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.

If I tell you I'm being attacked by a large orange and black striped mammal with sharp claws and teeth does it take a genius to figure it's a tiger?
Similarly I can see a restriction within the rules without the words restriction. Deepstrike assaults being a common example of a restricted action.

Except it is NOT a restriction. It is a game modification.
Night Fight gives you the 3 modifications.
Searchlights remove the benefit of the rule to that one unit being lit.

The 3 modifications are not restrictions OR benefits. They are conditions. If this (range): then this (effect).

dkellyj wrote:
Except it is NOT a restriction. It is a game modification.
Night Fight gives you the 3 modifications.
Searchlights remove the benefit of the rule to that one unit being lit.

The 3 modifications are not restrictions OR benefits. They are conditions. If this (range): then this (effect).

So there are no benefits, but the searchlight removes them...?

Not true. The shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away.
Units between X and Y gain Stealth/Shrouded. Note how the former refers to the shooting unit and the latter refers to the unit being shot.
Which one does a searchlight light up?

I can target any unit in sight and in range in the norm. Under this rule you cannot target units beyond x range.

How is that not a restriction on the normal permissions? Maybe I'm using a different dictionary but I'm almost sure Webster's would call it a restriction too.

You guys are adding words to the rules that do not exist to try a bolster you position.
"Restriction" and "Benefit" are not in the Night Fighting Rule.
Only a set of Conditions that are in force during the period of play that the Night Fighting rule is in effect.
If someone then uses a searchlight, the effect of the searchlight rule is to remove the Night Fighting rule from that 1 specific unit.

Exactly.
And the Night Fighting rules apply the 36" range to the shooting unit, not the unit that is lit up.

Restriction and benefit aren't in almost every rule. That doesn't mean that there isn't restrictions and benefits in the rules.

Sorry, we will have to disagree on this point.
Such is 40k.

dkellyj wrote:
Sorry, we will have to disagree on this point.
Such is 40k.

So no actual rules to support your position?
That's cool. I think it's intended to lift the 36" restriction.

dkellyj wrote:
Sorry, we will have to disagree on this point.
Such is 40k.

Such is 40k, basic laws, etiquette etc etc. All those places where they list restrictions without using the word restriction.

rigeld2 wrote:

dkellyj wrote:
Sorry, we will have to disagree on this point.
Such is 40k.

So no actual rules to support your position?
That's cool. I think it's intended to lift the 36" restriction.

Not at all. I pointed out the rules word for word.
I just don't see the point in getting into a p1ssing contest with someone who wants to add words to change the meaning of the way the rule works.
Its a game and just not that important enough to get worked up about.

No pissing contest, I am just trying to explain to you how rules work. It doesn't have to say restriction or benefit for it to be one.

Nobody is getting worked up bar yourself.

Just to be silly and throw something out that doesn't make a lot of sense. The manticore can fire barrages where it does not have to actually see the target. Because of nightfight, they cant see the target. You would think .....

dkellyj wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is a restriction on the shooting unit. Notice how it restricts the shooting unit?

It's like words matter

Yes, words matter. And no place in the "Night Fight" rule is the word "restrict" or "restriction" used.
Nor is the word "benefit" used.
The paragraph in question lists 3 game modifications that the Night fight rule causes:
1. Units beyond 36" may not be targeted.
2. Units between 24" and 36" are treated as having the Shrouded USR.
3. Units between 12" and 24" are treated as having the Stealth USR.

The exact wording under Searchlights is:
Illuminated units gain no benefit from the Night Fighting Special Rule.

RAW and RAI: A unit hit by a searchlight loses the Night Fighter Special Rule immediately.
You lose the 3 game modifications.
The downside for the shooting player: the unit that uses a search light also counts as being illuminated and loses the Night Fighter Special Rule.

What he said ^^

 nutty_nutter wrote:
ok, BRB p87 for search lights, refers to nightfighting on p124.

issue: there are no set 'benefits' that nightfighting gives and there is no real definition of what illuminating does other than remove the non listed benefits.

this means that we need to work out what they mean by a benefit.

gaining stealth and shrouded are obvious ones, not being able to be shot I would personally consider to be a benefit of being in the dark, and would list it among them, least of all because the description of nightfighting and thus the limiting factor of range would be removed by being 'illuminated'.

that being said, that could be considered a RAI as RAW there actually isn't a listed benefit to nightfighting as a rule.

quoting myself for justice.

I have to ask you guys what you consider beneficial to the unit that is being targeted to begin with out of the 3 modifications that the nightfighting rule perpetuates.

as shown and stated by all of you, stealth and shrouded are obvious benefits.

now while the range 36" IS as restriction to the shooter, do you not consider it also a benefit to the target unit? I do personally.

I also feel that we should not overlook the definition of 'illuminated' and the intent of range restriction being based on being in darkness.

my point being, that if a unit is illuminated, it is no longer shrouded in darkness to receive the range restriction. while not a clear case of RAW (due to the lack of words to make both arguments iron clad) I do feel there is definite intent.

This really isn't very complicated. Night fighting applies two separate effects:

1) A rule on the firing unit that says "can't pick a target that is more than 36" away".

and

2) A rule on the target unit that says "get a cover bonus depending on how far away you are".

A searchlight removes all benefits from the target of the searchlighting unit's attack, which means effect #2. It does absolutely nothing to any rule that is not applied to that target unit, which means effect #1 still applies to every unit on the table. Note that this is completely different from things like the night vision USR, which removes the effects of night fighting entirely instead of just removing the benefit applied to one unit. If GW had intended searchlights to remove both #1 and #2 they would have used a similar rule, like "ignore the night fighting rule for everything involving the illuminated unit".

 Peregrine wrote:
This really isn't very complicated. Night fighting applies two separate effects:

1) A rule on the firing unit that says "can't pick a target that is more than 36" away".

and

2) A rule on the target unit that says "get a cover bonus depending on how far away you are".

A searchlight removes all benefits from the target of the searchlighting unit's attack, which means effect #2. It does absolutely nothing to any rule that is not applied to that target unit, which means effect #1 still applies to every unit on the table. Note that this is completely different from things like the night vision USR, which removes the effects of night fighting entirely instead of just removing the benefit applied to one unit. If GW had intended searchlights to remove both #1 and #2 they would have used a similar rule, like "ignore the night fighting rule for everything involving the illuminated unit".

but your insinuating that they are all separate and listed as such, which they are not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
your also ignoring the intent of the range restriction, the sentence referring to darkness, and your ignoring what the searchlight actually does, in that it illuminates.

the simple facts are:

night fighting: provides stealth or shrouded dependant on distance and elects that a unit cannot be targeted more than 36" due to being wrapped in darkness.

Searchlights: illuminate the target unit, removing all the benefits that night fighting provides.

that's it. that's all the facts that we know.

there are no actual listed benefits and searchlights only claim to remove them, this is the supposition that benefits exist within the context of the rule.

however, something that appears to be very much overlooked by those on the 'range still applies' camp is that the 'darkness' part of the rule is as much a part of the rule as the range restriction.

quote from the BRB 'The shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away - such units are completely hidden in the darkness.


if a unit is illuminated, as the only definition of illuminated is to be light up, they are no longer in the darkness, in this instance, does this not logically remove the range restriction on the basis that the unit is no longer in darkness?

dkellyj wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

dkellyj wrote:
Sorry, we will have to disagree on this point.
Such is 40k.

So no actual rules to support your position?
That's cool. I think it's intended to lift the 36" restriction.

Not at all. I pointed out the rules word for word.
I just don't see the point in getting into a p1ssing contest with someone who wants to add words to change the meaning of the way the rule works.
Its a game and just not that important enough to get worked up about.

Well, you see, the actual rules disagree with your position. The searchlight only effects the targeted unit. The range restriction is explicitly on the shooting unit. See the difference? Do you understand the difference between RAW and RAI?

rigeld2, just to ask, is the range restriction not in place because of the rule referring to darkness?

The Search-Lights are very much a broken piece of hardware thanks to the way the rules are written. Given that they are the only way for a good chunk of the armies out there to remove Night Fighting effects, it is a wonder why they have ensured they are always using sub-par rules. Their adaption to 6th edition rules did not clear the issues created by the less then originally wording chosen within the 5th edition entries, the same issues clearly exist with the new rules in place. Sadly, as I do not agree with the Rule as it is Written, it is very much obvious that restrictions exist on both parties and the poorly written rules only address one party's restrictions. In order to even target the illuminated unit the firing party would need to meet the maximum range requirements that are placed on all firing units.

They likely intended for it to be on par with other Night Vision based rules, which do remove the requirement from both parties, but they worded it very poorly....

the supposition is they did remove that restriction.

if the restriction is taken in it's entirety, the restriction on the shooter is based on the target being in darkness.

as the search light eliminates said darkness, the range restriction is also removed for that particular target, this works both ways for both the target of the searchlight and for the source of the searchlight.

The problem we keep encountering is the wording of the 'illuminated rule' itself: It simply fails to grant the permissions required to target the illuminated unit. I would agree that the inability to target the enemy would be a huge bonus and is likely meant to be removed by the illuminated results, but the wording does not back this interpenetration. Rules as Written still requires subsequent units to target the illuminated enemy which is when the range limitations are triggered. Because they are unable to target the illuminated unit, they are left just as unable to fire as if it had not been illuminated.

Probably not intended, at least I hope not, but they have not corrected this issue over multiple issues even when they re-wrote the rule in question.....

well...by definition an illuminated target is not in the dark, the range restriction is imposed because of the dark....

Which is a fluffy explanation and, sadly, pointless to a rule debate. Don't get me wrong, I am in agreement with you that an ability that illuminates a target should be pretty self explanatory. It is ridiculous to try and still state a target can not be chosen because it is still 'hidden by the darkness' when it is suffering from something called illumination. Sadly, logic and Rules as Written are not on speaking terms when it comes to this particular topic....

but the illumination is part of the rules for search lights, its not in italics and thus is a part of the rule as much as any other.

without any other definition of illumination we use the English translation, which would cover the issue as a whole....

I guess I'm having issues seeing how it 'doesn't work' as it seems straightforward to me....

 nutty_nutter wrote:
but the illumination is part of the rules for search lights, its not in italics and thus is a part of the rule as much as any other.

without any other definition of illumination we use the English translation, which would cover the issue as a whole....

I guess I'm having issues seeing how it 'doesn't work' as it seems straightforward to me....

I think you are right, the others are looking for incredibly minor flaws in a very simple rule. Everyone i know would read the searchlights rule and know what it means with out all the mumbo jumbo that these guys are trying to say. Its very straight forward and im very shocked there is even an argument about how the rule works.

It doesn't work because the targeting restriction creates an issue with the timing, a good old catch 22 issue to be precise:
In order to evoke illumination, we must target the unit.
In order to target the unit, we must evoke illumination.

Before we can even evoke illuminations ability to take away any 'benefits' from Night Fighting the unit must first be targeted by a subsequent attack. This attack requires the nomination of a target but it is at this point we encounter the issue. Night fighting rules create an additional limitation that no unit can be nominated as a target if they are outside of X inches. This creates the unique situation we are now in, a catch 22 where we need to evoke a rule in order to get permission to evoke the rule.

If you cannot target the unit in the first place with the searchlight equipped vehicle then you would never have been able to illuminate it for other units to shoot.

The point of the searchlight is to give the rest of your army the benefit of it.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
If you cannot target the unit in the first place with the searchlight equipped vehicle then you would never have been able to illuminate it for other units to shoot.

The point of the searchlight is to give the rest of your army the benefit of it.

I don't understand your point - the target was illuminated. That doesn't change that the rules attach the targeting distance to the shooting unit, not the illuminated one.

I'm sure I missed it - are you arguing intent or RAW?