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.

We were talking about Fantasy? ZOMG. lol

That's what I thought when they mentioned a cannon.

mauleed wrote:Sure, just as long as you don't get upset when my lascannon guy moves and shoots his bolter.

Eh, what's one more bolter? Especially if you went to the trouble to model it on. Besides, I have assault marines with flamers, bolt pistols, and chainswords, so we'll be in good company there.

Hey, it's not like I'm going to complain if you do it to me. I'm not looking for a leg up, I'm just looking to play by the rules, even if you or I don't like them.

Oh, I know. I guess that there are certain moves (clipping, shooting over units with cannons) which, while not strictly-speaking illegal, strike me as being extremely bad manners. They make it difficult to "get into" the game and treat it as a battle simulation, because they are completely artificial, having no analogue in the background of the setting. Obviously, when one is dealing with the fantastical elements (demons, dragons, magic, etc.) it becomes far easier to suspend one's disbelief when something odd happens.

mauleed wrote:Sure, just as long as you don't get upset when my lascannon guy moves and shoots his bolter.

Hey, it's not like I'm going to complain if you do it to me. I'm not looking for a leg up, I'm just looking to play by the rules, even if you or I don't like them.

As long as you don't play Blood Angels or Dark Angels (I presume) I'm perfectly fine with you doing that. As far as I know those are the only two books that specifically replace the bolter when you upgrade. My memory says the others use the phrase may take, or something similar.

That's one of the many reasons I prefer 40K. I have fewer rules arguements.

Sure, just as long as you don't get upset when my lascannon guy moves and shoots his bolter.

Or Chaos... as long as you aren't playing them, either. The book specifies that you're REPLACING the bolter when you buy a special or heavy weapon on any selection that allows it.


Eric

But mauleed plays Ultramarines, like a real "Dakka Tough Guy!"

Pariah Press wrote: But mauleed plays Ultramarines, like a real "Dakka Tough Guy!"

Until they got hammered by the new minidex, I'd always be willing to go BA vs Smurfs. Now I'd have to give the game to the smurfs without arguement. I feel the BA book is that bad.

Though for other marine players, I'd look at the PoS books given by the cult of JJ and know what is coming when the main book is redone. I think it's safe to safe the fun varient stuff will be gone by this time next year, with people of certain other boards rejoicing at thier loss... But that's for another thread.

malfred wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

The Power Cosmic wrote:

efarrer wrote:

Pariah Press wrote:

mauleed wrote:

The Power Cosmic wrote:

malfred wrote:Overguessing cannons is cheating? Can you explain this?

I'm thinking it's overguessing to hit a unit that is out of LOS behind the "target."

Overguessing with a cannon isn't cheating, or even unsporting, per Gav and an article he wrote for WD.

I'm sure I read exactly the opposite somewhere. I'm afraid that I don't take what Gav says as seriously as perhaps I should. :S

A cannon crew aiming at something they can't see and expending ammunition on it is absurd.

Just because the "spirit of the rules" isn't outlined in writing, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fact that it is unwritten is what distinguishes it from the "letter of the rules."

A beginner who overguesses is making an honest error in judgement. A longterm player who overguesses to hit a target behind has changed his target. He is not aiming at the target he has stated he is aiming at... in fact creating a situation wherin he abuses the spirit and letter of the rules. HE is not aiming at the initial target but rather the illegal target. This is a form of cheating for the following reasons:

Just want to see how far the quote chain can go. Umm... cannons. Anyone who overguesses should get the "dread in a sock" template upside the head.

Quote chain FTW.

I have no problem with over-guessing from my opponent. If they want to try to hit something else, fine. Would I do it? Probably not, but mostly only because I don't play anything with Guess Range. Me and my bunch of pointy eared poofter armies....

Maybe this will become more of an issue when GW releases the
Fantasy version of Apocalypse, um, and call it Ragnarok. Yeah,
that's it.

OVERGUESSING can never realistically be outlawed. There is no way to "prove" what your opponent was thinking. You may suspect it, but you can't prove it.

Sure you can. I admit it.

mauleed wrote:Sure you can. I admit it.

You could just be lying to avoid looking stupid...

mauleed wrote:

efarrer wrote:A beginner who overguesses is making an honest error in judgement. A longterm player who overguesses to hit a target behind has changed his target. He is not aiming at the target he has stated he is aiming at... in fact creating a situation wherin he abuses the spirit and letter of the rules. HE is not aiming at the initial target but rather the illegal target. This is a form of cheating for the following reasons:

1. The stated target is not the intended target.
2. The player has full knowledge of the illegality of the shot (ie. the number guessed is not correct for the stated target and thus not his best guess).
3. The new target is not a valid target (being out of line of sight).

By using a guess which is intended to target an illegal target, with full knowledge that you are intending to hit a target other than the stated target, you have broken the letter of the rules. You know the game well enough to win without abusing the rules. Why break the spirit and letter of the rules?

When you're rules argument involves mind reading, it's generally not a very good rules argument.

Oh! So it's not cheating, because you can get away with it. Nice to see you being so honest.

Salvation122 wrote:

mauleed wrote:When you're rules argument involves mind reading, it's generally not a very good rules argument.

Oh! So it's not cheating, because you can get away with it. Nice to see you being so honest.

And so nice to see you being so accusatory.

With the whole Cannon versus Overshoot thingy...

I actually agree with both sides of the argument, weirdly.

1) There is no rule that states that you have to hit the target you are aiming at (bit like Scatter still being able to hit other units in 40K) - as long as you are aiming at a target in LOS and range then the shooting requirements are fulfilled...

2) It does appear to break LOS rules (although with the Treeman example, isn't it moot as the Treeman is a Large Target?).


Now, when it's blatant, I agree that it should be called, or sportsman points docked.

But, what about if said Treeman lurking in the Woods is 5" behind the Glade Guard...

...guess is off by 1", and then the "bounce/wind(whatever it's called)" roll is 4".

Would you dock points - there is no way to tell if the extra inch of guess was intentional, or luck of the dice?

A very minor point, and unlikely to occur, but just thought I would mention it.


Personally, I have seen:

Extra movement (vehicle front-to-back, for example)
Fudging assault distances (I play Guard, its amazing just HOW many people want to get into combat from 13" away)
Fast dice pick-up(one guy, banned from the group now, was so fast the dice had barely stopped moving). My way around this is to roll the bunch of dice, check the opponent is paying attention, then start picking out the hits, allowing the opponent to help pick them up

There are a few other examples that I can't quite remember right now.

I just think it is a little...sad that someone has to cheat to try to win at a game of toy soldiers. I can understand it from some of the younger gamers, but in adults, nah. Especially the "I must win or the universe ends" type people [yes, it's nice to win - and I don't care I lost to you if you outplay me with a better list or better tactics, but no need to cheat to make it happen] - I almost feel sorry for them.

Treadhead. Spot on.

If you have to cheat to win, wouldn't it be more fun to stay at home and play with yourself?

Pun intended.

But the other way, they can have BOTH.

Treadhead wrote:With the whole Cannon versus Overshoot thingy...
Now, when it's blatant, I agree that it should be called, or sportsman points docked.

But, what about if said Treeman lurking in the Woods is 5" behind the Glade Guard...

...guess is off by 1", and then the "bounce/wind(whatever it's called)" roll is 4".

Would you dock points - there is no way to tell if the extra inch of guess was intentional, or luck of the dice?

Of course I wouldn't call it for 1". I would give my opponent the benefit of the doubt, and only call him on it if it was a clear-cut case.

Pariah Press wrote:

Treadhead wrote:With the whole Cannon versus Overshoot thingy...
Now, when it's blatant, I agree that it should be called, or sportsman points docked.

But, what about if said Treeman lurking in the Woods is 5" behind the Glade Guard...

...guess is off by 1", and then the "bounce/wind(whatever it's called)" roll is 4".

Would you dock points - there is no way to tell if the extra inch of guess was intentional, or luck of the dice?

Of course I wouldn't call it for 1". I would give my opponent the benefit of the doubt, and only call him on it if it was a clear-cut case.

...like when the guess was off by something egregious, like, you know, three inches. Three inches wrong on the guess, plus a '10' on the first artillery dice roll, and another '10' for the bounce... that's like, almost two feet of overguessing!

If you have to cheat to win, wouldn't it be more fun to stay at home and play with yourself?

But the other way, they can have BOTH.

I really hope 5th edition contains a rule that allows you to declare victory* if there's a rhythmic thumping on the underside of the table from your grinning, sweat-beaded, heavy-breathing opponent.

*and swift exit

The shield drone rules were changed to accomodate majority toughness and saves, bro. so that was legal stonefox? if so i was pissed for nothing

Cannons do shoot on a parabolic arc. It makes total sense that you could shoot over the heads of a unit of Dwarves and have the cannon ball land somewhere behind them.

The rules make sense there. A rule that just reflects reality is hard to call too cheesy. A better question is why archers can't do the same sort of thing.

Asmodai wrote:Cannons do shoot on a parabolic arc. It makes total sense that you could shoot over the heads of a unit of Dwarves and have the cannon ball land somewhere behind them.

The rules make sense there. A rule that just reflects reality is hard to call too cheesy. A better question is why archers can't do the same sort of thing.

But it doesn't actually allow the targeting of the second unit. LOS rules are not contermanded in the cannon section. In fact in the catapult section (which does function in a a near perfect parabolic arc) it mentions that you need to follow the line of sight rules to shoot with the catapult, and in the cannon section itself it mentions LOS rules must be followed. It is allowable to target a unit and hope it goes through to hit the target behind that unit, but when you target a unit you cannot see, and (by choosing to angle the shoot through the unit and past into the second unit, you have ceased to be playing by the rules of the game. Not just the sportsmanship aspects but the actual rules. To target a unit you can't see by way of overguessing is simply put cheating by the current rules of the game as the target must be visible from the cannon(p.87 paragraph 2 sentence 2), and the deliberate overguess establishes that you know the targeted model is not the model you declared out loud, but one you could not legally target (otherwise you would have said I target the Enchantress behind that unit and guessed the same number), By choosing to overguess you thus reveal your knowledge that what you are doing is not allowed by the rules as they are written.

skullspliter888 wrote:The shield drone rules were changed to accomodate majority toughness and saves, bro. so that was legal stonefox? if so i was pissed for nothing

Don't taze me bro!

efarrer wrote:It is allowable to target a unit and hope it goes through to hit the target behind that unit, but when you target a unit you cannot see, and (by choosing to angle the shoot through the unit and past into the second unit, you have ceased to be playing by the rules of the game.

Except that this is completely untrue. I'll ask you to do exactly the same thing as everyone else who makes your claim. Please show us what rule is being broken by guessing an arbitrary distance that is longer than the actual distance to the unit.

To target a unit you can't see by way of overguessing is simply put cheating by the current rules of the game as the target must be visible from the cannon(p.87 paragraph 2 sentence 2), and the deliberate overguess establishes that you know the targeted model is not the model you declared out loud, but one you could not legally target (otherwise you would have said I target the Enchantress behind that unit and guessed the same number), By choosing to overguess you thus reveal your knowledge that what you are doing is not allowed by the rules as they are written.

Please prove that the a player who selects a distance that is too long is overguessing the distance to the target. Note that you will be unable to do so since measurement only occurs _after_ the guess is made.

I know that you, like everyone else on the side of the argument that would rather play their own imaginary rules than the ones that are written down, will simply ignore this demand and continue to pretend that players who are breaking no rules are cheating.

efarrer wrote:

Asmodai wrote:Cannons do shoot on a parabolic arc. It makes total sense that you could shoot over the heads of a unit of Dwarves and have the cannon ball land somewhere behind them.

The rules make sense there. A rule that just reflects reality is hard to call too cheesy. A better question is why archers can't do the same sort of thing.

But it doesn't actually allow the targeting of the second unit. LOS rules are not contermanded in the cannon section. In fact in the catapult section (which does function in a a near perfect parabolic arc) it mentions that you need to follow the line of sight rules to shoot with the catapult, and in the cannon section itself it mentions LOS rules must be followed. It is allowable to target a unit and hope it goes through to hit the target behind that unit, but when you target a unit you cannot see, and (by choosing to angle the shoot through the unit and past into the second unit, you have ceased to be playing by the rules of the game. Not just the sportsmanship aspects but the actual rules. To target a unit you can't see by way of overguessing is simply put cheating by the current rules of the game as the target must be visible from the cannon(p.87 paragraph 2 sentence 2), and the deliberate overguess establishes that you know the targeted model is not the model you declared out loud, but one you could not legally target (otherwise you would have said I target the Enchantress behind that unit and guessed the same number), By choosing to overguess you thus reveal your knowledge that what you are doing is not allowed by the rules as they are written.

That's what we in debate club call 'begging the question'.

"It's cheating because you cheated!"

The target was legal declared, and a legal value was guessed. Case closed. Move on, you're making a fool of yourself.

mauleed wrote:

That's what we in debate club call 'begging the question'.

"It's cheating because you cheated!"

The target was legal declared, and a legal value was guessed. Case closed. Move on, you're making a fool of yourself.

No it's called cheating.



A fair number of people have agreed with my assessment.
You've admitted you know what the actual target is, and the one defining characteristic of cheaters I have met over time is thier tendency to try and bully others when caught...

Case closed. Move on, you're making a fool of yourself.

Buoyancy wrote:

efarrer wrote:It is allowable to target a unit and hope it goes through to hit the target behind that unit, but when you target a unit you cannot see, and (by choosing to angle the shoot through the unit and past into the second unit, you have ceased to be playing by the rules of the game.

Except that this is completely untrue. I'll ask you to do exactly the same thing as everyone else who makes your claim. Please show us what rule is being broken by guessing an arbitrary distance that is longer than the actual distance to the unit.

[
Please prove that the a player who selects a distance that is too long is overguessing the distance to the target. Note that you will be unable to do so since measurement only occurs _after_ the guess is made.

I know that you, like everyone else on the side of the argument that would rather play their own imaginary rules than the ones that are written down, will simply ignore this demand and continue to pretend that players who are breaking no rules are cheating.

And that is a great example of the problem of so-called guess range weapons. Anyone who has played the game or worked in a field which requires measurements is not guessing. They know the distance. I know I do. I can eyeball well enough to know distances to within an inch. And if you can do that it's not a guess. Since you know the target, the deliberate over guess is a cheat, bypassing the rules of the game by ignoring the line of sight rules.

efarrer wrote:

Buoyancy wrote:

efarrer wrote:It is allowable to target a unit and hope it goes through to hit the target behind that unit, but when you target a unit you cannot see, and (by choosing to angle the shoot through the unit and past into the second unit, you have ceased to be playing by the rules of the game.

Except that this is completely untrue. I'll ask you to do exactly the same thing as everyone else who makes your claim. Please show us what rule is being broken by guessing an arbitrary distance that is longer than the actual distance to the unit.

[
Please prove that the a player who selects a distance that is too long is overguessing the distance to the target. Note that you will be unable to do so since measurement only occurs _after_ the guess is made.

I know that you, like everyone else on the side of the argument that would rather play their own imaginary rules than the ones that are written down, will simply ignore this demand and continue to pretend that players who are breaking no rules are cheating.

And that is a great example of the problem of so-called guess range weapons. Anyone who has played the game or worked in a field which requires measurements is not guessing. They know the distance. I know I do. I can eyeball well enough to know distances to within an inch. And if you can do that it's not a guess. Since you know the target, the deliberate over guess is a cheat, bypassing the rules of the game by ignoring the line of sight rules.

Hence why 'Guess' range weapons in 40K now just scatter a bit more widely. It's a pretty reasonable solution. I believe they did about the same thing with Nova Cannons in BFG too. I suspect the guess element only remains in WFB because estimating ranges for charges is such an important element, so it fits in reasonably.

(With Cannons, it would be fairly easy to remove the Guess element and just have the Artillery Die number represent the number of ranks the cannonball penetrates.)

efarrer wrote:A fair number of people have agreed with my assessment.

So what? About 30% of people anywhere will believe just about any random thing, no matter how little evidence there is for it.

efarrer wrote:And that is a great example of the problem of so-called guess range weapons. Anyone who has played the game or worked in a field which requires measurements is not guessing. They know the distance. I know I do. I can eyeball well enough to know distances to within an inch. And if you can do that it's not a guess. Since you know the target, the deliberate over guess is a cheat, bypassing the rules of the game by ignoring the line of sight rules.

Do we really have to continue to listen to your imaginary version of the rules? Please show us which rule the player is breaking by picking an arbitrary distance for the cannon shot. Until you can do so, I'm simply going to remind you that you are incorrect.

@ mauleed
Do you really have a bolter modeled on your lascannon troops and fire the bolter if it moves? I'm not quite sure how I would react to that if I saw it in person. Laugh hysterically or stand there dumbfounded.

You are a clever, clever man. But it still stinks of