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.

Just the other day I ran into a couple strange cases at a local event. My opponent tried to do things that I didn't think reflected the rules but after thinking about it, I'd like to get Dakka's opinion as well. It is a two-parter, but the first seems pretty obvious.

1) I deployed a unit behind a solid wall completely out of LOS in a piece of terrain (ruins with a base). My opponent claimed that despite being completely out of LOS, the unit was still targetable due to being in area terrain (the bottom floor of area terrain). This seemed counterintuitive to how the LOS targeting restrictions are, but he claimed it was a feature of area terrain in general.

2) While firing with a unit embarked in a transport vehicle, my opponent measured and drew LOS from the front hatches of his vehicles. I claimed that the Fire Points where the double-door hatches in the rear with the transport section. My opponent strongly disagreed, citing that, 'a hatch is a hatch.' In this case I worry that my traditional interpretation of the rules conflicted with his RAW interpretation, because after the tournament I re-read the Fire Points sections and it is thoroughly inconclusive.

Was I incorrect in contesting either of these points? What do you find to be the common interpretation in your region? Here are (poorly done) images of these examples:

1) You can not shoot something you can not see without specific exception like the Hive Guard have.

2) It is inconclusive in the rulebook. The rules are probably talking about the large rear hatch, but just do not make that clear. Therefore the Top Hatch is what you draw Line of Sight from. Which one the Top Hatch actually is is debatable within the rules.

In the Rhino Pic, those both can be considered the "Top Hatch", In the Bottom Pic that thing on the front is most likely not a "Top Hatch", but the other two can be considered "Top Hatch" for the vehicle.

 Smashotron wrote:
1) I deployed a unit behind a solid wall completely out of LOS in a piece of terrain (ruins with a base). My opponent claimed that despite being completely out of LOS, the unit was still targetable due to being in area terrain (the bottom floor of area terrain). This seemed counterintuitive to how the LOS targeting restrictions are, but he claimed it was a feature of area terrain in general.

Blatantly false. If you don't have LOS, you can't shoot.

2) While firing with a unit embarked in a transport vehicle, my opponent measured and drew LOS from the front hatches of his vehicles. I claimed that the Fire Points where the double-door hatches in the rear with the transport section. My opponent strongly disagreed, citing that, 'a hatch is a hatch.' In this case I worry that my traditional interpretation of the rules conflicted with his RAW interpretation, because after the tournament I re-read the Fire Points sections and it is thoroughly inconclusive.

It's a not too uncommon interpretation, based on the codex not clarifying what they mean by 'top hatch'... Most players assume that the passengers fire out of the big hatch over the passenger compartment, rather than the driver's cupola, and this was clearly defined in some previous editions, but apparently GW couldn't be bothered this time around.

I forgotten the word for the driver or commander's hatch when we discussed it. I had tried to explain it was a cupola, not a hatch per se, and that since his models (should have) had the storm bolter there, and (if purchased) the secondary storm bolter, it would make little sense. I was certain it was defined but as you point out it now, it must have been something I was just used to from the old rulebooks. I feel like I've been shorting myself then, tactically, but it still seems like the incorrect place to measure and draw LOS from. I'd hate to adapt my opponent's way of thinking only to cause a problem for someone else later down the line. Thanks for the input!

The way I remember it for the Rhino is being the back hatch. When it becomes a Razorback, your firepoint becomes a gun. So it is safe to say that the back hatches are where you fire out of. And also because the crew occupy the two hatches up front.

I tried to apply a similar point-of-view to my opponent, but I was certain that once I said 'but the drivers are there,' I knew I had only made the debate worse by applying real-world logic to a rules-based board game.

 Smashotron wrote:
I tried to apply a similar point-of-view to my opponent, but I was certain that once I said 'but the drivers are there,' I knew I had only made the debate worse by applying real-world logic to a rules-based board game.

Ask him how many Fire points the razorback has, then ask him which hatch is not there on the razorback.

 Smashotron wrote:
I forgotten the word for the driver or commander's hatch when we discussed it. I had tried to explain it was a cupola, not a hatch per se,...

It's still a hatch. It's just not the hatch they're talking about. GW fails to make that clear in the rules though... they just assume that people will figure it out for themselves.

Particularly for the Chimera, the idea that 4 guys are all going to cram themselves up into the cupola to fire their lascannons should be ludicrous enough to put paid to that, though.

The Chimera suffers from an old model problem. Previously the firing point was that the guardsmen inside could fire those little lasguns. While it became a regular fire point, the model is still rather silly with the lasguns pointing out.

 insaniak wrote:
Particularly for the Chimera, the idea that 4 guys are all going to cram themselves up into the cupola to fire their lascannons should be ludicrous enough to put paid to that, though.

I routinely "cram" all ten Dark Eldar on a raider to fire from the tip of the front armor. I think "sense" was left out of this topic before it even started.

Pyrian wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Particularly for the Chimera, the idea that 4 guys are all going to cram themselves up into the cupola to fire their lascannons should be ludicrous enough to put paid to that, though.

I routinely "cram" all ten Dark Eldar on a raider to fire from the tip of the front armor. I think "sense" was left out of this topic before it even started.

Considering the rules are not based on real world Physics, "Sense" has little to do with the 40k Rules.

maceria wrote:
The Chimera suffers from an old model problem. Previously the firing point was that the guardsmen inside could fire those little lasguns. While it became a regular fire point, the model is still rather silly with the lasguns pointing out.

Right out.

The top hatch has always(until 5th) been the fire point. The 6 lasguns were fire-able, individually, by the unit inside(Meaning 1 model[2 in 4th] could fire its own weapon and the 6 other models could fire the lasguns)

Pyrian wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Particularly for the Chimera, the idea that 4 guys are all going to cram themselves up into the cupola to fire their lascannons should be ludicrous enough to put paid to that, though.

I routinely "cram" all ten Dark Eldar on a raider to fire from the tip of the front armor. I think "sense" was left out of this topic before it even started.

I'm glad you mentioned this. I've seen several discussions about this and the "You model 5 guys in THAT hatch and I'll let you use it for LoS!" argument has always been extremely annoying. In 5th, 15 Orks shooting template weapons from the exact same point on a Battlewagon at the exact same time seemed pretty far-fetched as well but there were no (or at least rarely any) complaints about that "physical impossibility."

RAW, as previously mentioned, the rules are vague and the cupola 'hatch' is a perfectly legal point from which to draw LoS.

This being said, as much as I would love to measure from the front cupola, I can't bring myself to do it. HIWPI - The large, rectangular hatch at the back is the location for the "5 fire points" on a Chimera.

I'll note that I usually balance this 'shortcoming' with the ability to shoot over both the cupola and the turret (i.e. no LoS issues from shooting from the back hatch). I definitely discuss it with my opponent before each match, but since it's RAW reasonable to shoot from the front cupola anyway, I think it strikes a fair balance. YMMV.

DoW

 DogOfWar wrote:
In 5th, 15 Orks shooting template weapons from the exact same point on a Battlewagon at the exact same time seemed pretty far-fetched as well but there were no (or at least rarely any) complaints about that "physical impossibility."

Really? I seem to recall quite a lot of complaints about multiple templates firing from the same spot on open-topped vehicles.


And personally, I'm not a fan of the rules for passengers firing from open topped vehicles either. Make of that what you will.

 insaniak wrote:

 DogOfWar wrote:
In 5th, 15 Orks shooting template weapons from the exact same point on a Battlewagon at the exact same time seemed pretty far-fetched as well but there were no (or at least rarely any) complaints about that "physical impossibility."

Really? I seem to recall quite a lot of complaints about multiple templates firing from the same spot on open-topped vehicles.


And personally, I'm not a fan of the rules for passengers firing from open topped vehicles either. Make of that what you will.

It's still done now.
Love me some Burna Wagon

 DogOfWar wrote:
In 5th, 15 Orks shooting template weapons from the exact same point on a Battlewagon at the exact same time seemed pretty far-fetched as well but there were no (or at least rarely any) complaints about that "physical impossibility."

15? Pft, rookie mistake. Big Mech with the KFF should be inside with a burna too!

 streamdragon wrote:

 DogOfWar wrote:
In 5th, 15 Orks shooting template weapons from the exact same point on a Battlewagon at the exact same time seemed pretty far-fetched as well but there were no (or at least rarely any) complaints about that "physical impossibility."

15? Pft, rookie mistake. Big Mech with the KFF should be inside with a burna too!

Another Rookie mistake! You need a non-Burna weapon in the unit to extend the range to which wounds can be allocated.
Mek with a big shoota gives the best range.

 grendel083 wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 DogOfWar wrote:
In 5th, 15 Orks shooting template weapons from the exact same point on a Battlewagon at the exact same time seemed pretty far-fetched as well but there were no (or at least rarely any) complaints about that "physical impossibility."

15? Pft, rookie mistake. Big Mech with the KFF should be inside with a burna too!

Another Rookie mistake! You need a non-Burna weapon in the unit to extend the range to which wounds can be allocated.
Mek with a big shoota gives the best range.

Gah! I have been out rookie-mistaked. I tip my hat to you sir.

Just glad that burna-wagons tend to explode when Longstriker looks their way... I might be a little bias against flame throwers because of the range, I prefer to shoot at people from afar, but the burna-wagon is one thing that made me really regret having a bias against them.