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.

Is it fair to assume that the auto hit seeker missile attack that happens after you land 3 markerlights on a target, hits that target with the seeker rule? It would appear to use the rule since it was launched from plane or vehicle or suit off the battle field so it did not need line of sight.
Could you argue it should ignore cover as well?

Can you post the actual rules text for the relevant Infiltration Cadre bit? I would imagine the answer is dependent on exactly how the rule is written.

Naaris wrote:
Is it fair to assume that the auto hit seeker missile attack that happens after you land 3 markerlights on a target, hits that target with the seeker rule? It would appear to use the rule since it was launched from plane or vehicle or suit off the battle field so it did not need line of sight.
Could you argue it should ignore cover as well?

It honestly does not say, but from the context of the rule, the fact that you need three marker light hits (which normally use the marker light upgraded seeker missile), and that it says "in addition to placing the marker light counters" would imply that it doesn't have to use a marker light to get the marker light buff

Does it say it ignores cover? Does it say it is a seeker missile fired by a marker light? Heck does it even say it costs you one of the marker tokens?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Does it say it ignores cover? Does it say it is a seeker missile fired by a marker light? Heck does it even say it costs you one of the marker tokens?

I'm in accord with Fling. It's just a S8 AP3 hit. And I'd consider hitting the closest face to the firing Pathfinder unit.

Seeker is pretty clear that it is only invoked for each markerlight counter expended on that ability.

The seeker hit granted by Neutralisation Lattice quite clearly isn't the expending of markerlight counters.

Seeker Missiles, according to rules stated under 'Markerlight' on page no.123 of new Tau codex have Ignores Cover special rule.

The Seeker Missile hit granted by Neutralisation Lattice doesn't reduce the number of inflicted markerlight hits, better to say comes in addition to the markerlight hits you made against a target.

 StarDrop wrote:
Seeker Missiles, according to rules stated under 'Markerlight' on page no.123 of new Tau codex have Ignores Cover special rule.

This is incorrect.

Only seeker missiles fired by expending markerlight counters on the Seeker ability have the Ignores Cover special rule.

A simple 'seeker missile hit', or a seeker missile fired without expending a markerlight counter on the Seeker ability, does not have the Ignores Cover special rule.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 StarDrop wrote:
Seeker Missiles, according to rules stated under 'Markerlight' on page no.123 of new Tau codex have Ignores Cover special rule.

This is incorrect.

Only seeker missiles fired by expending markerlight counters on the Seeker ability have the Ignores Cover special rule.

A simple 'seeker missile hit', or a seeker missile fired without expending a markerlight counter on the Seeker ability, does not have the Ignores Cover special rule.

But based on the rule, the seeker missile is shot directly above from space/air support. This would mean that the model would not get cover as it is coming directly from above, not from any of the units firing the marker lights.

notredameguy10 wrote:
But based on the rule, the seeker missile is shot directly above from space/air support. This would mean that the model would not get cover as it is coming directly from above, not from any of the units firing the marker lights.

Okay, sure.

But with no such thing as top armour, how do you propose to roll armour penetration against a vehicle when you're unable to determine which vehicle facing it's fired at? And if the unit is underneath a building's roof or under the floor of a ruin, how do you propose to allocate wounds if they are out of sight?

Short point is that the rules need a firing unit and a target unit to determine things like facing and line of sight, as well as for wound allocation purposes. Or at least some more specificity in a rule that perhaps does not have all of these things. It seems most sensible within the rules that we do have to treat the markerlight-firing unit as the firing unit for the seeker missile also.

Edit for the umpteenth time:

For actual rules support for what I'm saying, here's what 'Out of Sight' from the shooting rules says about allocating wounds and line of sight:

"If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it..."

Drawing line of sight is covered in the General Principles section:

"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body."

So basically if you want to claim it ignores cover because it's fired from space you'll also have to agree it's impossible to draw line of sight, so cannot allocate wounds or determine vehicle facing.

This is one of those things that will have to be filed under "written in a way that rules as written don't have an answer."

The hit from the neutralization lattice specifically do not come from any unit on the table. There are no firing models, so out of sight doesn't apply.

There are rules that simulate hits from above on vehicles in other circumstances, which would imply that this should be counted as a side armor hit.

There are rules for non-vehicle units taking wounds with no source unit, such as from being inside an exploding transport.

The easiest and most sensible way? The hit is randomly allocated to a model in the unit. It strikes on side armor.

Since the lattice rule specifies the missile hit use the profile on p. 118, it would not have ignores cover. Since there is no source for the hit, there could be no intervening cover, but area terrain and cover effects (Dpods) would still count.

RAW though, it doesn't quite work without filling in some holes.

maceria wrote:
This is one of those things that will have to be filed under "written in a way that rules as written don't have an answer."

The hit from the neutralization lattice specifically do not come from any unit on the table. There are no firing models, so out of sight doesn't apply.

There are rules that simulate hits from above on vehicles in other circumstances, which would imply that this should be counted as a side armor hit.

There are rules for non-vehicle units taking wounds with no source unit, such as from being inside an exploding transport.

The easiest and most sensible way? The hit is randomly allocated to a model in the unit. It strikes on side armor.

Since the lattice rule specifies the missile hit use the profile on p. 118, it would not have ignores cover. Since there is no source for the hit, there could be no intervening cover, but area terrain and cover effects (Dpods) would still count.

RAW though, it doesn't quite work without filling in some holes.

I agree with this. It seems like a random hit from orbit, or the sky. And thus should be treated as such. And weapon types that normally hit from the top hits side armor as stated and also grants cover unless stated otherwise.

But that means its another random damage roll again.

I agree with this assessment also in terms of actually playing a game.

My suspicion on RaI, however, is that since the Seeker Missile is being launched from on high as the result of a Markerlight being fired, that the authors intended us to use the Markerlight rules for firing a seeker missile... BS5, Ignores Cover, etc.

I could honestly go either way. As has been said, RaW requires a little green stuff to fill in the gaps.

My suspicion on RaI is that it is a seeker hit from the firing unit counting LoS cover etc from them. Which is also in line with what the rules say...

If a unit from this Formation inflicts three or more markerlight hits on a target unit in a Shooting phase, inflict a single seeker missile hit on the enemy unit in addition to placing the markerlight counters. Note that you do not need to rill to hit for the seeker missile, nor do you need to have a unit capable of firing the missile in range of the target (the missiles are fired by support craft flying high above the battlefield).

The rule states that a seeker missile hit is inflicted on the unit, not that an unit gets to fire a free seeker missile. The missile is then further stated that it does not roll to hit, and that you do not need to have an unit capable of firing the seeker missile. The rules indicate the missile does not come from the unit scoring the marker light hits, and is fired from elsewhere- from models not on the table/ in the tau army. The missiles being fired by support craft is in the rules for neutralization lattice, not flavor text.

RAW it would not have ignores cover, but as the missile comes from no unit firing an unit could only claim cover for cover they were in- not intervening cover as there is no way to measure intervening cover from a shot that came from no unit on the table to measure from.

In short-

It uses the profile for a seeker missile, it auto hits, it does not have the ignores cover rule, but due to how it interacts with the game you cannot measure intervening cover only cover if the model is in cover, has an innnate cover save, jink etc.

blaktoof wrote:

If a unit from this Formation inflicts three or more markerlight hits on a target unit in a Shooting phase, inflict a single seeker missile hit on the enemy unit in addition to placing the markerlight counters. Note that you do not need to rill to hit for the seeker missile, nor do you need to have a unit capable of firing the missile in range of the target (the missiles are fired by support craft flying high above the battlefield).

The rule states that a seeker missile hit is inflicted on the unit, not that an unit gets to fire a free seeker missile. The missile is then further stated that it does not roll to hit, and that you do not need to have an unit capable of firing the seeker missile. The rules indicate the missile does not come from the unit scoring the marker light hits, and is fired from elsewhere- from models not on the table/ in the tau army. The missiles being fired by support craft is in the rules for neutralization lattice, not flavor text.

RAW it would not have ignores cover, but as the missile comes from no unit firing an unit could only claim cover for cover they were in- not intervening cover as there is no way to measure intervening cover from a shot that came from no unit on the table to measure from.

In short-

It uses the profile for a seeker missile, it auto hits, it does not have the ignores cover rule, but due to how it interacts with the game you cannot measure intervening cover only cover if the model is in cover, has an innnate cover save, jink etc.

And since you can not draw LOS from the support craft, no Wounds can be allocated.

By the RAW, you are correct.

But GW is a model company not a rules company

The rule itself references exactly what a seeker missile hit is.

Pg 119.

That is a S8 AP3, Heavy 1, One Use Only. If the rule wanted us to use the Ignore Cover ability it would have referenced it.

I agree with this assessment also in terms of actually playing a game.

My suspicion on RaI, however, is that since the Seeker Missile is being launched from on high as the result of a Markerlight being fired, that the authors intended us to use the Markerlight rules for firing a seeker missile... BS5, Ignores Cover, etc.

I could honestly go either way. As has been said, RaW requires a little green stuff to fill in the gaps.

I would agree that with this.

As for where the missile is deemed to come from, for simplicity's sake, wouldn't it be the least complex to say that it came from the direction of the pathfinders firing the marker light?