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.

My search-fu has failed me here on Dakka. I seek clarification on the rules regarding shots against vehicles, the cover saves granted them, and the active player's permissions in the shooting phase.

I'll explain the situation that's bugging me, I'm sure many of you are familiar with it. One player is Imperial Guard, the Other is playing Tau . So IG moves his russ off to the side, to shoot some poor fire warriors, but in doing so, he has exposed his rear armor to Tau broadsides next turn. IG then moves a chimera up, putting it directly adjacent to the russ, in such a way that Tau broadsides don't have line of sight to the rear of the russ, but can still see the side armor.

There are two arguments I've heard about this situation. One argument goes as such: "The 'angled shots rule' is not optional. You can only fire at what you have line of sight to - you can only fire at the side arc, using the rules for extremely angled shots in the vehicle cover section of the BRB." Meaning, the broadsides would fire at AV13 with a 4+ cover, for being obscured and improved by 1 due to the angled shots rule.

The other argument goes as such: "You are presented the choice to fire upon the side arc using the angled shots rule, but nowhere are you forced to. You have LOS to the vehicle, and are in the rear arc, regardless of intervening models. The vehicle is still obscured from the interposing chimera, but the shots will be resolved against av10, with a 5+ cover save for the russ. Should the facings be switched up, and the rear is the facing you had an angled shot against, you may choose to use the angled shot rule, but nothing is forcing you to."

Please help me resolve this situation! It's been plaguing my group's meta for a long time! There has been some serious silliness, like russes touching butts, and rhino carpets, and this just has to be alleviated somehow.

So now your weapons suddenly have the ability to shoot through other models just because you want them to? If that were the case I wouldn't worry about my opponents parking armour around their capturing unit sitting on an objective. I could just shoot through the armour and that's that. There's no "Regardless of intervening models", half the rules are based around what kind of models are in the way and doing what.

uberjoras wrote:
"You are presented the choice to fire upon the side arc using the angled shots rule, but nowhere are you forced to."

This is correct. The rule very clearly says you may take the angled shot, not that you must take it. And there is no rule that you can't shoot at a facing that is 100% covered, only a rule that you can't shoot at a model/unit that is 100% covered. The Leman Russ is not 100% obscured, so you have a choice between rear armor against an obscured target, or side armor against an obscured target with +1 cover save.

Now, you can argue RAI all you want and you might be right that GW wanted it to be mandatory, but RAW is very clear.

Page 73 establishes that you target the facing you are in.

If you can not see the facing you are in you can not target the vehicle, as the vehicle is out of sight. (Unless you can see another facing then the rules on Page 75 apply).

 DeathReaper wrote:
Page 73 establishes that you target the facing you are in.

If you can not see the facing you are in you can not target the vehicle, as the vehicle is out of sight. (Unless you can see another facing then the rules on Page 75 apply.

If you cannot gain line of sight to the facing that you are in but can still see the vehicle. The vehicle gets a +1 to it's coversave. Pg 75.

Where is that angled shot rule listed? I'm unfamilliar with that.

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Page 73 establishes that you target the facing you are in.

If you can not see the facing you are in you can not target the vehicle, as the vehicle is out of sight. (Unless you can see another facing then the rules on Page 75 apply).

If you cannot gain line of sight to the facing that you are in but can still see the vehicle. The vehicle gets a +1 to it's coversave. Pg 75.

Where is that angled shot rule listed? I'm unfamilliar with that.

Page 75, the same graph as the "+1 to it's coversave" rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Page 73 establishes that you target the facing you are in.

If you can not see the facing you are in you can not target the vehicle, as the vehicle is out of sight. (Unless you can see another facing then the rules on Page 75 apply).

If you cannot gain line of sight to the facing that you are in but can still see the vehicle. The vehicle gets a +1 to it's coversave. Pg 75.

Where is that angled shot rule listed? I'm unfamilliar with that.

Page 75, the same graph as the "+1 to it's coversave" rule.

Thanks, It was worded weird in the OP. He was phrasing it as choosing to fire at the side arc but with a bonus to the cover. I had never heard of that. Now I know why, it doesn't exist.

If you can see the vehicle(hull, turret) at all you can shoot at it and must always be considered to have fired at the facing that the model is in.

 Idolator wrote:
Thanks, It was worded weird in the OP. He was phrasing it as choosing to fire at the side arc but with a bonus to the cover. I had never heard of that. Now I know why, it doesn't exist.

If you can see the vehicle(hull, turret) at all you can shoot at it and must always be considered to have fired at the facing that the model is in.

Unless you can not see the facing you are in, but you can see a different facing. Then you follow the rules on Page 75.

"It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case, they may take the shot against the facing they can see, but to represent such an extremely angled shot, the vehicle receives a cover save one point better than that given by the cover obscuring the vehicle's other facing."

This gives you allowance to shoot at the facing you are not in when you can not see the facing you are in. If you can not see the facing you are in, you can only use P.75 to shoot at the vehicle, as the facing you are in is not in line of sight.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If you can not see the facing you are in you can not target the vehicle, as the vehicle is out of sight.

Please quote the exact rule that says that. It says nothing about 100% obscured = can't target at all, unless the entire vehicle is 100% obscured. The only per-facing limit stated is that 25% obscured = cover.

 Idolator wrote:
Thanks, It was worded weird in the OP. He was phrasing it as choosing to fire at the side arc but with a bonus to the cover. I had never heard of that. Now I know why, it doesn't exist.

If you can see the vehicle(hull, turret) at all you can shoot at it and must always be considered to have fired at the facing that the model is in.

Please go re-read the rules in question, found on page 75. If the facing you are in is 100% hidden then you may choose to fire at a visible facing with a +1 cover bonus.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If you can not see the facing you are in you can not target the vehicle, as the vehicle is out of sight.

Please quote the exact rule that says that. It says nothing about 100% obscured = can't target at all, unless the entire vehicle is 100% obscured. The only per-facing limit stated is that 25% obscured = cover.

 Idolator wrote:
Thanks, It was worded weird in the OP. He was phrasing it as choosing to fire at the side arc but with a bonus to the cover. I had never heard of that. Now I know why, it doesn't exist.

If you can see the vehicle(hull, turret) at all you can shoot at it and must always be considered to have fired at the facing that the model is in.

Please go re-read the rules in question, found on page 75. If the facing you are in is 100% hidden then you may choose to fire at a visible facing with a +1 cover bonus.

That is totally awesome. Everyone that I've been playing against (20-30) have been playing that you still target the facing that you're in and get the +1 cover. This will prevent guys from parking their vindicators with just the front up against a wall and leaving the side visible. Nice!

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If you can not see the facing you are in you can not target the vehicle, as the vehicle is out of sight.

Please quote the exact rule that says that. It says nothing about 100% obscured = can't target at all, unless the entire vehicle is 100% obscured. The only per-facing limit stated is that 25% obscured = cover.

It is all right here:

"It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case, they may take the shot against the facing they can see, but to represent such an extremely angled shot, the vehicle receives a cover save one point better than that given by the cover obscuring the vehicle's other facing." P. 75

P. 75, along with the rules on P.73 that establish you shoot at (Target) the facing you are in, and the out of sight rules that tell us you can not shoot at something that is out of line of Sight, tells us that even though you can not see the facing you are in you can still shoot att he vehicle, but if you want to fire at all you have to target the facing you are not in.

Certainly DeathReaper has it as GW intended it. If you look at the small rulebook p75, the Picture 3 example of Fire Dragons shooting at a Rhino, they mention that the rhino gains the cover save from the ruin, and a +1 bonus for the angled shot.

However, I still have not found anything that says you specifically target a facing of a vehicle; that is the whole point of checking which facing arc you are in. The angled shot rule only uses the term "may", which has never meant "must".

What about a rare circumstance where a vehicles turret is visible (permitting me to shoot it), but the rest of the vehicle is totally obscured? I would have no LOS to *any* facing of the vehicle, but I do have LOS to the vehicle itself, as turrets are counted for the purpose of LOS. Which facing would I resolve that shot against?

uberjoras wrote:
The angled shot rule only uses the term "may", which has never meant "must".

Because you're never required to take any shot whatsoever. Why would it say "must"?

Which facing would I resolve that shot against?

Whichever facing you're standing in.

you shoot the facing you are in,

if that facing you are in is 100% covered, but you can see another facing, the target gets +1 to its cover save, but you resolve against the facing you are in,

see the rules about vehicles re cover saves, they tell you to shoot the facing you are in, even though it is blocked

you never get a choice of what facing to shoot at... you shoot at the one you are in, otherwise I could always choose to shoot side armour because I can see it, even though im not in that facing

you need LOS to a vehicle, you do not need LOS to the facing you shoot at, it is just based on where you are relative to the vehicle

if your LOS to the facing you are in is 100% covered, but a facing you are not in is visable, shoot away, they get the +1 cover save on the facing you are in.

easysauce wrote:
you shoot the facing you are in,

if that facing you are in is 100% covered, but you can see another facing, the target gets +1 to its cover save, but you resolve against the facing you are in,

The underlined is incorrect. you take the shot against the facing you can see, not the facing you are in as per Page 75.


"It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case, they may take the shot against the facing they can see..." P. 75

rigeld2 wrote:

uberjoras wrote:
Which facing would I resolve that shot against?

Whichever facing you're standing in.

uberjoras wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

uberjoras wrote:
Which facing would I resolve that shot against?

Whichever facing you're standing in.

Then you are not required to have LOS to the facing you are resolving hits against, much less to any facing, so long as you have LOS to the vehicle, be it turret or otherwise (what if there was a giant mirror on the battlefield...)?

Having LOS to the Turret means you have LOS to the facing.

This would then necessitate that, in the example in my OP, the railgun would fire at av10 on the russ, with a 5+ cover for intervening models. Basically, it would mean that blocking LOS to the rear facing of the target vehicle using another (expendable) vehicle only gives the target vehicle a 5+ cover save so long as the vehicle is still within my LOS, but does not prevent shots from being resolved against the rear armor, or necessitate them to be taken against any other facing, provided that the firing models are actually within the rear arc and can see any part of the vehicle.

You have no permission to resolve your hit against anything but the facing you can see.

Turrets are not part of, nor indicative of, a facing, as facings aren't determined by turrets but instead by the hull. Though I agree you fire at the facing you are in, it is for different reasons - the turret could be pointed 180 degrees away from the firing model - does that then mean I fire at rear armor, since it's the Rear of the model that I see?

You have no rule that forces you to fire against the visible (and not the obscured/normal) facing should you choose to target the vehicle. If you were required to resolve against a visible facing, the rule would have a phrase indicating this - there is no such phrase anywhere in the rules for vehicles.

I ask for a rule stating that you ever 'target' a specific facing when you shoot, instead of the vehicle as a whole (which is what the rules actually say), and simply determining the facing you resolve against as per the usual corner-to-corner method.

The vehicle is certainly at least obscured, nobody argues that point. However, nothing prevents me from targeting the obscured vehicle as per normal and resolving the shot normally against the facing that I'm in, and ignoring the angled shot rule, as I don't wish to exercise my option to "may take the shot against the facing they can see".

Order of operations for firing at a vehicle:
1) check range
2) check LOS (can I see the vehicle)?
This part is important, so I'll break here. As per p73, "When a unit fires at a vehicle, it must be able to see its hull or turret." It does not specify that the unit must see any facing, as that is not applicable here. If you can see it, you can shoot it.
3) roll to hit
4) check facings using corner method described on p73 of the small rulebook.
This part is where we're talking about. It comes after you check the facings, and states that you (have permission to)/(may) resolve the shot against another facing than you would usually resolve it against, under specific circumstances, with certain additional effects should you choose to use this option.
5) roll to penetrate, using any special rules like melta.
6) determine and take saves. These saves can come from wargear, special rules, or circumstance, and can be modified by special rules and circumstances.
7) Roll on the VDC, apply results.

Show me my errors, if I've made any. I know this sounds totally silly from a perspective of how it should be played, but this is literally rules as written.

uberjoras wrote:
You have no rule that forces you to fire against the visible (and not the obscured/normal) facing should you choose to target the vehicle. If you were required to resolve against a visible facing, the rule would have a phrase indicating this - there is no such phrase anywhere in the rules for vehicles.

I ask for a rule stating that you ever 'target' a specific facing when you shoot, instead of the vehicle as a whole (which is what the rules actually say), and simply determining the facing you resolve against as per the usual corner-to-corner method.

The vehicle is certainly at least obscured, nobody argues that point. However, nothing prevents me from targeting the obscured vehicle as per normal and resolving the shot normally against the facing that I'm in, and ignoring the angled shot rule, as I don't wish to exercise my option to "may take the shot against the facing they can see".

That is not correct.

the rules on P.73 and 75 equate the arc we are in to what we can target.

If we can see nothing of the arc that we are in, the only way to shoot at the vehicle is to target an arc we are not in, and P. 75 tells us how to do that.

Basically the rules I am going to quote below tell us that each facing is a target. Models in one facing can not target a different facing (Even though they can see that facing) if they can see the facing they are in. It equates the facing the firing models are in to the Line of Sight.

"If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of a target vehicle (some models in the front and some in the side, for example), shots are resolved separately for each facing" P. 73

rigeld2 wrote:
You have no permission to resolve your hit against anything but the facing you can see.

Yes we do. We have permission (obligation, really) to fire at the facing the model is actually in. There is no rule that states that you can not shoot at the facing you are in if that facing is 100% covered (since the "100% covered = no shooting" rule we do have only applies to entire models/units), so nothing overrules the default case that you resolve shots against the facing you are in. The only thing that could possibly allow you to shoot another facing is that you MAY choose to fire the extremely angled shot against a visible facing with +1 cover.

uberjoras wrote:
Certainly DeathReaper has it as GW intended it. If you look at the small rulebook p75, the Picture 3 example of Fire Dragons shooting at a Rhino, they mention that the rhino gains the cover save from the ruin, and a +1 bonus for the angled shot.

Of course you shouldn't pay too much attention to that example because GW got it completely wrong. The front facing of the Rhino is not 100% covered (you can see a small area of the top corner), so the rule does not apply. We're clearly not dealing with RAW in that picture, instead we're dealing with "how would it be cinematic or help forge a narrative."

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You have no permission to resolve your hit against anything but the facing you can see.

Yes we do. We have permission (obligation, really) to fire at the facing the model is actually in. There is no rule that states that you can not shoot at the facing you are in if that facing is 100% covered (since the "100% covered = no shooting" rule we do have only applies to entire models/units), so nothing overrules the default case that you resolve shots against the facing you are in. The only thing that could possibly allow you to shoot another facing is that you MAY choose to fire the extremely angled shot against a visible facing with +1 cover.

As DR said, page 73 and 75 equate the arc you're in to what you can target. If you can't see the facing you're in you can't target it.

uberjoras wrote:
Certainly DeathReaper has it as GW intended it. If you look at the small rulebook p75, the Picture 3 example of Fire Dragons shooting at a Rhino, they mention that the rhino gains the cover save from the ruin, and a +1 bonus for the angled shot.

Of course you shouldn't pay too much attention to that example because GW got it completely wrong. The front facing of the Rhino is not 100% covered (you can see a small area of the top corner), so the rule does not apply. We're clearly not dealing with RAW in that picture, instead we're dealing with "how would it be cinematic or help forge a narrative."

From the camera yes. The two FDs on the right might not be able to see that sliver, and the one on left got thrown in for ease of explanation.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you can't see the facing you're in you can't target it.

Please provide an exact quote from the rules that says this.

(There isn't one. You're assuming it based on how you think it should work, but it is never stated.)

From the camera yes. The two FDs on the right might not be able to see that sliver, and the one on left got thrown in for ease of explanation.

They might not be able to. However, the camera view is all we have, and it clearly shows a situation where the rule shouldn't apply. This seriously undermines its relevance in a RAW discussion, since GW seems to be playing it as "what would be cinematic" and calling it "close enough" if 99% of the front facing is covered but not 100%.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you can't see the facing you're in you can't target it.

Please provide an exact quote from the rules that says this.

(There isn't one. You're assuming it based on how you think it should work, but it is never stated.)

As I have said: page 73 and 75 equate the arc you're in to what you can target.

 DeathReaper wrote:
As I have said: page 73 and 75 equate the arc you're in to what you can target.

Please give an exact quote. You are assuming something based on what you think the rules say, not what they actually say.

 Peregrine wrote:

uberjoras wrote:
"You are presented the choice to fire upon the side arc using the angled shots rule, but nowhere are you forced to."

This is correct. The rule very clearly says you may take the angled shot, not that you must take it. And there is no rule that you can't shoot at a facing that is 100% covered, only a rule that you can't shoot at a model/unit that is 100% covered. The Leman Russ is not 100% obscured, so you have a choice between rear armor against an obscured target, or side armor against an obscured target with +1 cover save.

Now, you can argue RAI all you want and you might be right that GW wanted it to be mandatory, but RAW is very clear.

I do see how this RAW could be interpreted that way, but what I think GW meant when they said "...They may take the shot..." is that you have a choice of taking the shot at the vehicle of not. After all if they used the word must instead of may they would be forced to take the shot even if you wanted to shoot at something else. A far better wording would be "If the firing unit shoots at the vehicle then they must take the angled shot."

I should also mention to other people wishing to argue against me is that this is a quirk of the english language. This rule is just as badly worded as saying "Mark and Bobby went on a picnic and he made the food." you have no way of knowing who made the food just like you have no way of knowing if GW meant "you may take the angled shot" or "you may take a shot at the vehicle"

I agree that RAI it's probably meant to be a choice between no shot at all and the "extremely angled" special case. But RAW it isn't, so if you want to play it the way it "should" work then you need to agree on a house rule with your opponent.

the rulebook regarding which face of the vehicle is hit is actually in bold: the shot fired is determined against which "quadrant" the shot was originated from based on the vehicle. If you can see the target at ALL, you fire at that armor quadrant (with a damn good cover save)

"When a unit fires at a vehicle, it must be able to see its hull or turret" P.73
Pretty straightforward. to target a vehicle you need to see the hull or turret.

"Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from. To see what facing a shot is corning from, draw two imaginary lines through the cornets of the vehicle (see diagram below). If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of a target vehicle (some models in the front and some in the side, for example), shots are resolved separately for each facing" P. 73
This tells us that units shoot at the facing they are in. Shots being resolved separately for each facing means that you target and shoot the facing you are in, if you can see that facing.

However if the situation is this:

"It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case, they may take the shot against the facing they can see, but to represent such an extremely angled shot, the vehicle receives a cover save one point better than that given by the cover obscuring the vehicle's other facing."

If, in the situation of " the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle." P. 75 then you follow these rules, as these rules are more specific than the general targeting rules for vehicles.

You can not shoot at the facing you are in because you do not have Line of sight to the facing you are in. It is okay, you can still take the shot, but you do it at the facing you can see, albeit with an improved cover save.

 DeathReaper wrote:
P. 75 then you follow these rules, as these rules are more specific than the general targeting rules for vehicles.

You MAY use those rules. It says "may", not "must", therefore use of that special case rule is optional.

You can not shoot at the facing you are in because you do not have Line of sight to the facing you are in.

Please quote the exact rule that says this. You keep saying it, but it is not found anywhere in the actual rules of the game.

 DeathReaper wrote:

"Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from. To see what facing a shot is corning from, draw two imaginary lines through the cornets of the vehicle (see diagram below). If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of a target vehicle (some models in the front and some in the side, for example), shots are resolved separately for each facing" P. 73
This tells us that units shoot at the facing they are in. Shots being resolved separately for each facing means that you target and shoot the facing you are in, if you can see that facing.

I posit that you're wrong here. As you've quoted the rule in its entirety, please point to the section where it requires LOS to the facing you are in for the purpose of resolving the shot against it? The plain answer is that LOS to any particular facing is not required or even mentioned for that matter, you merely determine the direction the shot is coming from in relation to the facing arcs, except when you choose to use the rule for "angled shots".

Fleet units can (may) re-roll one or more of their dice for run moves and charge distance, but this doesn't mean they have to. It may not make sense realistically, sure, but nothing is forcing you to re-roll those dice, just like nothing is forcing you to resolve your shots against the extremely angled facing.