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.

I don't have my Tau codex on me but this situation came up yesterday.

In the description it notes that they go 'around' any terrain that is in the way. It later says that they just dodge any obstacles. (If someone has a codex handy and can quote it that would be great)

If you are firing SMS at a vehicle behind L3 area terrain, how do you decide where they hit? Is it a straight shot from firer to vehicle or do you hit the side that is the shortest distance around the terrain?

Is the distance of the shot measured straight or do you take the full distance to fire around the terrain in to account?

I think that the codex supports the 'around' argument more but would like to hear from all you dakkaheads.

later
d

Page 31 of the codex, the rules are crystal clear:

"The missile is assumed to move in a straight line between the model carrying the missile and the target itself for the purpose of deciding whether the shot strikes the front, side or rear."

Hey Yak, again, I don't have my codex on me, but I suspect you are reading the entry for SEEKER missles not Smart Missle System.

Yakface has taken the Seeker Missile explanation.

Not RAW but I always envisioned the SMS rounds flying slowly in a looping arc and scanning for targets from above. By this logic they fly over the L3 terrain and drop onto the top of the target nearest to the firing unit. Since targets don't have roof armour, use the AV of the side most closely facing the firing unit, assuming the missiles had flown in a straight line.

This method has the merits that it follows the precedent of the Seeker Missile, it avoids any uncertainty about bending missiles round terrain, which could be a source or argument for trying to plant them onto thinner armour, and it similarly avoids arguments about a bendy path for determining range.

The rules actually define range as the maximum linear distance away that a target can be and you can hit it with that weapon. In other words, nothing in the rules says that SMS fly 24 inches and must deduct "movement" for going around terrain.

I'm not sure I've made myself clear...

Thanks Kilkrazy, clear on the range, but not on where they hit... I can see where you get the precedent and am inclined to agree but the rules for them pretty specifically say "around" not over.

In this case I was the Tau player and my opponent brought it up, I had never played any other way than what you have just mentioned but it was pointed out quite clearly in the rules... hmmm, is this another one for the Dakkka FAQ?

You measure as you do for any other weapon. You're using a fluff explanation to try and create a rules problem which does not exist.

Ghaz, I understand what you are getting at but since when are wargear entries fluff?

Posted By happypants on 06/21/2006 10:09 AM
Ghaz, I understand what you are getting at but since when are wargear entries fluff?

If it doesn't give directions to do something other than the basic rules (measure in a straight line from base to base) then it is fluff and has no impact on game mechanics.

Posted By happypants on 06/21/2006 10:09 AM
Ghaz, I understand what you are getting at but since when are wargear entries fluff?

With GW, since day one.  Not everything in the rules can be taken at face value.  They tend to add little 'fluff items' like this to the rules all of the time.

If you look up "around" or "round" in the dictionary it doesn't rule out going over the top anyway.

If someone is that fussed about which of three faces the bullet might hit, then just D6 for it. It's worse for the target because he can't decide to face his best armour towards the enemy, and is more likely to hit a weaker side than the best side.

Posted By Kilkrazy on 06/21/2006 10:36 AM

If you look up "around" or "round" in the dictionary it doesn't rule out going over the top anyway.

If someone is that fussed about which of three faces the bullet might hit, then just D6 for it. It's worse for the target because he can't decide to face his best armour towards the enemy, and is more likely to hit a weaker side than the best side.

There's no reason to D6 fluff.

There's a reason if you want to finish a game quickly to get to the pub before last orders and the other guy is making a big fuss about some minute point like this.

I really don't see this situation as a game-breaking decision whichever way it gets played.

Posted By Kilkrazy on 06/21/2006 11:02 AM
There's a reason if you want to finish a game quickly to get to the pub before last orders and the other guy is making a big fuss about some minute point like this.

I really don't see this situation as a game-breaking decision whichever way it gets played.

If you can point something out in about 30 seconds that he cannot refute in a minute or two but insists on D6ing it then he is a bad sport and you can cave in to his childishness if you really want to. There are no special rules other than "going around" terrain which basically allowes indirect fire. Nothing is said to change the standard rules for which side is hit from the BGB and it isn't a scattering indirect fire at half value so it would both hit the side facing the firing model and be the straight distance to to the target because it does not say to measure a different way. If he insists on stopping the game to discuss the fluff about it he's the one being a poor sport and you shouldn't have to suffer for it.

If some guy insists that I have a 2/3rds chance of hitting his side armour, instead of a 100% chance of hitting his front armour, who am I to argue?

You would be an honest player if you declined

This is a situation in which he argues with me, I give him the option -- pointing out that he is worse off if he does what he wants to do -- and he makes the decision.

Sorry about the mistake. I posted right before I went to bed.

So just to clarify, there is not a soul around who thinks that the SMS should go around the terrain features? Sorry but like I said, that is how I always played it and think it is probably RIGHT but just want to hear if anyone has any type of argument to support the other side.

Your friend/opponent seems to be the only one.

Get him to check "around" in the dictionary.

Happypants:

You seem to be confused as to how armor facing is determined. Per the rules, the only thing that matters is the position of the firing model in relation to the target vehicle.

Whatever arc that firing model falls into (in relation to the target vehicle) is the armor type used to determine penetration.

It doesn't actually matter the "path" the shot takes or where the shot actually "hits".


The only exception to this basic rule is, of course, barrage weapons that determine arc based on the center of the blast marker (only if the center isn't actually over the vehicle model).

Thanks Yak, as a note, I am not actually  confused, I am just trying to wrap my head around where the opposite side of the argument is coming from.

The opposite side of the argument is coming from the mistaken belief that you determine the armor facing based on where the "shot hits the vehicle".

A concept that doesn't actually exist in the game.

Ok, since no one else will, I will make the opposite argument:

1. Rules for SMS state 'around' although 'around' may be used for vertically around, the most common use is horizontally.

2. SMS rules are more specific than general rules used for shooting and where a vehicle is hit and therefore is what should be used.

As a note, not a single person has had any argument other than saying, "this is wrong" or "that is fluff" and I think that saying that something written in the wargear section is fluff is a very slippery slope, should we take the fact that it is S5/AP5 as fluff as well?

Arg...damn editor ate my reply *again*

Yak pointed out that in the shooting rules, shots against vehicles always strike the target on the armour facing of the arc that the firing vehicle is in. The only exception being barrage weapons when the center hole is not on the target.

End of story, as far as rules are concerned. There is no exception to this basic rule in any description of the SMS. Words like 'around', 'over', 'under' or 'spirally, phasing in and out of the warp' notwithstanding.

Sounds like someone is sneakily trying to get (or avoid receiving) a shot on side/rear armour....

And how about measuring the distance?

In the rules for the Smart Missile System, the first sentence is fluff justification for the second sentence. It is not actual rules as they do not give you a way to actually play 'self-guiding missiles with the intelligence of a drone' that 'passes around any blocking terrain'.

As a note, not a single person has had any argument other than saying, "this is wrong" or "that is fluff" and I think that saying that something written in the wargear section is fluff is a very slippery slope, should we take the fact that it is S5/AP5 as fluff as well?

What the heck are you talking about, I gave you an argument based completely on the rules (albeit without rules quotes).

Your "argument" doesn't contain any references to the rules whatsoever. You still can't seem to understand that "where a vehicle is hit" DOES NOT MATTER PER THE RULES.

The only thing that matters is what arc the shot "comes from" (page 65), not where the shot "hits".