LoS Issue

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.

**willydstyle**

When the rule say s you "may" take the shot against the facing you can see, it is allowing you to take that shot instead of taking no shot at all. It is not allowing you to choose between one arc with 4+ save or another arc with 3+ save.

**Mahtamori**

willydstyle wrote:When the rule say s you "may" take the shot against the facing you can see, it is allowing you to take that shot instead of taking no shot at all. It is not allowing you to choose between one arc with 4+ save or another arc with 3+ save.

This is as the rules are intended.

1. However, the targeting rules for vehicles specifically states that the only requirement for being allowed to shoot at a vehicle is when you can draw true line of sight to the hull.
2. Furthermore it stipulates that the shot must be against the front, side, rear which is turned the most against the origin of the shot (i.e. the facing the model is in).
3. There is a special case allowance where, even though (1) is fulfilled, you cannot fulfill it to the facing you are standing it. I.e. (1) is satisfied in a general sense, but not in a specific sense. In this case you may shoot at a side which does fulfill the specific case even though this shot would not fulfill (2).

The problem is that there are no rules, what so ever, for the specific case of drawing line of sight to the facing you are shooting at. As such, since (3) is voluntary by the word "may", which implies options opening up without closing previous ones, you may also opt, according to the rules as written, to shoot on the side which is fully obscured.
Doing so, however, will most likely violate RAI, most people's RAP, TMIR, and the sense of believability which the rules aspire to give. I.e. it would be bad sportsmanship.

If you can find a rule which states that you may not shoot at a facing which is fully obscured, even though the model is visible, then we'll thank you for it. Holes in RAW are best plugged.

As for GW: well, they could just errata it with "Replace 'may' with 'must'"

**drade79**

Ok I think the issue I am seeing right now is everyone can't agree if I could have taken the shot on the rear or side.

The Book says "In this case they may take the shot against the facing they can see......" (pg.62)

So this says I can take a shot on the facing I can see, not may pick either side to shoot at. So in this case it would have been a shot at the rear with the dread getting a 3+ save.

To clear it up again it says "TAKE THE SHOT AGAINST THE FACING THEY CAN SEE..." No where does it say I could have shot at the facing I can't see.

**visavismeyou**

drade79 wrote:Ok I think the issue I am seeing right now is everyone can't agree if I could have taken the shot on the rear or side.

The Book says "In this case they may take the shot against the facing they can see......" (pg.62)

So this says I can take a shot on the facing I can see, not may pick either side to shoot at. So in this case it would have been a shot at the rear with the dread getting a 3+ save.

To clear it up again it says "TAKE THE SHOT AGAINST THE FACING THEY CAN SEE..." No where does it say I could have shot at the facing I can't see.

I'm just still confused how you were in the side arc with the dread's side arc against a building's wall. The conversation can still go on just fine but I just cannot understand how your model was in the side arc.

To respond to what you said, yea, you cannot take a shot against an arc that is out of LOS, that is the point of this proviso in the rules. Furthermore the "May" thing is simply letting you know that "Instead of not being able to shoot at all, you are now able to take a shot at an extreme angle to another visible facing." People have been taking that "may" out of context. Remember, things which are out of line of sight cannot be shot at, thus, this proviso gives you a chance to hit another visible armor facing with a 3+ cover save.

**Gwar!**

visavismeyou wrote:I'm just still confused how you were in the side arc with the dread's side arc against a building's wall. The conversation can still go on just fine but I just cannot understand how your model was in the side arc.

Behold, the Magic of the Shoops!

The silly Eldar Magicman is in the Dreads side arc

But can only SEE the rear armour.

Therefore, he can, instead of not being able to shoot at all, shoot at the rear armour with a 3+ cover save.

**drade79**

Yeah Gwar you got it almost to the "T" there with your pic it was a stupid thing and I thought I would be in the rear arc anywho but ended up in the side it happens.

But thanks to you guys I know a new rule I didn't realize I had read before hand.

**Soup and a roll**

Mahtamori wrote:
Doing so, however, will most likely violate RAI, most people's RAP, TMIR, and the sense of believability which the rules aspire to give. I.e. it would be bad sportsmanship.

If you can drive your tank through a solid ruin why couldn't I fire a lascannon through it? I know you're there because I can see you. It is probably against RAI but it's much less nonsensical than many other legal things.

drade79 wrote:The Book says "In this case they may take the shot against the facing they can see......" (pg.62)

So this says I can take a shot on the facing I can see, not may pick either side to shoot at. So in this case it would have been a shot at the rear with the dread getting a 3+ save.

To clear it up again it says "TAKE THE SHOT AGAINST THE FACING THEY CAN SEE..." No where does it say I could have shot at the facing I can't see.

The rules say you can shoot at the facing you can't see because you need to trace LoS to the vehicle, not to the facing. In this situation (and almost exactly as Mahtamori puts it) I can:

1. Check line of sight to any part of hull or turret (in this case the rear)
2. Check which facing I am in (in this case the side)
3.(a) I may fire at the arc I can see with a 3+ cover save
3.(b) If I disregard 3.(a) I default to the normal rules: Fire at the side arc of the vehicle

This is an example, by RAW, of a rule that doesn't necessarily supersede normal procedure. Nothing stops you following the normal rules. A further example would be that I may run in the shooting phase. There is no reason to assume that if I choose not to run I cannot then shoot instead.

**Scott-S6**

willydstyle wrote:When the rule say s you "may" take the shot against the facing you can see, it is allowing you to take that shot instead of taking no shot at all. It is not allowing you to choose between one arc with 4+ save or another arc with 3+ save.

That's how it ought to work but it doesn't.

Permission to shoot at the facing you are in has already been given.

The shooting at visible side with 3+ is optional ("may").

Permission to shoot at the facing you are in is never removed.

**Mahtamori**

A shot, any shot, has significantly less (kinetic) energy than the tank. While the tank can simply mow down the wall, a shot will explode prematurely doing barely no damage if it hits a wall early, a laser will defract or too much of it's energy will be swallows. A ball of corrosive Tyranid Slime will simply scatter and melt the wall instead.

Not really an argument we should pursue, but 4+ is a tad low if you shoot through the wall instead of on the side of it on the exposed tank.

**Soup and a roll**

A shot, any shot, has significantly less (kinetic) energy than the tank.

In fantasy space wars? How about multiple shot weapons? How about a titan cannon. How about a spaceship battery? I agree that this is well off the off-topic argument, but I disagree with you, sir!

**visavismeyou**

Gwar! wrote:Behold, the Magic of the Shoops!

Ahhhh I read it as if the eldar just rounded the corner, completely not the picture I imagined. thanks.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soup and a roll wrote:If you can drive your tank through a solid ruin why couldn't I fire a lascannon through it? I know you're there because I can see you. It is probably against RAI but it's much less nonsensical than many other legal things.

wha? you do realize that a laser is just light... Do me a favor, go find a flashlight and try to shine it through a wall... Essentially no difference. If it is a laser like the MTHEL is, then it would take a long time to burn through a wall, you've watched too many movies sir and movies rarely obey the laws of physics. The reason a laser can destroy a tank is because you heat up the fuel or ammo and that causes the explosion, if you want to know more about this look up the Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL) and watch it in action, several videos on Youtube. FYI MTHEL is essentially a Lascannon.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:
willydstyle wrote:When the rule say s you "may" take the shot against the facing you can see, it is allowing you to take that shot instead of taking no shot at all. It is not allowing you to choose between one arc with 4+ save or another arc with 3+ save.

That's how it ought to work but it doesn't.

Permission to shoot at the facing you are in has already been given.

The shooting at visible side with 3+ is optional ("may").

Permission to shoot at the facing you are in is never removed.

Essentially you are wrong, you are wrong because yes, permission to shoot at the facing you are in is never removed, correct, however, if you would like to continue with the shot at the facing you are in, then you dont roll any dice at all because it is out of LoS, since it is out of LoS you cannot roll any dice; effectively this removes your choice to shoot at the facing you are in.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soup and a roll wrote:3.(b) If I disregard 3.(a) I default to the normal rules: Fire at the side arc of the vehicle

This is an example, by RAW, of a rule that doesn't necessarily supersede normal procedure. Nothing stops you following the normal rules. A further example would be that I may run in the shooting phase. There is no reason to assume that if I choose not to run I cannot then shoot instead.

This is wrong. I've already explained why.

**Scott-S6**

Mahtamori wrote:A shot, any shot, has significantly less (kinetic) energy than the tank.

How is that relevant?

Mahtamori wrote:Not really an argument we should pursue, but 4+ is a tad low if you shoot through the wall instead of on the side of it on the exposed tank.

I disagree - shooting through wall+armour at 80 degrees to you is easier than shooting though just armour at 10 degrees. Angle of incidence makes an enormous difference to armour penetration.

**Mahtamori**

Scott-S6 wrote:
Mahtamori wrote:A shot, any shot, has significantly less (kinetic) energy than the tank.

How is that relevant?

Mahtamori wrote:Not really an argument we should pursue, but 4+ is a tad low if you shoot through the wall instead of on the side of it on the exposed tank.

I disagree - shooting through wall+armour at 80 degrees to you is easier than shooting though just armour at 10 degrees. Angle of incidence makes an enormous difference to armour penetration.

It's not relevant, it's a comment to Soup and Roll's comment that "if I can drive a tank over a wall, I can shoot through it" two statements which has no logical relevance between eachother.

Remember that the rules for facing doesn't guarantee that the correct facing has a "better" angle, it could be quite the opposite.

Space magic fantasy laizors aside, it doesn't make sense you're allowed to shoot at a facing that's completely obscured (and remember, part of a shot's effectivity is not just hitting, but striking a more vulnerable spot), especially if that armour receives the same save as if only partially concealed. No, especially considering what GW states about cover saves - it's NOT about the cover's stopping power, it's also about not being able to take a good shot.

**Scott-S6**

visavismeyou wrote:
Scott-S6 wrote:
willydstyle wrote:When the rule say s you "may" take the shot against the facing you can see, it is allowing you to take that shot instead of taking no shot at all. It is not allowing you to choose between one arc with 4+ save or another arc with 3+ save.

That's how it ought to work but it doesn't.
Permission to shoot at the facing you are in has already been given.
The shooting at visible side with 3+ is optional ("may").
Permission to shoot at the facing you are in is never removed.

Essentially you are wrong, you are wrong because yes, permission to shoot at the facing you are in is never removed, correct, however, if you would like to continue with the shot at the facing you are in, then you dont roll any dice at all because it is out of LoS, since it is out of LoS you cannot roll any dice; effectively this removes your choice to shoot at the facing you are in.

Provide a quote showing that line of sight to the facing you are in is required to take the shot. Really, I'd love to see it because I agree that's how the rules ought to work. I challenged Nos to produce a quote earlier and he hasn't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mahtamori wrote:Space magic fantasy laizors aside, it doesn't make sense you're allowed to shoot at a facing that's completely obscured (and remember, part of a shot's effectivity is not just hitting, but striking a more vulnerable spot), especially if that armour receives the same save as if only partially concealed. No, especially considering what GW states about cover saves - it's NOT about the cover's stopping power, it's also about not being able to take a good shot.

Equally, if you can only see one facing, why should you get the same cover save for 51% obscured and 98% obscured? This kind of reasoning really isn't helpful to YMDC - it's more appropriate for homebrew.

**Soup and a roll**

visavismeyou wrote:This is wrong. I've already explained why.

says that you can only shoot at the facing that you are in, however, if a situation arises wherein the model cannot see "ANY" (this means can see 0 %) of the arc it is in but can see another arc, then it may take the shot against that second facing. Since it will always be the case that this will be an extremely angled shot, the target will get a 3+ cover save against this second arc.

Nowhere in the rules is there any option about which arc you shoot at, rather, it is stated over and over the shot comes from the arc that the model is in. With no permission to choose, and several statements that the shot must come from the arc which the model is in, you dont get a choice.

No. You have quoted the words back to me that I have used as the basis for my argument. It clearly states that you only need line of sight to the vehicle, not the facing. It clearly states that the shot comes from the same arc. It states that the one exception is as quoted above and nowhere in the rules does it state that you are forced to use this rule over the normal procedure due to the word 'may' as opposed to a more affirmative auxiliary verb, such as 'must'.

I Don't think I can make my position any clearer so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

@ Mahtamori and Scott-S6

Seriously, that topic belongs in 40k fluff. I'd rather the thread wasn't locked just yet.

Edit for structure

**Scott-S6**

Time for some quotes:

When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see it's hull or turret.

Armour values for individual vehicles vary depending on where the shot comes from.

At least 50% of the face being targeted needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to claim to be in cover.

If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it may take a cover save against it.

(Well, so far, I can take my shot against the vehicle even though all of the facing I can see is obscured because I can see a bit of the hull from the other facing)

It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing that they are in but can still see another facing of the target vehicle.
(Yes, this applies here)
In this case they may take the shot against the facing they can see [...] 3+cover save.

This say pretty clearly to me that you have a choice in the circumstance where the facing you are in is obscured.

I don't like the way that rule works. If someone has a quote I've missed I would love to see it.

**visavismeyou**

Scott-S6 wrote:Provide a quote showing that line of sight to the facing you are in is required to take the shot. Really, I'd love to see it because I agree that's how the rules ought to work. I challenged Nos to produce a quote earlier and he hasn't.

I explained it thoroughly earlier:

visavismeyou wrote:
Scott-S6 wrote:100% agreement! If we can find something to confirm that taking the shot against the visible face is compulsory I'll be quite happy but I'm not seeing it.

P60 BRB wrote:Armour Values
for individual vehicles also vary depending on which
facing of the vehicle the shot comes from – its front,
sides, or rear, as explained in the diagram.

Where the shot comes from = where the model is at... where the model is at is which armor arc it is in... thus, the shot can only be shot at the AV Facing arc the model is in as that is where the shot "Comes from".

Furthermore,
P62 BRB wrote:It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any
part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear),

says that you can only shoot at the facing that you are in, however, if a situation arises wherein the model cannot see "ANY" (this means can see 0 %) of the arc it is in but can see another arc, then it may take the shot against that second facing. Since it will always be the case that this will be an extremely angled shot, the target will get a 3+ cover save against this second arc.

Nowhere in the rules is there any option about which arc you shoot at, rather, it is stated over and over that the shot comes from the arc that the model is in. With no permission to choose, and several statements that the shot must come from the arc which the model is in, you dont get a choice.

To respond to the other dispute at hand:

Once you measure a shot, you must take it, if you measure (declare) your shot and then realize your arc is 100% obscured then you must take the shot at the secondary arc, that is, once you find out its 100% obscured, you cannot choose to shoot at another target entirely, if you want to roll any dice at all for this shot you must shoot at the secondary arc, if you choose not to then the shot is ruined completely and you dont roll any dice. So yes, in order to shoot in this case, you must shoot at the 3+ arc, if you dont want to shoot at the 3+ arc, then you cannot shoot at all as the other side is out of LoS (you cannot choose to get a 4+ save on the arc you are in, you cannot shoot at the arc you are in at all).

Again, it gives you a condition for shooting in order to determine where your shot lands, i.e. it tells you figure out which av arc youre in, then says that is where the shot lands. Then, it moves on to make an extraordinary claim stating that in some rare occasions when your arc is 100% obscured, that you may still roll some dice and the target gets a 3+. This extraordinary claim is the important part, the rules could have very well just said "If you dont have LoS on your arc, you cannot shoot at all" and that would be a different game. In this game, they say, "If you dont have LoS on the arc you are in, you may fire at another if you have LoS on it and it gets a 3+ cover save".

Please pay attention to the extraordinary claim and why it is there.

**Scott-S6**

visavismeyou wrote:Again, it gives you a condition for shooting in order to determine where your shot lands, i.e. it tells you figure out which av arc youre in, then says that is where the shot lands.

No, it tells you that's the AV value you use - you can draw los to, and presumably hit, any part of the vehicle.

visavismeyou wrote: Then, it moves on to make an extraordinary claim stating that in some rare occasions when your arc is 100% obscured, that you may still roll some dice and the target gets a 3+.

You strongly imply that the rules say you cannot shoot if the facing you are in is entirely obscured - offer a quote to support this.

visavismeyou wrote:This extraordinary claim is the important part, the rules could have very well just said "If you dont have LoS on your arc, you cannot shoot at all" and that would be a different game. In this game, they say, "If you dont have LoS on the arc you are in, you may fire at another if you have LoS on it and it gets a 3+ cover save".

Please pay attention to the extraordinary claim and why it is there.

The "extraordinary claim" gives you an option to target another arc with a different cover save because of the "extremely angled shot". THey could very easily have made it mandatory - they did not. Quote something which says I can no longer fire at the facing am in.

Please pay attention to the rules - you claim something prevents you firing at a facing that is entirely obscured. Back that up with something.

**Soup and a roll**

visavismeyou wrote:when your arc is 100% obscured, that you may still roll some dice and the target gets a 3+.

If it said that you would be correct. It does not and, therefore, you are not. You either can not or will not back up your reasoning by RAW. Scott-S6 and I have explained that we believe the 'extraordinary claim' to be RAI, just not mandatory by RAW.

**Infreak**

It's all very well and good to argue the cover save granted by being obscured or shooting at a facing not within your current arc and which you can legally do, but perhaps the general LoS and shooting rules should be quoted. They might help to shed some light on the question at hand. It's possible that shooting at the facing which you cannot see breaks one or more of those rules.

**Soup and a roll**

The thing is, Infreak, that the vehicle is broken into several 'facings' while remaining the target in itself. The line of sight and cover saves are both worked out from the vehicle as a whole, and while the shot is resolved against a facing, the facing is not the target, the vehicle is.

That said, unless visavismeyou wants to carry on, I think the question is fairly thoroughly resolved.

**visavismeyou**

Scott-S6 wrote:
visavismeyou wrote:Again, it gives you a condition for shooting in order to determine where your shot lands, i.e. it tells you figure out which av arc youre in, then says that is where the shot lands.

No, it tells you that's the AV value you use - you can draw los to, and presumably hit, any part of the vehicle.

Wow... you're completely wrong...

Armour Values
for individual vehicles also vary depending on which
facing of the vehicle the shot comes from – its front,
sides, or rear, as explained in the diagram.

"shot comes from" context.. stop dropping it...

If a unit has firing models in two different facings of a
target vehicle (some models in the front and some in
the side, for example), shots are resolved separately for
the two facings.

again, models are in one of the arcs, as described above, that is the only facing you can shoot at, you cannot shoot at any part of the vehicle qua:

Instead, for distances involving a
vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun
barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other
decorative elements).

Measuring to the hull does not mean measuring to any part of the hull... that is an erred reading of the rules... Measuring the distance between a point and the hull means, once you reach the hull, you've measured to the hull, you dont keep going to find the other side of the hull... Tell me, when you lose your keys... and then you find them... do you keep looking? No, once you find your keys... you stop looking... Once you reach the hull, you stop...

Scott-S6 wrote:
visavismeyou wrote: Then, it moves on to make an extraordinary claim stating that in some rare occasions when your arc is 100% obscured, that you may still roll some dice and the target gets a 3+.

You strongly imply that the rules say you cannot shoot if the facing you are in is entirely obscured - offer a quote to support this.

Again, you are ignoring what I've quoted you... I havn't implied anything, I've proved it. This is the same old problem, people read a passage, dont understand it, and then say "It doesn't say what you think it says!" No, it does say what it says whether you understand it or not.

Scott-S6 wrote:
visavismeyou wrote:This extraordinary claim is the important part, the rules could have very well just said "If you dont have LoS on your arc, you cannot shoot at all" and that would be a different game. In this game, they say, "If you dont have LoS on the arc you are in, you may fire at another if you have LoS on it and it gets a 3+ cover save".

Please pay attention to the extraordinary claim and why it is there.

The "extraordinary claim" gives you an option to target another arc with a different cover save because of the "extremely angled shot". THey could very easily have made it mandatory - they did not. Quote something which says I can no longer fire at the facing am in.

Please pay attention to the rules - you claim something prevents you firing at a facing that is entirely obscured. Back that up with something.

**thebetter1**

In all that, you still never managed to find any rule requiring that you draw line of sight to the facing you are in to shoot at it.

**visavismeyou**

thebetter1 wrote:In all that, you still never managed to find any rule requiring that you draw line of sight to the facing you are in to shoot at it.

Permissive rules say you're allowed to shoot at the facing you're in (as I quoted). What do you have? do you have a rule which allows you to fire at any other facing? To draw LoS to any other facing? Nope.

**thebetter1**

visavismeyou wrote:
thebetter1 wrote:In all that, you still never managed to find any rule requiring that you draw line of sight to the facing you are in to shoot at it.

Permissive rules say you're allowed to shoot at the facing you're in (as I quoted). What do you have? do you have a rule which allows you to fire at any other facing? To draw LoS to any other facing? Nope.

You failed to quote anything relevant about seeing that facing. Line of sight must be drawn to the vehicle's hull or turret; do you have a rule requiring that part of the hull to be in the correct facing?

**visavismeyou**

thebetter1 wrote:
visavismeyou wrote:
thebetter1 wrote:In all that, you still never managed to find any rule requiring that you draw line of sight to the facing you are in to shoot at it.

Permissive rules say you're allowed to shoot at the facing you're in (as I quoted). What do you have? do you have a rule which allows you to fire at any other facing? To draw LoS to any other facing? Nope.

You failed to quote anything relevant about seeing that facing. Line of sight must be drawn to the vehicle's hull or turret; do you have a rule requiring that part of the hull to be in the correct facing?

yes... I already quoted it... stop ignoring facts...

P60 BRB wrote:Armour Values
for individual vehicles also vary depending on which
facing of the vehicle the shot comes from – its front,
sides, or rear, as explained in the diagram.

If a unit has firing models in two different facings of a
target vehicle (some models in the front and some in
the side, for example), shots are resolved separately for
the two facings.

permissive... stop ignoring facts... this is raw...

**Scott-S6**

visavismeyou wrote:
thebetter1 wrote:In all that, you still never managed to find any rule requiring that you draw line of sight to the facing you are in to shoot at it.

Permissive rules say you're allowed to shoot at the facing you're in (as I quoted). What do you have? do you have a rule which allows you to fire at any other facing? To draw LoS to any other facing? Nope.

Exactly - you are in the side arc so you can resolve the shot against the armour value of the side arc. (note, not shoot at the side arc you shoot at the vehicle, not a specific facing) That is entirely my point.

Also, note that LoS is drawn to the vehicle, not the facing - LoS to facing is used to determine eligibility for a cover save, not eligibility for taking a shot.

The fact that you cannot see the side face as it is entirely obscured is only referenced in the clause where it says you may resolve the shot against the facing you can see.

**Catachan_Devil**

Scotty has it

**Scott-S6**

visavismeyou wrote:"shot comes from" context.. stop dropping it...

Shot comes from = direction of the firer.

visavismeyou wrote:again, models are in one of the arcs, as described above, that is the only facing you can shoot at,

Yes, you're just backing up my point here

visavismeyou wrote:because you can no longer shoot at the arc you are in as you cannot see it and as the shooting rules state, you can only shoot at things you can see.

This is the key part of your statement and you still have not backed this up with anything.Quote the requirement to have LoS to a vehicle facing

When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its
hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle’s gun barrels,
antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.).

Exactly, line of sight to the vehicle is required to take the shot - not line of sight to the facing.

visavismeyou wrote:Only allowed to shoot at what you can see in TLOS... What more is there to say? Please respond with "the BRB never says you cant shoot at what you cant see!!!" Please dear god please respond with that i need a good laugh today.

I am in the side arc, I have LoS to the vehicle. I can take the shot. I also "may" take the shot against the visible rear facing with a 3+ save.

**Soup and a roll**

+1 to Scott-S6 (unsurprisingly)

visavismeyou wrote:when your arc is 100% obscured, that you may still roll some dice and the target gets a 3+./quote]

Soupandaroll wrote: If it said that you would be correct. It does not and, therefore, you are not. You either can not or will not back up your reasoning by RAW. Scott-S6 and I have explained that we believe the 'extraordinary claim' to be RAI, just not mandatory by RAW.

visavismeyou wrote: what?! lol so the words in the rulebook exactly as they appear is not RAW? but is instead RAI? I'm confused man. I quote the rulebook verbatim and you call it RAI.... I'm so confused... The extraordinary claim is the words in the rulebook that I quoted you earlier... word for word... as written... in the rulebook... What else do you want?

You added the underlined word. When you add tour own words you can dramatically change the working of the rules. This is either a mistake or you are lying to make up for your lack of evidence.

You don't seem to understand that a vehicle facing is not a target rather than the vehicle itself. Further more you are making rude statements contradicting the points put forth without quoting any relevant RAW. Unless you can back up your argument (without saying 'lol I have'), you are just trolling.