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.

This may seem like a random question but I was thinking about a situation and thought I would present it on here.

A Whirlwind does not need line of sight to be able to hit a model. It only needs to be within the 72 inch range of either version of the Whirlwind Launcher that it carries. My question is should the things in the game that give people a -1 or more to hit effect the Whirlwind since it literally doesn't even need to see you to hit you? I can't remember seeing it on any of the FAQ's but perhaps I missed it.

Any thoughts on the situation are welcome.

The Tyranid Hive Guard not only ignores line of sight, but also bonuses from cover. There's nothing saying it ignores penalties to hit, so it suffers penalties to hit.

 Reivax26 wrote:
This may seem like a random question but I was thinking about a situation and thought I would present it on here.

A Whirlwind does not need line of sight to be able to hit a model. It only needs to be within the 72 inch range of either version of the Whirlwind Launcher that it carries. My question is should the things in the game that give people a -1 or more to hit effect the Whirlwind since it literally doesn't even need to see you to hit you? I can't remember seeing it on any of the FAQ's but perhaps I missed it.

Any thoughts on the situation are welcome.

Unless something says it gets to ignore to hit modifiers, it doesn't. For example, the Twin accelerator autocannon of the Relic Sicaran "suffer[s] no penalty to its hit roll when targeting units with the FLY keyword."

The Whirlwind Launcher doesn't have that rule, so it suffers penalties to its hit roll as normal.

Doesn't that seem silly though that it doesn't ignore it? Perhaps if it did more people would play them.

Another thing would be lowering the points costs and maybe letting them operate in squadrons like Land Speeders do..

 Reivax26 wrote:
Doesn't that seem silly though that it doesn't ignore it? Perhaps if it did more people would play them.

Another thing would be lowering the points costs and maybe letting them operate in squadrons like Land Speeders do..

Not really. -1 to hit modifiers represent a lot of different things. It could be that they are difficult to see, but it could also be that they can dodge or that there is a mystical psychic effect in play.

All the whirlwinds ability is supposed to represent is that it doesn't need line of sight - the missiles can be fired in arcs over or around obstacles. It doesn't necessarily mean it's any more accurate at getting it's shots on the desired target. Just that it doesn't have to shoot in a straight line.

Presumably they are using spotters or some sort of radar system, which get equally confused by camouflage / roiling psychic energy / dust clouds.

Really, if anything whirlwinds should be at -1 to hit as standard, as they can't see their target - then ignore any modifiers!

 Reivax26 wrote:
This may seem like a random question but I was thinking about a situation and thought I would present it on here.

A Whirlwind does not need line of sight to be able to hit a model. It only needs to be within the 72 inch range of either version of the Whirlwind Launcher that it carries. My question is should the things in the game that give people a -1 or more to hit effect the Whirlwind since it literally doesn't even need to see you to hit you? I can't remember seeing it on any of the FAQ's but perhaps I missed it.

Any thoughts on the situation are welcome.

Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k ruleset.

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

The rules are an abstract system used to play a game.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the "battle" fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

 DeathReaper wrote:

Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k ruleset.

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

Really ? Why did GW change the rule that units cant charge in the same turn they disembarked from a destroyed transport ? Because GW imagines they are busy crawling out of a destroyed transport. Sounds pretty "Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works" to me.
They also changed the rule that a flyer high up in the air cant block movement for ground troops. Also sounds pretty "Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works" to me.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k ruleset.

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

Really ? Why did GW change the rule that units cant charge in the same turn they disembarked from a destroyed transport ? Because GW imagines they are busy crawling out of a destroyed transport. Sounds pretty "Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works" to me.
They also changed the rule that a flyer high up in the air cant block movement for ground troops. Also sounds pretty "Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works" to me.

Nothing to do with real world logic. Both were solidily based in rules issues.

The no charge after transport dies was to stop you soaking up overwatch with transport and/or Clowncar Berserkers with Combi-Plas Rhinos.

The AIRCRAFT change is to stop massed flyers from blocking enemy units from moving, mainly Eldar Flyers since they can pivot between two spots.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k ruleset.

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

Really ? Why did GW change the rule that units cant charge in the same turn they disembarked from a destroyed transport ? Because GW imagines they are busy crawling out of a destroyed transport. Sounds pretty "Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works" to me.
They also changed the rule that a flyer high up in the air cant block movement for ground troops. Also sounds pretty "Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works" to me.

That has nothing to do with real world logic.

The game does not revolve around a set amount of time and how many actions can be taken within said time.

Same goes for Plasma and Melta weapons and Psychic powers, they have nothing to do with real world logic.

Because of GW's explanations of those rules he quoted, there is a very good argument for "realworld logic" in regards to those rulings. As BCB is fond of saying: "you don't know what GW's intent was when making those rulings, so you have to go off of what was written."

That said, there *is* realworld logic behind why weapons that ignore LOS don't also ignore penalties to hit. Take the humble mortar, for example. This weapon ignores LOS, because it fires in an arc. However, you still have to *aim* it, otherwise you won't hit your target. There's a ton of other examples for other situations as well. Why do Flamers auto-hit? Well, because you only have to put the barest minimum of effort into pointing a flamethrower at a target in order to set it ablaze. Why do some guns ignore Cover? Much like Depleted Uranium rounds in our modern day military, they penetrate obstacles to get to their target.

The question has been answered and we're swerving off-course here, so locking.