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.

 Idolator wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
I'd say wait til I get off work so I can look up the page for you but... it does not even matter for this topic as not having LOS on a model is not the same as that model having stealth/shroud. If you'd care to stay on topic, tell us where it says they don't get cover saves or they lose their special rules.... It's not there.They get there cover save and the bonus for a 3+

If someone believes that a blast/barrage weapon wounds can be allocated to models that are not visible to thte firing unit then they should also agree that models fired upon by blast would not gain stealth/shroud. It is the visibility from the firing unit that dictates each rule.

Visibility does not dictate night fighting effects. Distance between the units does.

It's an effect of darkness. Saying that it's not visibility would be like saying the BS of a model has nothing to do with the skill of a model being able to shoot. The models can't see, shoot, move. If you want to be exact.

It is the relative position of the firing unit in relation to the target unit that dictates both rules.

Now your trying to justify your position based on fluff. RAW in both your examples is clear. If you cannot draw LOS to a model in the target unit, then wounds in the wound pool are lost (RAW). Which means indirect fire is effectively useless, hence most play it the RAI way. RAW is clear on Shrouded/Stealth. If the target unit is X distance away from the firing unit, then it gains S/S special rule. Nothing in barrage rules overrides that. Hence the affected unit can fully use the benefits of that rule.

Fragile wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
I'd say wait til I get off work so I can look up the page for you but... it does not even matter for this topic as not having LOS on a model is not the same as that model having stealth/shroud. If you'd care to stay on topic, tell us where it says they don't get cover saves or they lose their special rules.... It's not there.They get there cover save and the bonus for a 3+

If someone believes that a blast/barrage weapon wounds can be allocated to models that are not visible to thte firing unit then they should also agree that models fired upon by blast would not gain stealth/shroud. It is the visibility from the firing unit that dictates each rule.

Visibility does not dictate night fighting effects. Distance between the units does.

It's an effect of darkness. Saying that it's not visibility would be like saying the BS of a model has nothing to do with the skill of a model being able to shoot. The models can't see, shoot, move. If you want to be exact.

It is the relative position of the firing unit in relation to the target unit that dictates both rules.

Now your trying to justify your position based on fluff. RAW in both your examples is clear. If you cannot draw LOS to a model in the target unit, then wounds in the wound pool are lost (RAW). Which means indirect fire is effectively useless, hence most play it the RAI way. RAW is clear on Shrouded/Stealth. If the target unit is X distance away from the firing unit, then it gains S/S special rule. Nothing in barrage rules overrides that. Hence the affected unit can fully use the benefits of that rule.

I didn't use fluff. I used the RAW and simply used the word visibility instead of the much longer "The relative position of the firing unit to the targeted unit". I now know that I assumed too much, that people wold understand the reference. Which I rectified. I do notice that the rectification was ignored.

So yes, the Rules are clear.

It's night fight, the target unit is concealed completely behind a wall 27" away. The firing unit fires and hits the target unit.

By your reasoning you would give the targeted unit Shrouded because of the relative position of the target unit to the firing unit, and allow wounds to be allocated to the targeted unit by ignoring the relative position of the targeted unit to thet firing unit.

It's a matter of consistency. What you are stating is simply a house rule for playing the way that you see fit.

By your reasoning you would give the targeted unit Shrouded because of the relative position of the target unit to the firing unit, and allow wounds to be allocated to the targeted unit by ignoring the relative position of the targeted unit to thet firing unit.

The whole Out of Sight your trying to argue has nothing to do with this argument and your incorrect in your quote above.

Consistency would be applying RAW, which you are not doing.

Fragile wrote:

By your reasoning you would give the targeted unit Shrouded because of the relative position of the target unit to the firing unit, and allow wounds to be allocated to the targeted unit by ignoring the relative position of the targeted unit to thet firing unit.

The whole Out of Sight your trying to argue has nothing to do with this argument and your incorrect in your quote above.

Consistency would be applying RAW, which you are not doing.

Would you be so kind as to correct it for me.

I've admitted that I don't apply the rules as written. I allow barrage to allocate wound to units that cannot be seen by the firing unit and don't allow night fight to give benefits to shot comming from barrage weapons.

You are not applying the RAW as well, by your own admission. My application is, however, consistent.

Luide wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
For Barrage we "always assume the shot is coming from the center or the blast marker, instead of the firing model..." (34)
The distance between firing unit (AKA Where the shots are coming from) is determined by the marker for a barrage.

So according to you, all Barrage has infinite range? I mean,
you claim that the center of the blast marker is the firing model, meaning that you if your Barrage weapon has 36" range, you can place it 100" away and it will still be on range of the "firing model".

nosferatu1001 wrote:Edit: Luide - dont make that claim, as DR has been very clear on when you use the blast as where the shot comes from - and range is not one of them Dont strawman

My point is that according to rules, range equals distance between firing model and target unit. (page 12).

Then DR says that distance between firing model and target unit (exactly same definition as 'range' has) is determined from the center of the marker.
So to be consistent, either "Distance between firing model and target" (=range) is always determined from the center of the blast marker or it is never determined from there. First option will lead to all barrage weapons having infinite range.

Also, we should apply the Stealth/Shrouded to the target unit at Step 2 of Shooting Sequance, "Choose a Target", is because it is only consistent place to apply to it.
a) The exact rule is called "Picking A Target and Nightfighting", so it would be logical that it applies when choosing a target,
b) The rule talks about 4 different cases:
b1) Target is over 36" away. This must be checked at Step 2.
b2) Target is between 24-36".
b3) Target is between 12-24"
b4) Target is less than 12" away. This must be checked at step 2, as it specifies those units "can be shot at normally" and models can only shoot after step 2 is complete.

Is there any reasonable argument why should b2 and b3 checked at other time than b1 and b4, especially when one considers that the context (and name of the actual rule) is about picking target?

The reasoning for either has nothing to do with each other. "Relative position of the target" This sounds like your trying to apply logic to the rule set, which does not work.

By strict RAW, if there is no LOS then wounds cannot be allocated. This means indirect barrage (out of LOS), Hive Guard's Impaler Cannons, GK whatever they are cannons, etc... can shoot all day long and do nothing. You can find several threads on that. I do not believe this is the intent, nor do anyone I know so yes.. I play this by RAI.

Night Fighting states that a unit X distance away gains S/S. DR's claim is that the shot comes from the center of the blast so the S/S doesnt apply because the distance from the center hole to the model being allocated the wound is less than 12". However, the S/S rule was already applied in the sequence of shooting. It is allocated to the shot and even if that shot scatters, it remains. There is nothing in the Barrage rule that removes any special rules. The claim that a special rule = cover is also incorrect. Since a unit has S/S when the shot is declared, it has it through the entire sequence.

Now correcting your statement for RAW would be. "By your reasoning the target unit would have Shrouded and wounds could not be allocated to the unit out of LOS."

You are not applying the RAW as well, by your own admission. My application is, however, consistent

Yes as admitted, I do not apply the Out of Sight rule on pg 16 to weapons that specifically stated they ignore LOS when shooting. However there is no reason to change the RAW on Nightfighting as you have. If a model fired an autocannon at the same unit it fired at barrage weapon at it, your logic goes to shambles.

Luide wrote:
First option will lead to all barrage weapons having infinite range.

That's absolutely false. You cannot know where the center of the marker is until after the scatter is resolved, and you cannot place the marker outside the range of the weapon.

That does not mean that after the marker is placed the range must be determined from the originating model (not firing model, as the Barrage rules say that the firing model is the center of the blast).

Fragile wrote:
The reasoning for either has nothing to do with each other. "Relative position of the target" This sounds like your trying to apply logic to the rule set, which does not work.

By strict RAW, if there is no LOS then wounds cannot be allocated. This means indirect barrage (out of LOS), Hive Guard's Impaler Cannons, GK whatever they are cannons, etc... can shoot all day long and do nothing. You can find several threads on that. I do not believe this is the intent, nor do anyone I know so yes.. I play this by RAI.

Night Fighting states that a unit X distance away gains S/S. DR's claim is that the shot comes from the center of the blast so the S/S doesnt apply because the distance from the center hole to the model being allocated the wound is less than 12". However, the S/S rule was already applied in the sequence of shooting. It is allocated to the shot and even if that shot scatters, it remains. There is nothing in the Barrage rule that removes any special rules. The claim that a special rule = cover is also incorrect. Since a unit has S/S when the shot is declared, it has it through the entire sequence.

Now correcting your statement for RAW would be. "By your reasoning the target unit would have Shrouded and wounds could not be allocated to the unit out of LOS."

You are not applying the RAW as well, by your own admission. My application is, however, consistent

Yes as admitted, I do not apply the Out of Sight rule on pg 16 to weapons that specifically stated they ignore LOS when shooting. However there is no reason to change the RAW on Nightfighting as you have. If a model fired an autocannon at the same unit it fired at barrage weapon at it, your logic goes to shambles.

Negative, You stated how you play. Letting a Unit entirely Out of Sight from the firing unit to allocate wounds from barrage (even though the rules preclude that) and then allowing the same unit to receive the Shrouded benefit for being XX" distance from the unit. There by applying one rule applying to UNIT possitioning while not the other.
My statement was accurate.

About the other shooting that you mentioned. I concur the RAW prevents wounds from being allocated unless there is a listed exclusion from the Out of Sight rule. If you allow them to so so, then that's just the way that you choose to play it. If someone came to the game table and insisted that Night Fight granted stealth/shroud irrespective of Barrage rules then I would insist that the Out of Sight rules also prevent allocating wounds irrespective of the Barrage, Impaler cannon, etc.

I use the relative position of the target just to show the point. I really didn't need to as the rules for Out of Sight are quite clear.

The Logic doesn't go to shambles at all. How does a model fire an autocannon at something that it cannot see? Now, if you are referencing the Night Fight rule here it is also quite simple. And this is how I apply it. If a unit fires an autocannon and a barrage weapon at a unit with Shroud, the unit gains the benefit of Shroud against the Autocannon but not from the Barrage weapon. As the shot is considered to have come from the center of the blast marker.
It would be similar to the same unit firing without the Night Fight in effect and the target unit being behind a wall. The intervienning wall provides cover from the autocannon but not the blast (depending on the position of the blast)

Just because one weapon in a unit allows a save or benefit doesn't mean that all weapons must do so, if one model in a unit has a weapon with Instant Death, but the others do not, does that model lose Instant Death? No. If one model in a unit fires a weapon that Ignores Cover is it required to grant cover because all the other models in the unit do? No.

No unraveling there.

I may be wrong, and I might be proven so in the next FAQ. As it now stands, it's a matter of preference.

Luide - except, as has been stated, given range is NOT one of the instances where you use the blast rather than the firing model, it is indeed a strawman.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Luide - except, as has been stated, given range is NOT one of the instances where you use the blast rather than the firing model, it is indeed a strawman.

We can all agree on that!

rigeld2 wrote:

Luide wrote:
First option will lead to all barrage weapons having infinite range.

That's absolutely false. You cannot know where the center of the marker is until after the scatter is resolved, and you cannot place the marker outside the range of the weapon.

How exactly I cannot know "the center of the blast" marker before scatter is resolved? Center of the blast marker is always in the center of the blast marker. Even before the blast has scattered.
I mean, the exact rule you used here says The hole at the centre of the marker must be within the weapon's maximum range..

So please tell me, exactly why I do not know where the centre of the marker is before scatter. Because I'm pretty sure the centre is exactly where I placed it on table...

Fact that the position of the center may change after scatter is irrelevant, as nowhere in the rules does it say "final position" in regards to barrage rules.

Luide wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Luide wrote:
First option will lead to all barrage weapons having infinite range.

That's absolutely false. You cannot know where the center of the marker is until after the scatter is resolved, and you cannot place the marker outside the range of the weapon.

How exactly I cannot know "the center of the blast" marker before scatter is resolved? Center of the blast marker is always in the center of the blast marker. Even before the blast has scattered.
I mean, the exact rule you used here says The hole at the centre of the marker must be within the weapon's maximum range..

So please tell me, exactly why I do not know where the centre of the marker is before scatter. Because I'm pretty sure the centre is exactly where I placed it on table...

Fact that the position of the center may change after scatter is irrelevant, as nowhere in the rules does it say "final position" in regards to barrage rules.

What's the weapon's maximum range?
I meant to say "you cannot know the final location of the center of the marker until after scatter is resolved."

 Idolator wrote:
Negative, You stated how you play. Letting a Unit entirely Out of Sight from the firing unit to allocate wounds from barrage (even though the rules preclude that) and then allowing the same unit to receive the Shrouded benefit for being XX" distance from the unit.

You still seem to be trying to hide behind an LOS issue with wounds. That has nothing to do with Night Fighting.

How does a model fire an autocannon at something that it cannot see?

We are talking about Night Fighting, not LOS.

Now, if you are referencing the Night Fight rule here it is also quite simple. And this is how I apply it. If a unit fires an autocannon and a barrage weapon at a unit with Shroud, the unit gains the benefit of Shroud against the Autocannon but not from the Barrage weapon. As the shot is considered to have come from the center of the blast marker.

How does a unit have a Special rule against one attack but not another. The target unit either has Shrouded or it does not. You cannot have both.

Just because one weapon in a unit allows a save or benefit doesn't mean that all weapons must do so, if one model in a unit has a weapon with Instant Death, but the others do not, does that model lose Instant Death? No. If one model in a unit fires a weapon that Ignores Cover is it required to grant cover because all the other models in the unit do? No.

That example makes no sense.

. As it now stands, it's a matter of preference.

Its a matter of RAW, they have Shrouded or RAI they don't.

rigeld2 wrote:

Luide wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Luide wrote:
First option will lead to all barrage weapons having infinite range.

That's absolutely false. You cannot know where the center of the marker is until after the scatter is resolved, and you cannot place the marker outside the range of the weapon.

How exactly I cannot know "the center of the blast" marker before scatter is resolved? Center of the blast marker is always in the center of the blast marker. Even before the blast has scattered.
I mean, the exact rule you used here says The hole at the centre of the marker must be within the weapon's maximum range..

So please tell me, exactly why I do not know where the centre of the marker is before scatter. Because I'm pretty sure the centre is exactly where I placed it on table...

Fact that the position of the center may change after scatter is irrelevant, as nowhere in the rules does it say "final position" in regards to barrage rules.

What's the weapon's maximum range?

Normally, it is maximum allowed distance between firing model and target unit. In case of Blast weapons, it is maximum allowed distance between firing model and the center of the blast marker (before scatter is rolled), as per pages 12 and 33. If firing model is determined to be at the center of blast marker, then you just determine the range between center of the blast marker and the center of the blast marker.

rigeld2 wrote:
I meant to say "you cannot know the final location of the center of the marker until after scatter is resolved."

But that is completely irrelevant. Barrage does not specify that the "assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker" only applies for the final position of the blast marker. Now, one reason barrage weapons don't have infinite range is because the whole premise I copied from DR is flawed. There is no permission to measure distance from firing unit to target unit from center of the blast marker given on Barrage rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Luide - except, as has been stated, given range is NOT one of the instances where you use the blast rather than the firing model, it is indeed a strawman.

Measuring distance between firing unit and the target unit is NOT one of the instances where you use the blast either. So while my argument is a strawman, it also means that whole premise of DR's argument is unfounded.

I mean, I assume we can agree on following premises.
1) Shot is coming from the center of blast marker ONLY regarding following things:
1a) whether unit wounded by a barrage is allowed a cover save
1b) when determining Wound allocation
2) (Corollary) For all other purposes, no permission is given to determine that the shot is coming from the center of blast marker
3) "Determine Cover saves" (page 18) defines when model is allowed cover save
4) Wound allocation (regarding shooting attacks) is defined on page 15.

This means that you're not allowed to use center of blast marker for determining distance between the two units (page 4), am I not correct?

1a) should be 'gains cover save from being 25% obscured"

Luide - except where you are told this is relevant; if you are told that a unit gains a cover save by being X distance away from the unit, then you WOULD use the centre of the blast to determine this - as this is part of "determining cover"

Stealth and Shrouded *do* provide a cover save, or improve an existing cover save, which is why I can certainly see DRs argument - you are told that firing model and centre of blast are synonymous for that purpose, and in the degenerate case the model firing IS the unit as well.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Luide - except where you are told this is relevant; if you are told that a unit gains a cover save by being X distance away from the unit, then you WOULD use the centre of the blast to determine this - as this is part of "determining cover"

Stealth and Shrouded *do* provide a cover save, or improve an existing cover save, which is why I can certainly see DRs argument - you are told that firing model and centre of blast are synonymous for that purpose, and in the degenerate case the model firing IS the unit as well.

except the blast marker is not a shooting unit, nor a model.
under determine cover, you are checking to see if the target is 25% obscured, and that is all.
and under night fighting the distance doesn't change when it scatters. if you start in the stealth zone and scatter into shroud or none, the models hit still get stealth. its the distance from the firing unit to the original target that is used throughout the resolution of the barrage shot.

Barrage says nothing about ignoring night fighting, ergo once you check for range that is the save allowed to whatever it ends up hitting.

I changed my mind after reading the rules and the forums... I would make it a +3.

'Still confused Grr,

Shrouded takes place from the firing tank when shooting, IRL this would be the distance in darkness...Doesnt really matter as it never needs line of site to shoot so why would darkness matter? Nightfighting is ment to evenly reduce range for ALL units. Limiting even titans to a 36 inch range.... even though they can be taller then that. BUT as rules are intended ALL weapons should loose some ability in night fighting.

I would like to see them add specual wording to rules in the case of nightfighting. Something like ""Ignors cover.... target may have a maximum of 5+ cover only during nightfighting past 30 inches." If in the same paragraph of the rule there would be no arguing the cover save.

Sirlynch - except you are told to equate the two, for very specific circumstances. You measure from the firing model, but instead measure from the centre of the blast

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sirlynch - except you are told to equate the two, for very specific circumstances. You measure from the firing model, but instead measure from the centre of the blast

You are never told to equate the two.
The rule shows the shot is seperate from firing model, the firing model is still the firing model. Look at the rule again, it does the oppersite of equating the two.

The shot is something that normally comes from the firing unit, we are told it now comes from the blast not the firing unit. The firing unit is still there, we are definitely NOT told the blast is now the firing unit.

 grendel083 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sirlynch - except you are told to equate the two, for very specific circumstances. You measure from the firing model, but instead measure from the centre of the blast

You are never told to equate the two.

The rules equate them, as I have shown.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sirlynch - except you are told to equate the two, for very specific circumstances. You measure from the firing model, but instead measure from the centre of the blast

You are never told to equate the two.

The rules equate them, as I have shown.

The rule disagrees with you.
You can keep saying they equate, but the rule itself shows they don't.

The rule shows that shot and firing unit are seperate, and never the same thing. The shot normally comes from the firing unit (it never IS the firing unit). With barrage the shot (not firing unit) now comes from the blast (not firing unit) instead of the firing unit (which is still the firing unit).
They most certainly DO NOT equate.

I say 5+, as our friendly group would determine that the RAI was that unit and model would be the same effective item when determinations would be made.
Seems to be a slip up of model/unit that we wouldn't rules lawyer, just assume they would be interchangable for this instance.

 grendel083 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sirlynch - except you are told to equate the two, for very specific circumstances. You measure from the firing model, but instead measure from the centre of the blast

You are never told to equate the two.

The rules equate them, as I have shown.

The rule disagrees with you.
You can keep saying they equate, but the rule itself shows they don't.

The rule shows that shot and firing unit are seperate, and never the same thing. The shot normally comes from the firing unit (it never IS the firing unit). With barrage the shot (not firing unit) now comes from the blast (not firing unit) instead of the firing unit (which is still the firing unit).
They most certainly DO NOT equate.

Shots come from firing units.

For barrage where does the shot come from?

A: The center of the blast marker.

the rules do equate them.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Shots come from firing units.

For barrage where does the shot come from?

A: The center of the blast marker.

the rules do equate them.

That doesn't prove what you think it does.
The shot now comes from the blast instead of the firing unit. The rule is clear on this.
The blast does not become the firing unit. The firing unit is still the firing unit, only where the shot is coming from has changed.
Nothing says shots only come from firing units, nothing says the blast becomes the firing unit, nothing makes the firing unit no longer the firing unit.
In short, NOTHING equates the two.
The rule show shot and firing unit as seperate.

The center of the blast is where the shot comes from.

The firing unit is where shots come from.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
except you are told to equate the two, for very specific circumstances. You measure from the firing model, but instead measure from the centre of the blast

Equated by the rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The center of the blast is where the shot comes from.

The firing unit is where shots come from.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
except you are told to equate the two, for very specific circumstances. You measure from the firing model, but instead measure from the centre of the blast

Equated by the rules.

Equated by opinion only, not rules.
Show me the rule that says shots can only come from firing units.
The barrage rule shows that only the shot comes from the blast, it no longer come storm the firing unit. Firing unit is shown right there in the rules to be separate from the shot.
The shot usually comes from firing units, the barrage rules show that's not always the case. The rule does the exact opposite of equating them, please read it.

The whole rub of this issue can be broken down to this: Do the exceptions for a firing model take precedence over the rules for a firing unit?

That is the question that is being asked.

I come down on the side of the model. Some come down on the side of the unit. Obviously the rules conflict and there's nothing in the rules that state one overides the other.

Death reaper is right on this issue, barrage is a little wonky but it makes sense I just sense some rage about barrage negating the benefits of night fighting. When assuming the center of the blast is the shot equate it with the model dropping on the heads of the unit and you realize how silly the this argument gets. During night fight hide in cover if your opponent brought barrage if not proceed normally, this argument came up every time I used a Manticore during night fight.

So what happens if the blast marker lands directly on top of an enemy model? Now you have a model on top of an enemy model, and that is not allowed.