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.

Exscuse me, but can someone direct me to a statement from GW, that clearly says that you can ignore the closest troops to fire at a vehicle, but that you can't ignore a closer vehicle to fire at a squad of troops. 

I know that this is the rule, but for some damn reason many players at my local game store, keep making me repeat myself, it got so bad last night, I lost my voice. . .

Now to anyone that wants to argue with me about it here, in the Big grey book, under the heading of shoot the big ones, it says that you may ignore a closer squad of troops to fire at a vehicle, however it says no where in the book that the opposite is true. . .

I frankly have to agree with the concept as well. . .

If your about to be run over by a 60 ton behemoth of a tank, or shot at by cannon larger than your head from 5 feet away, do you really think your not going to shoot at some small squad 200 yards away, without some damn good orders from your Commanding Officer (Veteran Sergeant). 

Page 19 holds your awnsers I believe.

While the reasoning behind not shooting the tank infront of you because you can not hurt it is valid in game terms.  Fluffwise... the troops would not know they cant hurt till they try!

Anyways, the issue is that while it says that infantry may be ignored to shoot the closest vehicle.  Nowhere does it say that a vehicle can be ignored to shoot infantry.  I have had this same issue come up several times,  including with GW staff who were forced to agree.  There is no acception to the rule that you must test target priority to shoot the non closest target when the closest is a tank.  It has happened on occasion that I have had snipers decide to try and take out a land raider because of this.  I figure they are aiming for the vision slits. Sure, they cant hurt it, but they can damn well try!

-Legacy40k

All I can suggest is to make them read the rulebook. It's right there in black and white.

I've played in 3 different LGS since 4th edition came out, and in all 3 I've run into this exact scenario. Sometimes they were new players, and sometimes it was guys who've played since Rogue Trader, but in all cases after I pointed them to where it was in the book I had to explain it further to them.

If they ever put out the updated FAQs, I honestly believe this question belongs in there.

Yah, it can be pretty silly when the immobilized, weapon-less Rhino is the closest target and the infantry squad at hand fail a target priority test and futilely blaze away with their lasguns...

Clarence

Doesn't matter if you think it's 'silly or not, those are the rules.

Page 19.
"Firing at large targets
Many units carrying tank-busting weapons, like missile launchers, or lascannons, are able to spot marauding vehicles, walkers, or large creatures with ease. To represent this, when it comes to choosing a target you can declare your unit wishes to target enemy vehicles, artillery and monsterous creatures(these are the only targets you can this way, collectivily referred to as 'Large targets'). If you choose to target large Targets then other units can be ignored in terms of determining the closest target. A Leadership test is still required to target anything other than the closest Large Target."

Notice the part about if you wish you can declare shooting at a large target. I am reading that targeting a Large Target is optional.

Um...yeah, I am aware of that, Ghaz, I did state the proper rules, after all, I'm just stating that it is a humorous situation where the Guardsmen are exhibiting a lack of good sense by shooting at the harmless vehicle. Lighten up, and good gaming!

Clarence

Posted By DragonPup on 04/18/2006 12:03 AM
Page 19.
"Firing at large targets
Many units carrying tank-busting weapons, like missile launchers, or lascannons, are able to spot marauding vehicles, walkers, or large creatures with ease. To represent this, when it comes to choosing a target you can declare your unit wishes to target enemy vehicles, artillery and monsterous creatures(these are the only targets you can this way, collectivily referred to as 'Large targets'). If you choose to target large Targets then other units can be ignored in terms of determining the closest target. A Leadership test is still required to target anything other than the closest Large Target."

Notice the part about if you wish you can declare shooting at a large target. I am reading that targeting a Large Target is optional.

Um, that last sentence is crystal clear, you have to make a priority test to shoot anything other than the closest large target. The rule is just there to shoot over troops to the closest vehicle/MC behind them.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

Posted By snooggums on 04/18/2006 6:29 AM

Many units carrying tank-busting weapons, like missile launchers, or lascannons, are able to spot marauding vehicles, walkers, or large creatures with ease. To represent this, when it comes to choosing a target you I. can declare your unit wishes to target enemy vehicles, artillery and monsterous creatures(these are the only targets you can this way, collectivily referred to as 'Large targets'). II. If you choose to target large Targets then other units can be ignored in terms of determining the closest target. III. A Leadership test is still required to target anything other than the closest Large Target."

************************************************************************ 

 

 

I. This is the initial choice. At this juncture you have the option of shooting normally OR choose a Large Target.

 

II.. This is the effect of choice I.

 

III. Affirms that if you choose a Large Target in choice #I, then the normal distance priority still applies-aka you have to shoot the closest Large Target vs. a different Large Target further away.  

 

My US$.02 anyway.

 

I dunno...I think it's pretty funny when a unit of firewarriors *and* a unit of crisis suits both have to fire at the immobilized, weaponless Sentinel that is sitting in front of my veterans and fully functional chimera...

I mean c'mon, get an LD10 army already, sheesh.

Posted By Strangelooper on 04/18/2006 3:39 PM
I dunno...I think it's pretty funny when a unit of firewarriors *and* a unit of crisis suits both have to fire at the immobilized, weaponless Sentinel that is sitting in front of my veterans and fully functional chimera...

I mean c'mon, get an LD10 army already, sheesh.

A weaponless, immobilized vehicle is counted as detroyed.

Posted By DragonPup on 04/18/2006 12:03 AM
Page 19.
"Firing at large targets

1. To represent this, when it comes to choosing a target you can declare your unit wishes to target enemy vehicles, artillery and monsterous creatures(these are the only targets you can this way, collectivily referred to as 'Large targets').
2. If you choose to target large Targets then other units can be ignored in terms of determining the closest target.
3. A Leadership test is still required to target anything other than the closest Large Target."
   
   The way I read it is that you:

1. Choose wether to shoot at Large Targets or units

2. If you choose Large Targets, you may ignore units

3. If you choose Large Targets, you must still make a target priority to shoot at any Large Target other than the closest Large Target.

Snooggums isn't the second sentence also crystal clear.  If you choose to shoot Large Targets, Units basically aren't there.  Meaning that you get a choice between  Large Targets or units.

Snooggums isn't the second sentence also crystal clear. If you choose to shoot Large Targets, Units basically aren't there. Meaning that you get a choice between Large Targets or units.

You were right up until the last sentence.

The rule is:
"If you choose to target large Targets then other units can be ignored in terms of determining the closest target."
You don't get a choice between Large targets and other units. You get a choice to ignore other units in favour of Large targets.

That's all. Nothing in that rule suggests that it works the other way around.

weaponless, immobilized vehicle is counted as detroyed.

Do you have a page reference for that? Because as far as I can see, what you have there is a prime example of a house rule. Nothing in the rules that I can find makes it legal to ignore a closer vehicular target just because its immobilized and weaponless.

And as for the RAW on ignoring large targets to shoot at smaller targets farther away, check out the "How to have an intelligent rules discussion" thread for the skinny on why its illegal.

A weaponless, immobilized vehicle is counted as detroyed.

---

Um, no it doesn't.  A vehicle can be immobilised and weapon destroyed.  The next immobilised or weapon destroyed result after that will destroy it, but it has to reach that stage first.

"weaponless, immobilized vehicle is counted as detroyed.


Do you have a page reference for that?"

BBB page 67:

note: A vehicle which suffers an Immobilised or Armament Destroyed result when it has no S4 or
greater weapons left, and is already immobilised, counts the result as a Vehicle Destroyed! result
instead.

But before it suffers that result, it is immobile and weaponless and does not count as destroyed. ie an immobilized basic rhino with the weapon destroyed.

Hit 1 weapon destroyed.
Hit two immobilized.
Right now weaponless and immobile.
Hit three woud then cause it to be destroyed.

Yea, I should stop quoting rules by memory. :|

Now let's back to the main point.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD class=Normal vAlign=top></TD> <TD>But before it suffers that result, it is immobile and weaponless and does not count as destroyed. ie an immobilized basic rhino with the weapon destroyed.

Hit 1 weapon destroyed.
Hit two immobilized.
Right now weaponless and immobile.
Hit three woud then cause it to be destroyed.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Though, with my luck, the third hit would only "stun" or "shake."

Sigh.

Sal.

BBB page 67:

note: A vehicle which suffers an Immobilised or Armament Destroyed result when it has no S4 or
greater weapons left, and is already immobilised, counts the result as a Vehicle Destroyed! result
instead.

Um... all that is saying is that if you roll a further Immobilised or Armament Destroyed result against a vehicle that is already Immobilised and weaponless, it then counts as destroyed.

Before that last Damage result, you have an immobilised, weaponless vehicle. If it already counted as destroyed at that point, you wouldn't be shooting at it...

sorry, bad attempt at being a smart donkey.