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.

Bear with me for a moment here

Markerlights: "Immediately before a unit ... shoots at a target that has one or more markerlight counters..."

Using a markerlight counter allows you to immediately fire a seeker missile.
Now, the seeker missile says "does not need line of sight"

In terms of targeting an enemy unit, "at least one model in the unit must have line of sight"

You have to declare your target first and then use the markerlight immediately before you shoot. Even though the seeker missile does not require line of sight when launched by a markerlight, the vehicle itself needs line of sight to use the markerlight and launch it in the first place. Which means that RAW, this special rule is essentially null.

How would you play this? In a friendly game I would house rule it to follow RAI, especially with how seeker missiles worked with the last codex. But I can see this being a problem.

I think it's clear that the Seeker Missile (when launched via Markerlight) is intended to be able to be fired without Line of Sight. Just my personal take on it.

Im still wondering whether or not a vehicle going flat out can fire a seeker (since it does not count towards the amount of weapons it can fire). That way i have an incentive to put them on stuff like piranhas

I really wanted to do that (lots of fun last edition). But I think you run into the same issue. You have to choose your target first, and to do that you have to be able to fire... i think. And since if you go flat out it is instead of firing, you don't have to opportunity to spend markerlights. But that's another thread.

Point is, even though it seems clear how they should work, RAW seeker missiles are messed up.

There seems to be quite a few rules like this now. We think we can tell what they meant, it just doesn't actually say that.

Oh btw:

Yeah, i guess this is a rules question.

Since when don't special rules override general rules? The special rules for a seeker missile say that LOS is not required for the seeker missile. I haven't read the new Codex yet, but the intent/purpose of the seeker missile was that the vehicle required a "designator" to fire its seekers. From what I can glean at this point, successful markerlight hits generate counters and you use counters to either make a normal LOS shot easier or to fire a seeker missile. The counters are on the model targeted and can be used my any model in the Tau army, not just the unit firing the markerlight. The Skyray has the ability to mark its own targets, but that doesn't mean that it has to.

helotaxi wrote:
Since when don't special rules override general rules? The special rules for a seeker missile say that LOS is not required for the seeker missile. I haven't read the new Codex yet, but the intent/purpose of the seeker missile was that the vehicle required a "designator" to fire its seekers. From what I can glean at this point, successful markerlight hits generate counters and you use counters to either make a normal LOS shot easier or to fire a seeker missile. The counters are on the model targeted and can be used my any model in the Tau army, not just the unit firing the markerlight. The Skyray has the ability to mark its own targets, but that doesn't mean that it has to.

The problem is both lines are in the special rule, so it can't ignore itself. There has been a rewrite of how the seeker gets fired in the new codex and it is no longer any unit expending the marklight, but a vehicle with a seeker expending the markerlight.

The 2 rules in the seeker that start to cause a headache as written:
"- Does not need line of sight.
- Must be fired at the same target as the vehicle's
other weapons."


And to the piranaha question:
"-Does not reduce the number of weapons a vehicle can
fire at its full Ballistic Skill"
I would say this does look like you can fire one while "flat out", probably needs to go to Yakface's thigns ti FAQ thread.

There are several things that ignore line of sight, and to my knowledge only the SMS actually has a rule for it the others just say it in the weapons description.

I see no reason why a vehicle moving flat out couldnt fire it, the vehicle is nothing but a carrier for it its another unit that is technically "firing" the missile.

RAW or not though its obvious its not suppose to require line of sight. Because it straight up says it doesnt. Its the same as the SMS or the Impaler Cannons for nids.

The rule says you don't need LoS, so therefore you don't. Even if the timing issue were legitimate (which is at best ambiguous), that wouldn't give you carte blanche to ignore the rule. And it's entirely possible that the vehicle wouldn't be able to fire its other weapons due to LoS (or range) restrictions, and the Seeker could still be fired.

On the other hand, if the vehicle cannot fire at all, such as when moving Flat Out, then it cannot even expend a markerlight token in the first place, nevermind use it to fire. You can't extrapolate "doesn't reduce the number of weapons fired at full BS" to "can fire when not firing".

Pyrian wrote:
The rule says you don't need LoS, so therefore you don't. Even if the timing issue were legitimate (which is at best ambiguous), that wouldn't give you carte blanche to ignore the rule. And it's entirely possible that the vehicle wouldn't be able to fire its other weapons due to LoS (or range) restrictions, and the Seeker could still be fired.

How is the timing issue not legitimate? You pick your target, then you expend the markerlight, then the missile fires and ignores LoS. I thought the range thing was an issue as well, but since you can fire the seeker missiles without markerlights, that counts as your weapon with the most range.

Pyrian wrote:
On the other hand, if the vehicle cannot fire at all, such as when moving Flat Out, then it cannot even expend a markerlight token in the first place, nevermind use it to fire. You can't extrapolate "doesn't reduce the number of weapons fired at full BS" to "can fire when not firing".

This is the same argument as the above. You have to be able to shoot to use the markerlight.

Also thanks to whoever moved this.

 DakkaHammer wrote:
You pick your target, then you expend the markerlight...

The markerlight token is expended before shooting. You're basing your argument on something you inferred, not something that's in the rule. And, in my opinion, a mere inference should never contradict and override direct RaW.

 DakkaHammer wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
On the other hand, if the vehicle cannot fire at all, such as when moving Flat Out, then it cannot even expend a markerlight token in the first place, nevermind use it to fire. You can't extrapolate "doesn't reduce the number of weapons fired at full BS" to "can fire when not firing".

This is the same argument as the above. You have to be able to shoot to use the markerlight.

No, it's entirely distinct. You can't extrapolate "doesn't reduce the number of weapons fired at full BS" to "can fire when not firing"; this is as opposed to "doesn't need LoS" meaning "doesn't need LoS", which is straight RaW your interpretation is directly contradicting.

You know you don't have to use your own markerlight to shoot the seekers? You just need some markerlight counters on the target.

You do have to be able to shoot to use the markerlight but if my pathfinders lit up a target with N markerlights, where N is the number of seeker missiles left in my army, I can just launch them all at that target without any issues.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
You know you don't have to use your own markerlight to shoot the seekers? You just need some markerlight counters on the target.

You do have to be able to shoot to use the markerlight but if my pathfinders lit up a target with N markerlights, where N is the number of seeker missiles left in my army, I can just launch them all at that target without any issues.

I figured that still had to be the case, otherwise what would the point of a markerlight be in a unit like Pathfinders. Likewise, the Skyray only has to to fire its markerlight at the same target as the rest of its weapons if it is firing the seeker missiles directly without the benefit of an offboard markerlight. And since the Skyray isn't the only vehicle with seeker missiles, misreading its markerlight rules, which aren't special rules just a reiteration of the basic shooting rules, as applicable and thus somehow restrictive of seeker missiles across the entire army, doesn't make sense.

I'm sure someone will inevitably say that you still can't wound anything out of LoS, only hit it.

Well they would be tools if they did.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Well they would be tools if they did.

And this wouldnt be warhammer if they didnt!

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Well they would be tools if they did.

They would also be correct.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Well they would be tools if they did.

And this wouldnt be warhammer if they didnt!

Can't really blame em for it. It's the 3rd 6th edition codex, you'd think they would mention being able to allocate wounds without los. I wouldn't force this on someone, but it is funny to bring up during a tournament.

Caboose

Well, technically since the seeker doesn't require Los, you could wound people as long as your Devilfish or whatever was a able to fire it.
It's just that you can't fire it.

 DakkaHammer wrote:
Well, technically since the seeker doesn't require Los, you could wound people as long as your Devilfish or whatever was a able to fire it.
It's just that you can't fire it.

For the other part of the argument, read Out of Sight on page 16.
No, I don't know anyone that would actually try and apply that.

rigeld2 wrote:
For the other part of the argument, read Out of Sight on page 16.
No, I don't know anyone that would actually try and apply that.

But the seeker would ignore that rule, because you don't need Los, and codex trumps rulebook in direct confrontation

 DakkaHammer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
For the other part of the argument, read Out of Sight on page 16.
No, I don't know anyone that would actually try and apply that.

But the seeker would ignore that rule, because you don't need Los, and codex trumps rulebook in direct confrontation

There isn't direct confrontation. Nothing in the seeker rule allows it to ignore Out of Sight - it just allows targeting a unit you can't see.
just like Impaler Cannons, etc.

rigeld2 wrote:
Nothing in the seeker rule allows it to ignore Out of Sight - it just allows targeting a unit you can't see.

Funny, my copy of the codex simply says it doesn't need LoS, not that it doesn't need LoS solely for the specific purpose of targeting.

Pyrian wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Nothing in the seeker rule allows it to ignore Out of Sight - it just allows targeting a unit you can't see.

Funny, my copy of the codex simply says it doesn't need LoS, not that it doesn't need LoS solely for the specific purpose of targeting.

No read the second sentence of the Out of Sight rule. I'll wait.

I'm ashamed to have made that prediction.

What circumstance would arise that would NOT require line of sight for shooting at or wounding models? I can't come to think of any, so why would it be specified that LOS would not be required if not to ignore that fact completely?

Barrage.

Caboose

DarknessEternal wrote:I'm ashamed to have made that prediction.

I only bothered posting because someone made an absolute statement that is factually incorrect.
Self fulfilling prophesies are.

Cmdr Hindsight wrote:What circumstance would arise that would NOT require line of sight for shooting at or wounding models? I can't come to think of any, so why would it be specified that LOS would not be required if not to ignore that fact completely?

Yes, I agree that's the intent. If you'll notice, I actually said that I don't think anyone plays this way.
That doesn't change the fact that the actual rules require you to empty the wound pool if you do not have line of sight.

Hmm there ya go, but again barrage much like the seeker missile says it does not require line of sight. So does that mean barrage also falls under the same problem the seeker missile is having?