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.

Kaaihn wrote:RAI, facing doesn't matter. Am I pulling a fast one by claiming that?

Yes.

Kaaihn:

Are we talking about regular line of sight for Infantry? Because with the Fire Frenzy result on the Crazed! table for Chaos Dreadnoughts, you do actually select a target and then pivot towards it. In the normal shooting rules (the ones for Infantry), the infantry can pivot while selecting a target.

Nurglitch wrote:Kaaihn:

Are we talking about regular line of sight for Infantry? Because with the Fire Frenzy result on the Crazed! table for Chaos Dreadnoughts, you do actually select a target and then pivot towards it. In the normal shooting rules (the ones for Infantry), the infantry can pivot while selecting a target.

They actually can't. It's a common mistake. They can pivot to face their target. Not pivot while you choose, it's pivot to face. The target therefore must come first. Target, then pivot. If you read the targeting rules though, it clearly states you cannot choose something that you do not have LOS to as your target.

Walkers are the same exact way, the only difference is the point they trace LOS from. Their eyes are their gun barrels. Past that, they have the same rules. That's where the confusion on Fire Frenzy comes in, people don't realize you never (by RAW) pivot and then target. If you follow the RAW, you always target, then pivot. Fire Frenzy doesn't change that.

It's just bad writing. The book clearly states the intent, which is facing doesn't matter. RAI vs RAW.

I don't even know what you all are talking about any more.

Kaaihn:

Okay, where is the intent stated? I mean, how is the intent made clear, and how does that intent differ from the rules as they are stated? I'm guessing you're using information from p.11 and p.15.

"Oh Snap!" to Solkan, Nurglitch, and especially Kaaihn. But even more hypervyper06. Cheer up.

Back to rulez...

Infantry facing DOES matter, because they also must have a target before 'turning the unit to face it' (paraphrase) - SOOOO, this means that a squad all facing north cannot shoot an enmy to the South if none of them have LOS at the Target Declaration Step.

Necroagogo wrote:Slight derail, but in this month's WD, Alessio's bio in the introduction to the batrep says he has been 'locked away in a lead-lined chamber for the past 18 months, feverishly scribbling down notes headed F, A and Q'.

Patience, and all our issues will be resolved

Why does he have to be locked away? How hard is it really to plagiarize the INAT FAQ?

It has to be said that he has been locked away because GW likes exaggeration and 'humour', and also to give them impression that they are serious about doing a good job.

We'll see how good a job Alessio has done when the FAQs are released.

A cynical man might comment that it would have been better if Alessio was locked away for 18 months before the rules were published, rather than after, then we wouldn't need FAQs.

Kilkrazy wrote:A cynical man might comment that it would have been better if Alessio was locked away for 18 months before the rules were published, rather than after, then we wouldn't need FAQs.

I agree with this Man's product and/or service.

Nurglitch wrote:Kaaihn:

Okay, where is the intent stated? I mean, how is the intent made clear, and how does that intent differ from the rules as they are stated? I'm guessing you're using information from p.11 and p.15.

Intent is page 11, under Turning and Facing. Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the Shooting phase, so don't worry about which way they are pointing at the end of their Movement phase. "Can be turned to face their targets in the Shooting phase" is an instruction. "so don't worry about which way they are point at the end of their Movement phase" is intent.

The actual instructions differ from that intent though. Instructions for shooting require a target as your first step (pg15, 16).
Instructions for target selection are on page 16. If no models have line of sight then a different target must be chosen. If you can't draw LOS to it, it can't be your target.

The instruction about pivoting on page 11 remember is models can also be turned to face their targets in the Shooting phase.

So follow all that through, and you must select a target you have LOS to, which you can pivot to face during the shooting phase. That means if you have your back to an enemy at the end of the shooting phase, you cannot shoot that enemy in the shooting phase. No LOS, so he can't be your target. If he isn't your target you do not have permission to turn and face him in the shooting phase.

That does not match the intent at all of "don't worry about which way they are pointing at the end of their Movement phase".

Every game I've ever played of 40K plays by the intent of LOS, which is that Infantry are treated as having 360 degree line of sight. This seems to be the universally accepted way of meeting the stated intent, at least here in central Florida. When you introduce abilities that vary the effect based on LOS though, you will likely run into issues where people try and follow the instruction for the new abiltiy, never realizing they are doing LOS RAI in the first place. That leads to some strange split behaviors and arguments, which is exactly the issue with Fire Frenzy. How Fire Frenzy targets in regard to target and pivot order doesn't change from standard targeting. It's just different wording for the same result, but many don't realize that and think it is a reversal of standard targeting. It isn't.

Difference her, is that only INFANTRY are to follow that intent - not Vehicles, of which Walkers are they.

Elessar wrote:Difference her, is that only INFANTRY are to follow that intent - not Vehicles, of which Walkers are they.

While this is technically true, the majority of people I have played see Walkers as having this same intent as Infantry does without ever realizing they are extending RAI from Infantry to their Walker. That's where the Fire Frenzy confusion comes from.

I am feverishly trying to contradict what Gwar has pointed out, yet I find this impossible. In fact, there is more bad news.

Still looking at Driving Gale and Living Hurricane, one specifies 'turn' and the other does not. It is obvious though that Living Hurricane (which does not say turn) has an effect of one game turn, as stated in the Lord of Tempests text.

Driving Gale, however, specifically states "this turn". According to the rulebook:

"Whenever a rule uses the word 'turn', both in this rule book and in the Codexes, it means 'player turn', otherwise it will clearly state 'game turn'."

It will CLEARLY STATE it. Is Driving Gale almost completely useless, or are we to assume that it was clearly stated previously?

We don't need to assume that it was clearly stated, since we have evidence that it was.

Driving Gale is an effect of Lord of Tempests, and the general rules for Lord of Tempests states that its effects last for the game turn. All reference to turns in the specific rules for its effects thus likewise refer to game turns.

I wrote up a couple of paragraphs trying to validate Njal's rules and ended up scrapping them. I had stated as my thesis that 40k had too much terminology, but this point is ignorant. It doesn't change anything.

We can all expect GW in the next month or so to publish that all rules are meant to create a fun game environment and should be played to the advantage of the players' inner happiness.

Actually, I expect that in a couple of months people will settle down and see the sense in the Lord of Tempests rule, just like they usually do with every other "OMG!1!! BORKEN!!!11!" rule that causes an Internet panic.

It always (always!) happens: a new Codex comes out, someone finds something new and/or interesting in it, panics, spreads it around that the new book is somehow broken or ill-considered or what-have-you, a bunch of self-proclaimed guru types build a cookie-cutter list that catches on with the tournament crowd, and then the following weeks (months, in the case of stuff like the Lash of Submission and Lootas) of experience show everyone it's actually not that bad and life goes on.

The best part is that it's so predictable.