interpreting as accurate as possible RaW would say no. ... go GW

B/c there is no way to adjuticate guessing, GW relies on fair play and spirit to get them through this; which means, overguessing is RaW legal ('cause you can't prove otherwise) and RaI bad sportsmanship. I like the 40k solution of place and scatter, less scatter with LoS. The Poison wind mortars are kinda neat.

I believe that complaining that having a shooty army means you should be able to have the handicap of being TFG is bull. Build a better army, one that uses the entire rule book, not just relying on shooting everything to death. Combat res is an amazing thing.

Shooting for the middle (or a corner, or whatever) of the unit is fair. A cannon shooting short of the unit to make maximum use of the bounce is fair (back in the day when direct-fire cannon were commonly used on blocks of infantry it was called 'grazing fire'). Heck, if you overshoot an inch or two and hit the unit that is close (within the aformentioned inch or two) behind the target unit, I won't contest that either - from the point of view of the shooter, the two units likely blend together.

Shooting over a unit - way over, like really improbably far over (6"+), is not fair - especially when your wild guess 'just happens' to land your shot on another unit that by the rules the shooter cannot see.

My point with the silly examples of things that everyone does is to point out that GW expects everyone to understand it and play like that, but the RaW don't (IIRC) say you can. Guessing short is not guessing as accurately as possible.

Vulcan wrote:Heck, if you overshoot an inch or two and hit the unit that is close (within the aforementioned inch or two) behind the target unit, I won't contest that either - from the point of view of the shooter, the two units likely blend together.

Alright, neither would I and I would/do aim for the center of mass of enemy lines all the time... but how is this, from a RaW point of view, different from overshooting by 6"?
Is it b/c the intent was to overguess? Well, that would not be guessing as accurate as possible, but try and prove intent...

***New challenge of common sense vs rules*** This one a bit trickier. I don't know all the details about the Chaos spell mentioned in the thread earlier, but let's assume S1 no armor save stone-thrower-like effect.

Our mighty caster is sitting by himself and the enemy just ran some... goblin wolf riders 3" from his face and shot some arrows in his (very) general direction. His turn comes, casts the spell, he only has 2 things in LoS; the Wolf Riders, and the giant (all Large target of him) which just happens to be standing in the middle of 5 different infantry blocks (read as "in the middle of the place you REALLY want to drop a stone thrower template). Our caster declares the giant as his target (legal target) and guesses a little short (or far) of him so that it is in the middle of that mass of people. The spell can't hurt the target, at all.

a) He never had the intention of hitting the giant and guessed off on purpose. This is against the spirit of it but how is that different from the last stone thrower example?
b) What if the wolf riders weren't there? Would that make it better/worse/the same?
c) What if he guessed right on the giant (by accident)? Would that justify over/under guessing in order to hit a different target?

***One more time***
Some unit with a big "shoot me sign" is hiding behind some screen. (Stormvermin + Queek behind slaves). Me puts a trap in front of slaves (like 2" in front) hoping they'll charge and open expose the target (just go with it, maybe they'd have to leave a hill or something to expose him) or I'll charge next turn. So Me decides to aim for the slaves and, to be safe about avoiding my own unit, add 6" to my guess. (you got an average scatter of what? 5.2" ?) This will probably initially land on the rear target. Which would be overguessing, wouldn't it?

a) So Me had the intention of hitting the slaves, it's just that they were close to my line so I cautiously added 6" for a bad scatter.
b) Again, what if the target unit wasn't there. I was just overguessing to have a bigger safety on my "danger close" artillery support, and there was nothing behind there...

I think I've overguessed for safety before, and my opponent wasn't bothered about it. Probably 'cause I talk to myself a lot when I do that kinda guessing of range and he knew my intent...

For the sake of having a good argument, you can't use Past Precedent as justification unless it was tournament, nor can you use common sense as justification. I'm trying to get an argument either for or against that you could shove in the face of TFG and tell him to STFU and he could do nothing but pout. (From either side, the shooter can put something here that fully justifies overguessing as long as its a solid case.) Right now I think it sits as bad sportsmanship but legal unless called out on it and a lot of people agree. That's not how rules are supposed to work.

Spellbound wrote:To quote a wise tournament organizer:

"There's two ways to interpret that rule. One of them is going to get your ass kicked. Do as you will."

lol QFT


and for Vulcan again, your post of

Vulcan wrote:

skyth wrote:You are taking the bit about 'you must guess the range as accurately as possible' out of context. All it is is re-iterating that you can't pre-measure so have to depend on your guessing to get the result you want.

Hunh? What part of:

tiekwando wrote: you must make a guess of the range as accurately as possible

is unclear?

You can see unit A. You must guess the range to unit A as asccurately as possible.

If you overguess a little and hit a unit I have close behind A, okay. That happesn.

If you overguess by three times the actual range, that's not 'overguessing,' that's a clear attempt to miss Unit A and hit something else. Which is in clear violation of 'guessing the range as accurately as possible,' and therefore at the very least poor sportsmanship, and at worst outright cheating.

is why I'm throwing out scenarios. The first ones were blatantly fine by common practice. I hope these next ones start playing around with the line and making a scenario where one says "Yeah that's cool" (or opposite) than you change one thing and its "WTF Cheater". Okay, 3x is way too much, but what if it was a 2" guess at the wolf riders right in front of my mortar... don't want to hit my self, so can I guess 6" with big template... where's the line between safety and cheating?

And again, the RULES are SUPPOSED to be that line... and are failing... so the thread should come up with a faq-like answer to what is/isn't a legal guess.

edit: lol, I had no army save. Man, I want THAT spell.

Deminyn wrote:***One more time***
Some unit with a big "shoot me sign" is hiding behind some screen. (Stormvermin + Queek behind slaves). {/quote]

I'd argue that as having a big "Shoot me!" sign. That's more a "Don't you wish you could shoot me?" sign. Having a big "Shoot me!" sign is something like leaving those stormvermin out in the open without a screen.

Me puts a trap in front of slaves (like 2" in front) hoping they'll charge and open expose the target (just go with it, maybe they'd have to leave a hill or something to expose him) or I'll charge next turn. So Me decides to aim for the slaves and, to be safe about avoiding my own unit, add 6" to my guess. (you got an average scatter of what? 5.2" ?) This will probably initially land on the rear target. Which would be overguessing, wouldn't it?

a) So Me had the intention of hitting the slaves, it's just that they were close to my line so I cautiously added 6" for a bad scatter.
b) Again, what if the target unit wasn't there. I was just overguessing to have a bigger safety on my "danger close" artillery support, and there was nothing behind there...

I think I've overguessed for safety before, and my opponent wasn't bothered about it. Probably 'cause I talk to myself a lot when I do that kinda guessing of range and he knew my intent...

So long as the 'overguess' wasn't flagrantly beyond what was necessary to insure the safety of friendly units (a couple inches beyond maximum scatter, that is) I woudn't be too upset. Even if it did nail my screened unit.

For the sake of having a good argument, you can't use Past Precedent as justification unless it was tournament, nor can you use common sense as justification. I'm trying to get an argument either for or against that you could shove in the face of TFG and tell him to STFU and he could do nothing but pout. (From either side, the shooter can put something here that fully justifies overguessing as long as its a solid case.) Right now I think it sits as bad sportsmanship but legal unless called out on it and a lot of people agree. That's not how rules are supposed to work.

My formula for dealing with TFG is simple. Do it once, you get a warning. Do it twice, I remove my stuff from the table and look for someone else to play.

Of course, this works only because I don't play tournaments, only friendly games.

and for Vulcan again, your post of

Vulcan wrote:

skyth wrote:You are taking the bit about 'you must guess the range as accurately as possible' out of context. All it is is re-iterating that you can't pre-measure so have to depend on your guessing to get the result you want.

Hunh? What part of:

tiekwando wrote: you must make a guess of the range as accurately as possible

is unclear?

You can see unit A. You must guess the range to unit A as asccurately as possible.

If you overguess a little and hit a unit I have close behind A, okay. That happesn.

If you overguess by three times the actual range, that's not 'overguessing,' that's a clear attempt to miss Unit A and hit something else. Which is in clear violation of 'guessing the range as accurately as possible,' and therefore at the very least poor sportsmanship, and at worst outright cheating.

is why I'm throwing out scenarios. The first ones were blatantly fine by common practice. I hope these next ones start playing around with the line and making a scenario where one says "Yeah that's cool" (or opposite) than you change one thing and its "WTF Cheater". Okay, 3x is way too much, but what if it was a 2" guess at the wolf riders right in front of my mortar... don't want to hit my self, so can I guess 6" with big template... where's the line between safety and cheating?

And again, the RULES are SUPPOSED to be that line... and are failing... so the thread should come up with a faq-like answer to what is/isn't a legal guess.

Skyth - you yet again, despite having gone through this on 'seer, ignore the important word RANGE

RANGE, in this context, is "the distance to the target"

So, you are required to guess the distance to the target as accurately as possible.

Not doing so is cheating.

Only if you don't take the sentence into context where it is simply re-stating that you can't measure before you guess.

And the context of "range" is "the distance to the target", so you ignore that for no reason.

You still cheat when you do it, as you well know.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Skyth - you yet again, despite having gone through this on 'seer, ignore the important word RANGE

RANGE, in this context, is "the distance to the target"

So, you are required to guess the distance to the target as accurately as possible.

Not doing so is cheating.

Except if you are using a cannon, you don't actually want to guess the distance to the target, you want to guess ~6" short of the target. I don't think yer definition really doesn't solve the problem. You don't guess the distance from the warmachine to the unit, you guess a distance, and that's where the shot lands.
And don't get caught up on individual terms in GW rule books. As people have pointed out, they aren't great with English and editing. They rely on people understanding what they mean in spite of how they say it. Which is why RaI are just as important as RaW.

i have to agree with the statement regarding the cannon, you guess for where you want the ball to go, often thats 4 to 6 inches short for me, so that example is dead on correct. as for a mortor, so long as your guessing to any part of the 'SEEN' unit i wont call it cheating, i also wont call it cheating if you try to hit before a unit of after it. but i will never play against you again. and i will make fun of your smell, hair, and general lack of relation to the human race for trying to bend the rules to breaking.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And the context of "range" is "the distance to the target", so you ignore that for no reason.

You still cheat when you do it, as you well know.

All the 'guess as accurately as possible' is, in context of the paragraph, re-stating that you can't measure before guessing.

My wish for combating overguessing is that if the shot lands a certain distance away from the targeted unit, the shot is completely negated/ignored. Or just make guess weapons/rules not require LoS, so that everyone can do it without any sort of issues about sportsmanship or rules abuse.

Skyth that is your interpretation of the wording. It can definitely be interpreted that way but there are other interpretations, English is a very malleable language unfortunately, with multiple definitions for every word and practically everything having a variety of exceptions to whatever rule you can find. So saying that the second clause is explanatory instead of (i cant remember the word, but essentially additional) is an interpretation.

I could say that I see the clause in the context of the sentance as having nothing to do about not measuring, as that is already explained in the first half of the sentance. Instead it is a clarification on how the guessing should be done (as accurately as possible). I think this is an equally valid point of view as your own given the context of the sentence. My viewpoint would then be based on the fact that this sentence is in fact a clarification of the one before, while the first half of the sentence clarifying when the guessing should take place, and the second clarifying how it should be done. I am completely in context of the paragraph, but still we will arrive at separate points of view.

skyth wrote:All the 'guess as accurately as possible' is, in context of the paragraph, re-stating that you can't measure before guessing.

"range" is defined as "distance to the target" - you can ignore this if you want, doesnt alter facts you know.

Not guessing this distance is cheating. As you know given we've had this discussion on 'seer.....

Yes, but 'seer works on the 'shout down your opponent' principle of rules argument rather than looking at what the rules actually say.

And it's not cheating. All the passage is doing is mearly restating that you can't measure before guessing is all that it is saying. Have to look at the context of the paragraph.

Whereas your argument relied on ignoring words?

"range" in this case tells you it is tihe distance to the target. So if you are not guessing this as accurately as possible you are cheating.

skyth wrote:Yes, but 'seer works on the 'shout down your opponent' principle of rules argument rather than looking at what the rules actually say.

And it's not cheating. All the passage is doing is mearly restating that you can't measure before guessing is all that it is saying. Have to look at the context of the paragraph.

skyth, if you ever wind up in St. Louis and play at the Miniatures Market, tell us who you are so I can just not bother wasting my time playing you.

Bringing up the cannons in this argument is a waste of time anyway, since the book rather specifically states that you should guess short in order to hit your intended target.

Or, you could take it a step further and make the case that since the rules state you SHOULD aim a cannon short, and says nothing about guessing over or short for other machines, then for those machines you MUST guess as accurately to that target as possible.

You know if we're going to go for RAI and fluffy kinds of non rule things here. Wouldn't a cannon crew, knowing full well that there are enemy units _behind_ the unit they're firing at try to shoot over? What if they had spotters or members of other units further up telling them hey there's more behind the unit in front of us, try to shoot farther? Seems reasonable to me in a story/fluff perspective.

All in all, if anyone is honestly that upset about someone being a good guesser and overshooting a target (which has been happening in Fantasy games/tournaments since I can remember playing 8 years ago) to hit targets further behind them. One should consider another game to play. As some are obviously taking this way too seriously. No game of warhammer is worth the amount of drama anyone claims as to pick up their toy soldiers and stomp off because someone thought of a clever way to target things.

Because someone thought of a clever way to cheat, you mean?

Cheating is cheating.....

You keep on saying it's cheating after that being debunked...Would think you would get tired of it.

Skyth - just curious but after some of the other posts I've seen you do, is it a trick or something to get weird rule question drama going?

There seem to be about 2 or 3 folks on here who are just arguing a RAW vs RAI discussion. Okay thats great and if your trying to get your posts up - go ahead. But face the facts - you know how the game is supposed to be played. If your guessing with a cannon exactly on target or over to hit another unit behind it (which happens to not be in your line of sight) - then your opponent has every right to call you on it and discount the shot. If you do it again, then he should pack up and not play you. If your at a tournament, he'll call the judges over and they'll explain to you why you can't do it. Keep doing it and they kick you out.

If the rules state that you need line of sight to shoot at a target, and you are intentionally working around another rule to break the first, at some point don't you think it would be considered cheating?

skyth wrote:You keep on saying it's cheating after that being debunked...Would think you would get tired of it.

Your "debunking" involved you ignoring the words used and pretending theyre not there.

Pretending /= "rules"

strange_eric wrote:You know if we're going to go for RAI and fluffy kinds of non rule things here. Wouldn't a cannon crew, knowing full well that there are enemy units _behind_ the unit they're firing at try to shoot over? What if they had spotters or members of other units further up telling them hey there's more behind the unit in front of us, try to shoot farther? Seems reasonable to me in a story/fluff perspective.

Why on earth would a cannon crew not shoot at the threat the can see (who, even if they are just a screen unit, are likely still able to kill the crew just as dead as an elite unit) on the possibility that they might hit a worse threat that they can't see... and therefore are unlikely to be sure about which unit is the bigger threat anyway?

All in all, if anyone is honestly that upset about someone being a good guesser and overshooting a target (which has been happening in Fantasy games/tournaments since I can remember playing 8 years ago) to hit targets further behind them. One should consider another game to play. As some are obviously taking this way too seriously. No game of warhammer is worth the amount of drama anyone claims as to pick up their toy soldiers and stomp off because someone thought of a clever way to target things.

Verisimilarity. Even though we are talking about little pastic dudes routinely defying the laws of physics (at least, within the game), it should at least feel plausible.

And sniping at a unit that you cannot see (and let's face it, if you are deliberately overshooting and routinely nailing the target, you are sniping blind) is not plausible, no matter how much you argue it.

You saying it's 'cheating' involves taking a quote out of context.

Note - I've never said which way I play it...I just take offence to a legitimate rules interpretation being called 'cheating'. Just FYI, I know at least one major tournament where you are officially allowed to overguess.

Vulcan wrote:
Why on earth would a cannon crew not shoot at the threat the can see (who, even if they are just a screen unit, are likely still able to kill the crew just as dead as an elite unit) on the possibility that they might hit a worse threat that they can't see... and therefore are unlikely to be sure about which unit is the bigger threat anyway?

Verisimilarity. Even though we are talking about little pastic dudes routinely defying the laws of physics (at least, within the game), it should at least feel plausible.

And sniping at a unit that you cannot see (and let's face it, if you are deliberately overshooting and routinely nailing the target, you are sniping blind) is not plausible, no matter how much you argue it.

Verisimilitude is all in the eye of the beholder. The situation I laid out was extremely plausible. And there are many reasons to fire beyond at a unit they cant see. "THEYRE HUGE DRAGON OGRES IGNORE THE TINY GOBLINS" Being the least of which in a story context. The point i'm making here is that anything can be explained away via Story/Fluff/Good Feelings. It's all great to have a game with a thematic story feel, but unless that game is operating within some sort of definable parameters then we're just playing Toy Soldiers going "pew pew you're dead".

There's also a problem within the game with how the Cannon itself is fired. In a "real" context, the cannon would aim at center mass, guess the best range it could and fire away. However, the game says "the cannon is a sniper rifle and hits precisely" verisimilitude right there goes out the window as the cannon dissects a unit at an angle yet only hits one model (as shown in the Rulebook itself). It goes on an on.

Skyth has the right of it, there are many tournaments that allow this method of Guessing. There are many people who use this interpretation. Lemme put it another way: If the RAI method you all describe was so obvious and correct, why do so many use the other method, legally, in tournaments?

I suppose there's also the most important rule to remember here, play the game you want to play. I always try to bring this up. While i'm intensely interested in how the rules are actually written, we can freely ignore just about anything if it means having more fun.

strange_eric wrote:While i'm intensely interested in how the rules are actually written,

Curious. I do believe that there are a number of people doing just that in this thread, trying to explain to you that the rules forbid overguessing. Warhammer is permissive, not restrictive. In the end, I think GW taking the language about a stone thrower using indirect line of sight out of the rules to say more than just about anything else said in this thread. It's all pretty clear.

skyth wrote:You saying it's 'cheating' involves taking a quote out of context.

Note - I've never said which way I play it...I just take offence to a legitimate rules interpretation being called 'cheating'. Just FYI, I know at least one major tournament where you are officially allowed to overguess.

You did on 'seer.

The quote is a) not taken out of context and b) uses the actual meaning of the words in the sentence. Your "method" involves ignoring everything to come up wioth an interpretation not supported by the rules. aka cheating.

And a tournament changing the rules? Shock! Say it isnt so! Next you'll be saying some tournaments...forbid....special...characters! How can this be?

It's not changing the rule. The quoted rule that you keep on taking out of context only is re-interating that you can't pre-measure the shot before the guess.

I think that the argument really should be put to rest as:

RaI were no overguessing, but as GW did not include any way to validate a guess, ANY GUESS is legal, no matter how bad it is.
***If you can find a rule that shows when a guess is not a legal guess, post it.***
Otherwise you are trying to explain what was meant by rules, which is the definition of RaI.