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.

I'm considering buying these but I have some questions about how exactly these things can shoot. Their unit type is Artillery, so since they're not vehicles it seems to me that, strictly RAW, they do not have to trace line of sight along the barrel the same way but this sounds like it could be abused to allow them to fire at targets at absurdly tight angles since the Artillery rules on p. 46 simply state that you draw line of sight from the barrel (not necessarily ALONG it).

In the case that I'm wrong and they do fire like vehicles, would it be fair to say that, like hull-mounted vehicle weapons, they would be allowed the 45 degree horizontal and vertical 'swivel' as described on p. 72?

They can pivot on the spot like any non-vehicle. Except instead of the eyes they use the barrel for LoS purposes.

 Grey Templar wrote:
They can pivot on the spot like any non-vehicle. Except instead of the eyes they use the barrel for LoS purposes.

Ah, I see where I went wrong... I read their 'Immobile' section on their page in the last Imperial Armour thinking it might mean not being able to move could include not being able to rotate, but as they aren't vehicles pivoting wouldn't count as moving anyway. Thanks for the clarification.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
... but as they aren't vehicles pivoting wouldn't count as moving anyway.

Do you have a rules reference for that? Because I can't find anything in the current rules that says that turning on the spot doesn't count as moving.

P71, the paragraph after the Vehicle Movement bullet points. "A vehicle that only pivots in the movement phase counts as stationary (however, Immobilised vehicles cannot even pivot)."

For all other models facing doesn't matter as they are covered by the Turning and Facing rules on p10.

Artillery needs LOS from both the firing crewman and the weapon, but that is pretty irrelevant for the sabre platform models

 Flinty wrote:
For all other models facing doesn't matter as they are covered by the Turning and Facing rules on p10.

Except that regardless of what that section claims, facing does matter, because of the way LOS is drawn.

right,

so make sure all your toy soildiers are facing the enemy or they cant shoot


/jk

 Grey Templar wrote:
They can pivot on the spot like any non-vehicle. Except instead of the eyes they use the barrel for LoS purposes.

No, *range* is measured from the barrel, LOS is measured from the model.

easysauce wrote:
right,

so make sure all your toy soildiers are facing the enemy or they cant shoot


/jk

That's actually exactly the problem. 6th ed says in the movement rules that facing doesn't matter, but when it comes to shooting you use the model's viewpoint to determine LOS. And 6th ed took out the old allowance to turn to face your target in the shooting phase...

So as the rules currently stand, LOS is a little awkward, since we have no permission to turn and face, and no way of accurately determining just how far around to the sides most of our models can see.


In actual practice, people just ignore this (or are unaware of it to begin with) and just assume that non-vehicle models have a 360 degree line of sight... which is probably how the rules are supposed to work, but until GW get around to actually finishing the 6th edition rulebook, we won't know for sure.

 insaniak wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
For all other models facing doesn't matter as they are covered by the Turning and Facing rules on p10.

Except that regardless of what that section claims, facing does matter, because of the way LOS is drawn.

I see no conflict whatsoever. The Turning and Facing rules explicitly state that facing has no impact on the ability of a model to shoot and charge and the Line of Sight rule explicitly allow you to draw a line of sight through all of the members in the models own unit, which includes the firing model. So you draw your line of sight as a line from the models eyes to the target, through the models head if necessary, or you could assume that the head is turned to an appropriate position where the head does not block the line.

 Flinty wrote:
So you draw your line of sight as a line from the models eyes to the target, through the models head if necessary,...

...in which case you're not drawing a 'model's eye view'...

...or you could assume that the head is turned to an appropriate position where the head does not block the line.

Indeed you could... but that still runs into the problem of figuring out just how far around the head can turn.

 insaniak wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
So you draw your line of sight as a line from the models eyes to the target, through the models head if necessary,...

...in which case you're not drawing a 'model's eye view'...

Which is still irrellevant because the actual highlighted LOS rule states

"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the target's body..."

With the allowance to draw that line through your own models from the paragraph later on there is nothing in that rule that prevents you from drawing the line through the model's head.

...or you could assume that the head is turned to an appropriate position where the head does not block the line.

Indeed you could... but that still runs into the problem of figuring out just how far around the head can turn.

Far enough for the facing of the model not to matter, obviously

insaniak wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
So you draw your line of sight as a line from the models eyes to the target, through the models head if necessary,...

...in which case you're not drawing a 'model's eye view'...

...or you could assume that the head is turned to an appropriate position where the head does not block the line.

Indeed you could... but that still runs into the problem of figuring out just how far around the head can turn.

Flinty wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
So you draw your line of sight as a line from the models eyes to the target, through the models head if necessary,...

...in which case you're not drawing a 'model's eye view'...

Which is still irrellevant because the actual highlighted LOS rule states

"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the target's body..."

With the allowance to draw that line through your own models from the paragraph later on there is nothing in that rule that prevents you from drawing the line through the model's head.

...or you could assume that the head is turned to an appropriate position where the head does not block the line.

Indeed you could... but that still runs into the problem of figuring out just how far around the head can turn.

Far enough for the facing of the model not to matter, obviously

Hasnt this argument already been debated to nauseum? RAW from model eye view. RAI and RAP 360 LOS to infantry.

It may have already been debated, but in my view the RAW is clear and explicit.

and lets say you have a model with no eyes, it cannot shoot


same things with models wearing glasses, how do we know they even have eyes beneath right?

also we are not allowed to mesure from their glasses, only their eyes.

its not like they can turn their head or anything



/absurd arguement is absurd

I vow no helmeted space marine can fire a weapon anymore as they don't have "eyes", they have sensors.

easysauce wrote:
also we are not allowed to mesure from their glasses, only their eyes.

you measure from the base, not the eyes.