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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Right, you do not have to take the shot, but you may still take the shot (Because the facing you are in is not visible, normally you would not get to shoot as the facing is out of Line of Sight), but if you shoot you do so as P.75 says.

uberjoras wrote:

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?

I have, the rules equate line of sight with the facing of the vehicle you are in.

Units target other units.

Units must have line of sight to their targets or they can not shoot.

The vehicle facing rules equate targeting to the facing the unit is in.

If you can not see the target facing you can not shoot it (Unless you follow the rules for angled shots).

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.

You have no permission to resolve your hit against anything but the facing you are in, and can see as per P.73. If you can not see that facing you can not resolve your shot against it.

"Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from." P. 73

 DeathReaper wrote:
normally you would not get to shoot as the facing is out of Line of Sight

You still haven't quoted the exact rule that says this. Probably because no such rule exists, and you're just assuming it says something that you want it to say.

If you can not see the target facing you can not shoot it (Unless you follow the rules for angled shots).

Quote. The. Rule.

I did, but here is the rule again:

"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

No, I mean quote the rule that says that you can not shoot at an armor facing that is completely covered. You keep saying it as if it is fact, but you still haven't quoted a rule.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, I mean quote the rule that says that you can not shoot at an armor facing that is completely covered. You keep saying it as if it is fact, but you still haven't quoted a rule.

Page 75 tells us this when it tells us: in the case of not being able to see the facing you are in, you may still shoot the vehicle, but if you do you have to do it how the rules on P.75 instruct you on resolving the shot.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Page 75 tells us this when it tells us: in the case of not being able to see the facing you are in, you may still shoot the vehicle, but if you do you have to do it how the rules on P.75 instruct you on resolving the shot.

This is not true at all. Please try to understand the difference between:

If X then you may Y.

and

If X then you must Y.

Page 75 gives a statement of the form "if X then you MAY Y". If a facing is 100% obscured you MAY shoot at a visible facing with a cover bonus. You are not required to do so and may take the shot normally at the 100% obscured facing (since the model as a whole is visible) with the normal cover save for having 25% or more of the facing you are in obscured.

"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

It seems pretty cut and dry.

It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in..

There is a heavy implication that they cannot shoot at the side that is not visible - hence the next sentence.

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

My understanding is: you have line of sight to the vehicle if you can see its hull or turret. You may only fire at things you have line of sight to. The facing of the vehicle you attack is based on your position relative to the vehicle's facing. Nothing in the rules says that you need to be able to see the facing to target it, just the vehicle.

As it's written, this section says that if you have no line of sight to the facing of a vehicle you are in, you can fire at the facing you can see. That could be taken to imply that you can't shoot at a facing you can't see, but it doesn't say that. I would note, though, that the "Picture 3" on page 75 says the Rhino "receives +1 to its cover save", not "receives +1 to its cover save if the Fire Dragons choose to fire at the side armour instead of the armour whose arc they are in."

While the idea that each facing is treated separately for line of sight and targeting is interesting, it doesn't seem to be backed up by what is written.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
You may only fire at things you have line of sight to.

This is pretty much the golden rule and why I don't think you can hit a side of a vehicle you can't see.

Okay, but the rules don't seem to make that distinction. It would make sense that way if you targeted a vehicle by picking a particular facing you can see and making a shot at it, but you don't. You choose to target a vehicle that you have line of sight to and the armour value you target is based on what quadrant you're in relative to the vehicle's facing.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Page 75 tells us this when it tells us: in the case of not being able to see the facing you are in, you may still shoot the vehicle, but if you do you have to do it how the rules on P.75 instruct you on resolving the shot.

This is not true at all. Please try to understand the difference between:

If X then you may Y.
and
If X then you must Y.

Page 75 gives a statement of the form "if X then you MAY Y". If a facing is 100% obscured you MAY shoot at a visible facing with a cover bonus. You are not required to do so and may take the shot normally at the 100% obscured facing (since the model as a whole is visible) with the normal cover save for having 25% or more of the facing you are in obscured.

"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

This rule disagrees with your assessment.

Please try to parse the sentence correctly.

If you are going to shoot at the vehicle, and can not see the facing you are in, P.75 kicks in and tells you that the "unit may take the shot against the facing they can see" allowing you to shoot when the facing you are in is not in line of sight.

This implies that you can not target a facing you can not see.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"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

This rule disagrees with your assessment.

Please try to parse the sentence correctly.

If you are going to shoot at the vehicle, and can not see the facing you are in, P.75 kicks in and tells you that the "unit may take the shot against the facing they can see" allowing you to shoot when the facing you are in is not in line of sight.

This implies that you can not target a facing you can not see.

The wording of the sentence doesn't imply that you can't do otherwise. The thing that implies you can't do otherwise is the common sense reaction that you can't shoot the facing of the vehicle because you can't see it (or, alternatively, the game system-based knowledge that being allowed to shoot at this other side of the vehicle may give you a better chance of destroying it than firing at the side you're on).

All the sentence says is that, as Peregrine posted earlier, if X is the case, you may do Y. That does not rule out anything else and does not even imply in itself that you may not do something else. For it to work as you suppose, there would have to be a rule saying that you need line of sight to a facing and to be in its quadrant to target it, in which case this would supply the additional permission you need to fire at the vehicle at all. That is not what the rules actually say, though.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"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

This rule disagrees with your assessment.

Please try to parse the sentence correctly.

If you are going to shoot at the vehicle, and can not see the facing you are in, P.75 kicks in and tells you that the "unit may take the shot against the facing they can see" allowing you to shoot when the facing you are in is not in line of sight.

This implies that you can not target a facing you can not see.

The wording of the sentence doesn't imply that you can't do otherwise.

It does if you parse the sentence correctly.