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.

Quick question. Do weapons that do not need los (earth shaker artillery) get receive a -1 to hit? If there in Los and obscured or completely out of los

By "earth shaker artillery" do you mean the Earthshaker Cannon from the AM codex?

If so, the Earthshaker Cannon uses the Ballistic skill of the model.

Why would you get a negative on the to hit roll?

I am guessing you haven't played the cities of death expansion in chapter approved 2018?

And I yes I mean the earth shaker cannon or any weapon that does not need los

 Mumbles883 wrote:
I am guessing you haven't played the cities of death expansion in chapter approved 2018?

And I yes I mean the earth shaker cannon or any weapon that does not need los

What do the obscured cover rules say? Your answer is there.

If it was there I would not be asking.this question.

There is no exception in the Obscured Targets rule for weapons that don't need line of sight. RAW, such weapons would still be at -1 to hit if the target is sufficiently obscured.

HIWPI, such weapons would ignore the rule.

Thank you for the input. But RAW to be obscured you must need to be able to draw Los to at least part of model. If your out of LOS your technically not obscured.

Any thoughts on that?

NVM I reread it, I find it quite dumb that ignoring Los would not ignore obscurity or they wouldn't mention it like they do with ignoring cover

 Mumbles883 wrote:


NVM I reread it, I find it quite dumb that ignoring Los would not ignore obscurity or they wouldn't mention it like they do with ignoring cover

As I said, the answer is there in the rules

 Mumbles883 wrote:
Thank you for the input. But RAW to be obscured you must need to be able to draw Los to at least part of model. If your out of LOS your technically not obscured.

Any thoughts on that?

NVM I reread it, I find it quite dumb that ignoring Los would not ignore obscurity or they wouldn't mention it like they do with ignoring cover

Is it dumb though that it would be easier to fire directly than indirectly?

Gitdakka wrote:

 Mumbles883 wrote:
Thank you for the input. But RAW to be obscured you must need to be able to draw Los to at least part of model. If your out of LOS your technically not obscured.

Any thoughts on that?

NVM I reread it, I find it quite dumb that ignoring Los would not ignore obscurity or they wouldn't mention it like they do with ignoring cover

Is it dumb though that it would be easier to fire directly than indirectly?

Do you mean to ask is it dumb to be easier to shoot something that you can see than something that you can't?

Gitdakka wrote:

 Mumbles883 wrote:
Thank you for the input. But RAW to be obscured you must need to be able to draw Los to at least part of model. If your out of LOS your technically not obscured.

Any thoughts on that?

NVM I reread it, I find it quite dumb that ignoring Los would not ignore obscurity or they wouldn't mention it like they do with ignoring cover

Is it dumb though that it would be easier to fire directly than indirectly?

Only when you consider that there is no such penalty in regular games.

Thinking on it more, though, it kind of makes sense. The densely-packed terrain, much of it on fire or smoking, makes it hard for targeting systems to pinpoint the exact location of enemy troops, or else the huge ruins otherwise impede the physical munitions themselves.

So maybe not as ridiculous as I first thought.