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.

SM Codex: First Searchlight Illuminates, all others at that target do not go off.

SM Codex Text that confirms: "Searchlights are used when the night fighting rule is in effect." Skip 1 sentence. "For the rest of the shooting phase, any other unit that fires at the illuminated unit does not use the night fighting special rule."

IG Codex: exact same as SM Codex in all respects.

SW Codex: exact same as SM Codex in all respects.

BA Codex: exact same as SM Codex in all respects.

GK Codex: exact same as SM Codex in all respects.

BT Codex: exact same effect as SM Codex in all respects.

DA Codex: exact same as SM Codex in all respects.

It's called reading the rules people, it is not that hard: If you are not using the Night fighting rules then the Search light has no effect. The first searchlight removes the night fighting rule from the target unit.



No further units(after the first unit to illuminate the target unit) shooting at the illuminated unit ever use their Searchlights.

insaniak wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Is (#1) "Searchlights are used where the night fighting rule is in effect." the use of said searchlight?

It's telling you when it is used.


Your #2 is telling you how it is used. But you're not looking for the how... In order to determine if the searchlight was used at a given time, you look at the rule that says when the searchlight is used.


If the searchlight is used, the vehicle illuminates itself. The searchlight is used when the Night Fight rule is in effect. The Night Fight rule is in effect when you try to target a vehicle that has not already been illuminated.

Whether or not your spotting roll is successful, the Night Fight rule is in effect. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have rolled for spotting distance. And because the Night Fight rule is in effect, the searchlight was used.

It's telling you when it is able to be used.

The next sentence goes about detailing how you use the searchlight.

Its use is mandatory upon a successful night fighting roll. "having acquired a target, will illuminate it with the searchlight." that is how the searchlight is used. after acquiring a target.

Without a successful roll you do not acquired a target so you will not illuminate it with the searchlight thus you have not used the searchlight.

Agree with Death Reaper.

The first sentence is telling us that these are only used when the Night Fighting rules are in play. So players know that's when Searchlights matter, and that they need to refer to those rules.

Searchlights are then used if and when you successfully spot a target.

If and when you actually use them, you then also illuminate yourself.

Mannahnin wrote:Agree with Death Reaper.

The first sentence is telling us that these are only used when the Night Fighting rules are in play. So players know that's when Searchlights matter, and that they need to refer to those rules.

Searchlights are then used if and when you successfully spot a target.

If and when you actually use them, you then also illuminate yourself.

Agree with this one completely. If it was the other way around, people would pay points NOT to have searchlights.

I stand by original summary.

imweasel wrote:I stand by original summary.

The one that has no basis?
Either the "However" statement applies to the entire set of rules (meaning you're always illuminated) or it only applies if you successfully illuminate. Linguistically it's the latter.

rigeld2 wrote:

imweasel wrote:I stand by original summary.

The one that has no basis?
Either the "However" statement applies to the entire set of rules (meaning you're always illuminated) or it only applies if you successfully illuminate. Linguistically it's the latter.

There is no basis that the searchlight is always illuminated. I have no idea where you are getting that 'however' would make it apply to the entire set of rules. It's simply implying HOW the penalty occurs, when the searchlight is used. Such as one of the definitions of 'however' : '3. In what way. Used as an intensive of how: However did you get here so soon?'.

imweasel wrote: It's simply implying HOW the penalty occurs, when the searchlight is used. Such as one of the definitions of 'however' : '3. In what way. Used as an intensive of how: However did you get here so soon?'.

Right.

And what basis do you have for tying use to an unsuccessful Night Fight roll?

rigeld2 wrote:Right.

And what basis do you have for tying use to an unsuccessful Night Fight roll?

That's what it tells us to do.

"...having acquired a target, will illuminate it with the searchlight." Codex: Space Marines, page 103.

You must have a target before you use the searchlight. If you have no target, you do not use the searchlight.

ToBeWilly wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Right.

And what basis do you have for tying use to an unsuccessful Night Fight roll?

That's what it tells us to do.

"...having acquired a target, will illuminate it with the searchlight." Codex: Space Marines, page 103.

You must have a target before you use the searchlight. If you have no target, you do not use the searchlight.

That ties use to a successful Night Fight roll. iamweasel asserted that even an unsuccessful Night Fight roll would illuminate the person trying to fire.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/454942.page#4390987 editing this link in to show the post I'm referencing

I think the misunderstanding comes from the "is used when the night fighting rules are in effect." This is a pointless sentence, no different than saying "a boltgun is used in the shooting phase." This does not mean the boltgun is automatically used every shooting phase. So the searchlight is not used just because it's dark.

No matter how you look at the situation realistically it makes no sense. However, the rules are implying that the searchlight is never turned on until a target is clearly spotted. A good reason for this is because it's basically suicide to use a searchlight. If the light is never turned on then it's not being used.

LOL I thought this was going to be a bs thread, but it's actually not!

Here's what happens in real life, for reference:
1) Some attacking units try to light targets.
2) Some attacking units stay "dark" and try to fire at lit targets.
3) All defending units can fire at any attackers *trying* to light targets.

No rules there, but can the rules be interpreted to reflect real life? Actually, like Kirsanth I haven't been playing it that way, but it looks like they can:

1) If a unit has a searchlight it must still use the night fighting rules to pick a target
2) any other unit that fires at the illuminated target does not use the Night Fighting rules
3) a vehicle that uses a searchlight, can be targeted ... as if the Night Fighting rules were not in effect

Basically, "using" a searchlight is attempting to fire at a target while Night Fight is active. Doesn't necessarily have to successfully illuminate the target - just trying to is enough to expose the searchlight unit. Then any units that also fire at the illuminated target, keep their searchlights dark.

Note that the definition of "uses a searchlight" is ambiguous, but it could be interpreted to reflect real-life, so that's what I'd do. Makes no sense for all searchlight equipped units to be exposed, makes no sense for those not trying to light someone up to be exposed, but does make sense for failed attempts to expose the searchlighter.

Also note that as night fight has gone from being a rare thing to "every time the damn Necrons are on the table" thing, we can probably expect the general Night Fight rules to get some love in 6th Ed. so I wouldn't think getting emotionally invested in the current verbiage either way would be rewarding.

I'd disagree that a failed attempt would light you up in real life.
Since the searchlight isn't assisting with the Night Fight check, you're using your normal "unaided" eyes to find the target. After that it's trivial to turn on the light and point it at the bad guy.

I've always played it (and will continue to do so for the next twoish weeks ) that a failed NF test doesn't light you up.

Randall Turner wrote:LOL I thought this was going to be a bs thread, but it's actually not!

Here's what happens in real life, for reference:

No rules there, but can the rules be interpreted to reflect real life? it looks like they can

The underlined is not correct.

The rules were not written to be "Real World" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle.

What would happen in the real world has nothing to do with the RAW.

Randall Turner wrote:Basically, "using" a searchlight is attempting to fire at a target while Night Fight is active. Doesn't necessarily have to successfully illuminate the target - just trying to is enough to expose the searchlight unit. Then any units that also fire at the illuminated target, keep their searchlights dark.

The above is also incorrect.

you only use a searchlight if you spot the unit successfully.

I agree with rigeld2 (which is weird because I thought he was on the other side).

Unfortunately Randall, this is one of those things where real life has nothing to do with stupid rules.

erikwfg wrote:Unfortunately Randall, this is one of those things where real life has nothing to do with stupid rules.

You mean just like all the other rules?

Real life never has anything to do with the rules.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle.

What would happen in the real world has nothing to do with the RAW.

This is all obsolete doctrine, but In real life you're typically aiming the light at muzzle flashes, or as in Vietnam just general battlefield illumination. It's entirely possible, if not likely, to turn on the light without capturing something in the beam. But who knows how they're using them in the 41st Century, honestly why they're equipped with them in 40K still when even our modern 21st Century AFV's no longer come with them, I have no clue - seems like we'd all be using something like Tau Blacksun Filters etc. FFS, they haven't even used IR spotlights for what, decades now? So anything you decide on I think is supportable both "realistically" and in terms of rule interpretation. Except exposing *all* light equipped AFV's, that's not right.

erikwfg wrote:(which is weird because I thought he was on the other side).

I was arguing as a devils advocate trying to get solid arguments for my side.
I can see how someone could read the rules the way I was arguing, but I don't think that's the correct way to interpret the rule.

I think you went too far with the "if equipped, exposed" thing though, Rigeld2. In other words, the reducto ad absurdium ended up with something that was far enough from "reality" that it offended our sensibilities. The actual "new issue" here, though, I think is valid - what does constitute "use" of a searchlight? (Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the crux of it.)

Randall Turner wrote:I think you went too far with the "if equipped, exposed" thing though, Rigeld2. In other words, the reducto ad absurdium ended up with something that was far enough from "reality" that it offended our sensibilities. The actual "new issue" here, though, I think is valid - what does constitute "use" of a searchlight? (Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the crux of it.)

It's possible I went too far. Sorry if it bothered anyone.

I don't see a way for "use" to mean anything other than a successful NF test.

No lol "offends sensibilities" doesn't mean "offends", it means far enough away from what seems "right" that it feels wrong. Subjective feel thing. No "offense".

As to the key issue of "uses a searchlight" meaning anything other than successful NF test, welp, how about an *unsuccessful* NF test? Reading the verbiage for searchlghts (I'm using Imperial Guard here, they're virtually identical) that seems supportable too. You're certainly using Night Fight rules to roll for night visibility range there, you just failed.

And again, to be clear - I'm with Kirsanth, I've been using them the same as you, but this thread caused me to rethink it.

DeathReaper wrote:

erikwfg wrote:Unfortunately Randall, this is one of those things where real life has nothing to do with stupid rules.

You mean just like all the other rules?

Real life never has anything to do with the rules.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle.

What would happen in the real world has nothing to do with the RAW.

I meant that the rule is stupid because it's not realistic. Real life is what everything is based on, so it has to do entierly with the rules. All of our modern and recent experiences have alot to do with the game, especially in a game that is basically a sci-fi version of the World Wars. I know the RAW say what they do regardless of RL, but RL is what they are trying to represent.

Once you see how the game abstracts everything you find that the rules are realistic. It's only certain things (like searchlights) that end up being weird. Most of the other things in the game are perfectly logical in how they work. When people don't understand why some very simple rules work the way they do that's how I know they haven't understood the system yet.

Randall Turner wrote:As to the key issue of "uses a searchlight" meaning anything other than successful NF test, welp, how about an *unsuccessful* NF test? Reading the verbiage for searchlghts (I'm using Imperial Guard here, they're virtually identical) that seems supportable too. You're certainly using Night Fight rules to roll for night visibility range there, you just failed.

Right. But the searchlight didn't allow you to make the NF test, it didn't influence the test at all.
The only time the searchlight does anything is if you succeed at the NF test.

Considering "real life" is fine when we're interpreting an ambiguous rule. DeathReaper has that blurb memorized (or he cut-and-pastes it) for every time someone tries to relate the game to reality. I don't think "simulation" means what he thinks it does. I just ignore him unless we're in strict RAW land, which we aren't here. Once we're in RAI, ie, divining intent, it's all fair game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Randall Turner wrote:As to the key issue of "uses a searchlight" meaning anything other than successful NF test, welp, how about an *unsuccessful* NF test? Reading the verbiage for searchlghts (I'm using Imperial Guard here, they're virtually identical) that seems supportable too. You're certainly using Night Fight rules to roll for night visibility range there, you just failed.

Right. But the searchlight didn't allow you to make the NF test, it didn't influence the test at all.
The only time the searchlight does anything is if you succeed at the NF test.

Right, but does "has no effect" equate to "did not use"? That's the part that's open to interpretation. And I understand what you're saying, ie, they don't turn the light on until they spot the target - my counter-point is that's debatable, both in terms of verbiage ("uses a searchlight" undefined) and in terms of real life usage (you can fire up the searchlight without necessarily illuminating something).

Mind I'm not saying you're wrong, either - just that it's debatable.

I really hope they "promote" searchlights into the main rule book. We can be pretty sure they'll revisit the night fight wording, it would also be nice if they tied the most common piece of night fight equipment into the main rule too.

No effect = did not use, as far as the rules for spotlights are concerned. because you only use the spotlight on a successful NF test.

If you want to ignore me, that is fine, but you are missing out on some valid rules quotations at times. Simulate means exactly what it is supposed to.

to Simulate a game of 40K is to pretend it is real... in the year 40,000. That is why modern day real life has no bearing on the rules.

Maybe I should ammend it for people who do not understand that I am talking about modern day real life. There Fixed:

The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.

Better?

erikwfg wrote:I meant that the rule is stupid because it's not realistic. Real life is what everything is based on, so it has to do entierly with the rules. All of our modern and recent experiences have alot to do with the game, especially in a game that is basically a sci-fi version of the World Wars. I know the RAW say what they do regardless of RL, but RL is what they are trying to represent.

Once you see how the game abstracts everything you find that the rules are realistic.

Like movement, that is realistic... Oh Wait, never mind it is not.

How about the ranges for shooting weapons, those are realistic. On second thought, nope not that either.

How about moving in a vehicle disembarking and assaulting. No again...

How about a squad being out of range of a units shooting save for one guy, only that one guy in range can die right. well no that is not true either.

I could go on, but there are many many instances in the rules that are not realistic.

Very few rules are going to be realistic in a game about combat in the year 40,000, given that is about 38,000 years in the future.

That is why realistic things should never be brought into a convo about 40k rules.

rigeld2 wrote:Right. But the searchlight didn't allow you to make the NF test, it didn't influence the test at all.
The only time the searchlight does anything is if you succeed at the NF test.

Doing something is not the requirement, however.
Using a bolter does not mean you wounded something, but that is its only thing it does.

Successful use is not required.
Akin to single shot weapons having a single use.
It does not matter if that use is successful.

Right use is required, and how do you use a searchlight?

By rolling a successful NF test.

DeathReaper wrote:Right, use is required; how do you use a searchlight?

By rolling a NF test.

I really get your point. I read it that way for years.

I stopped iterating it simply because that is all that is going on.
The same text only made me re-think it once.

kirsanth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Right. But the searchlight didn't allow you to make the NF test, it didn't influence the test at all.
The only time the searchlight does anything is if you succeed at the NF test.

Doing something is not the requirement, however.
Using a bolter does not mean you wounded something, but that is its only thing it does.

Right. Using a bolter requires shooting it.
Using a Searchlight does not involve making the Night Fight check - that's made regardless of searchlight or not.

Successful use is not required.
Akin to single shot weapons having a single use.
It does not matter if that use is successful.

You're asserting that using a searchlight is the NF check. Correct?
I'm not sure how you're reading the searchlight rules to make that assertion. Could you help me understand?

DeathReaper wrote:Like movement, that is realistic... Oh Wait, never mind it is not.

How about the ranges for shooting weapons, those are realistic. On second thought, nope not that either.

How about moving in a vehicle disembarking and assaulting. No again...

How about a squad being out of range of a units shooting save for one guy, only that one guy in range can die right. well no that is not true either.

I could go on, but there are many many instances in the rules that are not realistic.

Very few rules are going to be realistic in a game about combat in the year 40,000, given that is about 38,000 years in the future.

That is why realistic things should never be brought into a convo about 40k rules.

All of those rules are realistic in an abstract system.

Despite 40k being in the future, they aren't as advanced as they should be. There are also tons of places in the setting that are medieval equivalent. Realistic for the modern day (or past) is barely any different than in 40k. The only things realism might not be able to come up for is psychic, space stuff, and the warp.

I thought I had something to say on the spotlight thing, but I just reread someone's post and now have no comment...