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.

rigeld2 wrote:
While he's wrong about that, it doesn't change that the Scythe cannot wound target outside of his LoS.

I avoided that part on purpose. This is definitely a grey area, just like blasts scattering out of LoS. And the FAQ didn't help at all.

My opinion is that all weapons that don't rely on a BS test (templates, blast markers, death ray, vibro cannon etc) can wound models outside of LoS. But that is a RAI discussion that I won't be doing it here since it won't get us anywhere.

thats not right.... units measure line of sight from their eyes where as vehicles measure their line of sight from their weapons.... the vehicles crew have nothing to do with line of sight

my comments are are purely ow raw and i still believe the deathray can shoot pretty much anything folowing raw

Sinny! wrote:
my comments are are purely ow raw and i still believe the deathray can shoot pretty much anything folowing raw

It seems you read it a different way than I do than.
As RAW I see them not wounding that which they cannot "see"

Sinny! wrote:
go to page16 out of sight if no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, it says nothing about weapons los here.
go to page8 line of sight- line of sight literally represents your warriors view of the enemy then in bold For one model to have los to another you must be able to trace a straight unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the targets body.

So you could argue that the warrior flying the thing clearly cant look left or right because he in in a cabin and can only really see forward.
but then you could argue a turret weapon with a closed hatch that doesnt have a commander hanging out the top cant shoot 360 as the models los it only out of the small windows at the front of the vehicle..
then i could argue both that if needed the commander can pop his head out of the hatch or the doomscythes driver could just stand up and look around or they could have some sort or radar ar targeting device to give them view, like reverse cameras on a car or the equivelant for the year 40000

If there was fluff or rules to support that, then yes he could.

Can you cite a rule allowing that? Or a rule that allows vehicles to draw LoS from anything but the weapon?
Vehicles do not draw LoS like infantry models. Page 70 explains that.

At Jdjamesdean
No i agree with that part the arguement now seems to be what defines what a vehicle can see..
is it what is in the weapons los or as i believe the units los which is defined on page 6.
as for the weapons los for the arguement i believe that page 71 and 72 only refer to the weapons los when shooting AT a target and not the units los



Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Sinny! wrote:
go to page16 out of sight if no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, it says nothing about weapons los here.
go to page8 line of sight- line of sight literally represents your warriors view of the enemy then in bold For one model to have los to another you must be able to trace a straight unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the targets body.

So you could argue that the warrior flying the thing clearly cant look left or right because he in in a cabin and can only really see forward.
but then you could argue a turret weapon with a closed hatch that doesnt have a commander hanging out the top cant shoot 360 as the models los it only out of the small windows at the front of the vehicle..
then i could argue both that if needed the commander can pop his head out of the hatch or the doomscythes driver could just stand up and look around or they could have some sort or radar ar targeting device to give them view, like reverse cameras on a car or the equivelant for the year 40000

If there was fluff or rules to support that, then yes he could.

Can you cite a rule allowing that? Or a rule that allows vehicles to draw LoS from anything but the weapon?
Vehicles do not draw LoS like infantry models. Page 70 explains that.

yes, the rule of a vehicle drawing los from the weapon is only ever written in the rulebook in relation to shhoting AT a unit
so you site me a rule where is says the deathray shoots AT a unit

copper.talos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
While he's wrong about that, it doesn't change that the Scythe cannot wound target outside of his LoS.

I avoided that part on purpose. This is definitely a grey area, just like blasts scattering out of LoS. And the FAQ didn't help at all.

My opinion is that all weapons that don't rely on a BS test (templates, blast markers, death ray, vibro cannon etc) can wound models outside of LoS. But that is a RAI discussion that I won't be doing it here since it won't get us anywhere.

That's fair - I'd bet that's the intent as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sinny! wrote:

yes, the rule of a vehicle drawing los from the weapon is only ever written in the rulebook in relation to shhoting AT a unit
so you site me a rule where is says the deathray shoots AT a unit

So you're ignoring the rule on page 16?

For people against the deathray it just seems to come down to them arguing the rules on page 71 and 72 saying that the vehicles weapons los is essentially the vehicles los.
but if you reah the entire sentance it says "Vehicles need to be able to draw los to their targets in order to shoot AT them"
that is the only arguement I have heard which is totally negated by the deathray anyway as it does not shoot AT anything other than the ground.
Somehow they are getting "the vehicles los is made from its weapons"
I say no.. The vehicles los is the same as saying the units los as mentioned in numerous entries in the rulebook on pages 8, 12 & 16 .
The weapons los is what changes what you can shoot AT but once again the deathray only shoots AT the ground


Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 what rule on page 16?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the out of sight rule?
that only says you cannot alocate wounds to a model you cannot see and if there are no visable models in a unit all remaining wounds are lost..
Im not doubting that at all.
All im saying is los for that instance is from the models line of sight.
line of sight from a vehicles weapon is only for determining shooting AT a unit which the deathray doesnt do.

Sinny! wrote:
I say no.. The vehicles los is the same as saying the units los as mentioned in numerous entries in the rulebook on pages 8, 12 & 16 .
The weapons los is what changes what you can shoot AT but once again the deathray only shoots AT the ground

Page 70 tells us that rules for vehicles are different from rules for infantry models. Since the rules for vehicles tell you how to draw LoS (it's not from the vehicle) you cannot use the rules on page 8 or 12.

rigeld2 what rule on page 16?

Out of Sight.

rigeld2 wrote:

Sinny! wrote:
I say no.. The vehicles los is the same as saying the units los as mentioned in numerous entries in the rulebook on pages 8, 12 & 16 .
The weapons los is what changes what you can shoot AT but once again the deathray only shoots AT the ground

Page 70 tells us that rules for vehicles are different from rules for infantry models. Since the rules for vehicles tell you how to draw LoS (it's not from the vehicle) you cannot use the rules on page 8 or 12.

rigeld2 what rule on page 16?

Out of Sight.

ok so say hypothetically I agree with you on these things. however it can still hit and destroy vehicles that are out of los as page 16 out of sight only refers to wounds

Sinny! wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Sinny! wrote:
I say no.. The vehicles los is the same as saying the units los as mentioned in numerous entries in the rulebook on pages 8, 12 & 16 .
The weapons los is what changes what you can shoot AT but once again the deathray only shoots AT the ground

Page 70 tells us that rules for vehicles are different from rules for infantry models. Since the rules for vehicles tell you how to draw LoS (it's not from the vehicle) you cannot use the rules on page 8 or 12.

rigeld2 what rule on page 16?

Out of Sight.

ok so say hypothetically I agree with you on these things. however it can still hit and destroy vehicles that are out of los as page 16 out of sight only refers to wounds

So do saves (IIRC) and we have Vehicles that can take them.

Sinny! wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Sinny! wrote:
I say no.. The vehicles los is the same as saying the units los as mentioned in numerous entries in the rulebook on pages 8, 12 & 16 .
The weapons los is what changes what you can shoot AT but once again the deathray only shoots AT the ground

Page 70 tells us that rules for vehicles are different from rules for infantry models. Since the rules for vehicles tell you how to draw LoS (it's not from the vehicle) you cannot use the rules on page 8 or 12.

rigeld2 what rule on page 16?

Out of Sight.

ok so say hypothetically I agree with you on these things. however it can still hit and destroy vehicles that are out of los as page 16 out of sight only refers to wounds

I'd say that's debatable - wounds are equated to penetrating/glancing hits pretty commonly. Shooting at squadrons (page 77) even says that hits are allocated exactly like wounds.
Also, your interpretation would render all vehicle invul saves useless.

rigeld2 wrote:

Sinny! wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Sinny! wrote:
I say no.. The vehicles los is the same as saying the units los as mentioned in numerous entries in the rulebook on pages 8, 12 & 16 .
The weapons los is what changes what you can shoot AT but once again the deathray only shoots AT the ground

Page 70 tells us that rules for vehicles are different from rules for infantry models. Since the rules for vehicles tell you how to draw LoS (it's not from the vehicle) you cannot use the rules on page 8 or 12.

rigeld2 what rule on page 16?

Out of Sight.

ok so say hypothetically I agree with you on these things. however it can still hit and destroy vehicles that are out of los as page 16 out of sight only refers to wounds

I'd say that's debatable - wounds are equated to penetrating/glancing hits pretty commonly. Shooting at squadrons (page 77) even says that hits are allocated exactly like wounds.
Also, your interpretation would render all vehicle invul saves useless.

yes i see what you are saying, i just had a read through the rulebook and didnt see anywhere it says hullpoints are the same as wounds other than the squadren rule you sited. i didnt even see a paragraph that used both those words in the same context. so you are correct then RAW vehicles dont get invunerable saves

Page 75, vehicle cover saves.
Tyranid FAQ, Impaler Cannon rulings.

There's more. You've admitted your interpretation leads to not just useless rules (invul saves on vehicles) but options that are actively harmful (flicker fields that cost points for no benefit). We also have an example of Bjorn (a vehicle) being able to use his invul save vs glancing or penetrating hits in the SW FAQ.

Your interpretation cannot be correct.

so taking a vote..... Can the doom scythe hit the land raider in the example at the start of the post?

Not unless you also claim vehicles cannot take invulnerable saves - something we know to be true. The two viewpoints are mutually contradictory

rigeld2 wrote:
Page 75, vehicle cover saves.
Tyranid FAQ, Impaler Cannon rulings.

There's more. You've admitted your interpretation leads to not just useless rules (invul saves on vehicles) but options that are actively harmful (flicker fields that cost points for no benefit). We also have an example of Bjorn (a vehicle) being able to use his invul save vs glancing or penetrating hits in the SW FAQ.

Your interpretation cannot be correct.

my interpretation had nothing to do with vehicles not geting invul saves, that was someones interperatation of my interpretaion of the deathray rules

It is the conclusion of your take on the rules; when you reach an absurd conclusion the chances are you have made an error along the way

Sinny! wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Page 75, vehicle cover saves.
Tyranid FAQ, Impaler Cannon rulings.

There's more. You've admitted your interpretation leads to not just useless rules (invul saves on vehicles) but options that are actively harmful (flicker fields that cost points for no benefit). We also have an example of Bjorn (a vehicle) being able to use his invul save vs glancing or penetrating hits in the SW FAQ.

Your interpretation cannot be correct.

my interpretation had nothing to do with vehicles not geting invul saves, that was someones interperatation of my interpretaion of the deathray rules

It's not an interpretation of your interpretation - it's a direct cause, as you've admitted.

Lol this is entertainment. I hope someone from GW is reading