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.

Morning all, am after some advice, when you fire the deathray from the doomscythe does the first maker you put down need line of sight from the doomscythe and after you roll 3d6 does the final position of the marker which you draw the line to also need line of sight from the doomscythe?many thanks in advance

No, but you still can only allocate wounds to models within LoS (so you still can only hurt models in the 45* arc)

Depends on what RAI you are going by. The RAI of the weapon appears to be that it can hit and damage all around it, as a weapon that would be being fired while the aircraft makes a pass. The RAI from the brb is that they need to see what they are targeting in order for the weapon to do effective damage. Most people I play with do not mind using the weapon as it is put forth in the codex.

This is RAW, as I understand it:
To Fire? No.
To Wound? Yes.

Every shooting weapon without explicit permission/rules otherwise requires LOS in order to wound in 6th edition. Sadly, despite it's unique firing rules and the obvious intent of it's writeup: the Death Ray does not have this permission.

(For an example of how they'd write up this permission, see the Blast USR + FAQ) "Remember to keep the wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit”

Last I checked the FAQ said the Death Ray was treated as a turret weapon, so it has 360 LOS anyway, no?

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Last I checked the FAQ said the Death Ray was treated as a turret weapon, so it has 360 LOS anyway, no?

There's no such FAQ.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Last I checked the FAQ said the Death Ray was treated as a turret weapon, so it has 360 LOS anyway, no?

Citation needed, as so far as I am aware no such FAQ entry exists.

 Neorealist wrote:
This is RAW, as I understand it:
To Fire? No.
To Wound? Yes.

Every shooting weapon without explicit permission/rules otherwise requires LOS in order to wound in 6th edition. Sadly, despite it's unique firing rules and the obvious intent of it's writeup: the Death Ray does not have this permission.

(For an example of how they'd write up this permission, see the Blast USR + FAQ) "Remember to keep the wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit”

This.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Last I checked the FAQ said the Death Ray was treated as a turret weapon, so it has 360 LOS anyway, no?

No such FAQ exists.

You don't need LoS to place markers. The problem is RAW you can't allocate wounds out of LoS, although you can hit vehicles without a problem.

My advise would be to talk it out with your opponent before the game, or the tournament organizers if you are playing in such a tournament. Not just for the DeathRay either but all weapons that might have ignore line of sight wording. There is a small number of weapons out there which have the ability to ignore line of sight when firing but these weapons all lack any rule granting them permission to ignore line of sight requirements when it comes to wounding. It isn't just old codex syndrome either, some of these weapons where designed for in sixth edition, so the editors dropped the ball there.

Most players will not mind ignoring line of sight requirements for all purposes with these weapons but it will at least warn you if someone is going to create a problem before you end up dedicated to a tactic they want to fight over.

JinxDragon wrote:
Not just for the DeathRay either but all weapons that might have ignore line of sight wording.

Keep in mind that the Death Ray doesn't have any such wording. There's no reason to think this was implied or intended to be a weapon which ignores LoS.

Even if it doesn't use the term 'ignore line of sight' it clearly has an attack method which allows you to ignore the line of sight, giving you permission to inflict hits via a different method then the standard attack. This is not unusual, many of the weapons I was indicating are also designed to give you a method of attack that can ignore line of sight without out right stating it. Some do use a clear cut 'these ignore line of sight' but they only ever seem to address the initial requirement on targeting, not on wounding. Intent is clear, but the rules as written are lacking.

In any case, always talk to your opponent if you think it will be a problem.

Failing to address line of sight does not constitute permission to ignore it, nor does it constitute evidence of RaI that you should ignore it.

Tau SMS, Tyrant Hive Guard, and anything with Astral Aim all have explicit permission to target, fire, and wound models outside of LOS. What they do not have is explicit permission to apply wounds to those models. RAW, the only thing you can apply a wound to that is outside of LOS is Blast weapons and then only because they just FAQ'd that a couple of months ago.

Aycee

The way the deathray is worded, it appears to me to just be a sloppy way of saying that you don't have to target a specific unit or model. There certainly isn't anything giving you permission to allocate wounds out of sight.

Pyrian,

From a rule as written perspective I agree with you, failing on the editors and writers to address specific situation does not grant blanket permission to ignore rules. I do have to disagree on the idea that failing to address the situation meant the writers intended for the rules to work as written. Rules as intended arguments exist because the writers and editors where not clear enough or have written rules that simply do not work when both are applied to a single scenario. There are plenty of examples of this and one of the biggest being weapons that have means to ignore line of sight.

As Aycee pointed out, there are specific weapons with the words 'ignore line of sight when firing.' You can not honestly tell me they intended for these weapon's special rules to have no purpose in the game what-so-ever. I would argue that permission to generate a wound pool is clearly an indicator that they wanted you to spend that wound pool, they clearly intended for it to do something, but it simply is poor rule writing that leads to the argument that the wounds can not be allocated.

My belief is that after they wrote the rule that you can only apply wounds to models in LOS, they then promptly forgot that they added it to the wound allocation. In 5th edition it wasn't a factor. It's like they are stuck somewhere in between 5th and 6th edition. Gotta love GW.

Aycee

Agreed Aycee,

At this point in time I am not honestly very surprised of this fact, I have been on this site long enough to read many broken things these rules can do. The lack of ability to allocate wounds to weapons that do not use line of sight is just one of a long list of things that should of been caught by an editor. I do not so much blame the writers as they have penned thousands of words and could easily over-look something which doesn't match up well. After all those sort of situations are things editors should be on the look out for, editors are not just for spelling and grammar mistakes but are hired to ensure consistency in the writing. However, on that note we find many spelling mistakes too....

We simply have taken to joking about Game Workshop demanding back all the banana's they paid these editors, as they clearly hire monkeys.