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.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
your al still ignoring the fact the range restriction is put in place by the unit being in darkness,

Did someone turn out the lights?

The unit being in darkness is a fluffy way of describing an in game effect.
The unit being illuminated is a fluffy way of describing that you apply another specific in game effect.

Those effects are applied not as per real world physics, but as described in the rules entries for those effects. And in this case, the effect of being illuminated is that the illuminated unit no longer gets the benefit applied by the Night Fight rule.

But there is only one benefit applied by the Night Fight rule to the illuminated unit. That's the cover bonus. The other part of the Night Fight rule, that part that imposes the range limitation, does not apply to the targeted unit. It is a restriction placed on units wishing to shoot.


Whether or not the illuminated unit is supposed to be able to be shot at from further than 36" away is debatable... and I suspect that if GW ever FAQ it, they will allow it. But I'm just not seeing that the rules as they currently stand go for that interpretation.

the darkness is very much a part of the rule, its not in ittalics, its plainly written that the range restriction is a part of the darkness' effect, illumination is the exact oposite of this.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
the darkness is very much a part of the rule, its not in ittalics, its plainly written that the range restriction is a part of the darkness' effect, illumination is the exact oposite of this.

And calling it "darkness" is pure fluff. You can't make an argument about how the "darkness" rules should work based on how real-world darkness works. On top of the general principle of "fluff is not rules" the searchlight rules very clearly do not follow realism/fluff, so arguing based on an assumption that they do is fundamentally wrong.

dkellyj wrote:
Your looking at it backwards.
Unit A illuminates unit X
Unit X loses the benefit of the NF rule (not the same as the benefits granted or in the rule...but the rule itself. Singular.
Unit B can now choose to either shoot at unit Y who still has the NF rule, or unit X who no longer has the rule (illuminated).

Yet unit B still HAS the NF rule; we know this, as the whole board army has it. And what does the NF rule, that unit B still HAS, say? That IT CANNOT TARGET a unit more than 36" away.

Again: the restriction is on the firing unit, not the unt being fired at. Removing the NF rule from the unit being fired at has no effect whatsoever on the unti firing at it, whch still has the NF rule in place. Reread the actual rule and note your error

dkellyj wrote:It is the semantic difference between losing the benefit of applying a rule in the first place, and losing the implied benefits contained within a small part of that rule.
Search Light says you lose the benefit OF the rule. Not the benefits IN the rule.

Again, you are failing to read what I wrote. I would avoid arguing semantic differences, when you are reading a restriction on the firing unit, and thinking that an effect on the fired at unit does one damn thing to the firing unit.

The restriction, that I may not target a unit over 36" away, is still on unit B. Removing the NF rule from unit X has no effect on this.


Read the actual rule, you are wrong. Plain and simple, you are wrong on this.

dkellyj wrote:Regardless, this topic has come up before. And your point of view is the minority:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/507914.page

Badly worded poll is badly worded.

Bit of a strange one. Depends if you think Nightfighting exists as 3 separate rules, or 1 rule which is dependant on distance. The rule of Night fighting is between 2 units and the 36'' is written assuming both units are under the effects of nightfighting (And why not, that is the norm), its not written to support one unit under the rule, and another not under the rule. I can see both sides, but IMO RAI was to be able to shoot at the unit which is over 36.

 Peregrine wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
the darkness is very much a part of the rule, its not in ittalics, its plainly written that the range restriction is a part of the darkness' effect, illumination is the exact oposite of this.

And calling it "darkness" is pure fluff. You can't make an argument about how the "darkness" rules should work based on how real-world darkness works. On top of the general principle of "fluff is not rules" the searchlight rules very clearly do not follow realism/fluff, so arguing based on an assumption that they do is fundamentally wrong.

it is not a presumption, darkness, through lack of any other clarity within the rulebook defaults to the English meaning, we are to imagine that the unit is in darkness. illuminates also lacks a definitive definition which we revert to the English definition which we find is the opposite of darkness.

'fluff' is written in italics, the darkness aspect is not in italics and as such is part of the rule itself to grant context, a searchlight 'illuminates' thus nullifying the darkness and any effects associated within, therein is the range restriction on being targeted.

also how exactly would the searchlight rules not function in a real world comparison? if we were to take 4 people into a filed on a pitch black night with paintball guns, where visibility was <5ft, and one guy shines a spotlight (or search light if you will) onto one of the other people, the other remaining people would be able to clearly see where those two people are and be able to shoot them unhindered while still unable to see each other or be seen by the two both being shone and the one doing the shining.

also I'm not basing on assumption, I'm basing on the two rules, in the entirety, in context and how the two interact as a whole, not part and parcel which is how the two should be taken and not broken down.

there are no rules that would allow you to ignore half of the same rule, the searchlight refers to a singular where your stating that the night fighting is multi-tiered despite there being no rule or wording to give that validity.

while I agree that it could have easily been worded better, we must apply a little logic to a game that's supposed to simulate war in the far future.

dkellyj wrote:
Your looking at it backwards.
Unit A illuminates unit X
Unit X loses the benefit of the NF rule (not the same as the benefits granted or in the rule...but the rule itself. Singular.
Unit B can now choose to either shoot at unit Y who still has the NF rule, or unit X who no longer has the rule (illuminated).
It is the semantic difference between losing the benefit of applying a rule in the first place, and losing the implied benefits contained within a small part of that rule.
Search Light says you lose the benefit OF the rule. Not the benefits IN the rule.

Does unit B still have the Night Fight rule?
Is the Night Fight rule's target distance applied to the shooter or target?

Regardless, this topic has come up before. And your point of view is the minority:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/507914.page

You're going to attempt to use an admitted biased poll to support your argument? That's amusing.
Here's the thing - a lot of people play this game without understanding all the rules involved.
I'd bet we could put up a poll asking if Wraith units can draw LoS and it would be overwhelmingly in favor of "yes".
Even though that's demonstrably against the rules.

Here's hoping for an FAQ.
And for what its worth, the range argument is pretty irrelevant to me...my Army is designed inside of a 36" bubble. Rarely have I ever had to deal with NF range restrictions and have never held my opponent to them should he lite me up.

So now we get to the "I don't have any rules to support my argument so I'll pretend I have the moral high ground!"
I play Nids. There's what - 2 weapons in the codex with a range farther than 36"? And only one of them is used often. And I don't use it that often.

 Nem wrote:
Bit of a strange one. Depends if you think Nightfighting exists as 3 separate rules, or 1 rule which is dependant on distance. The rule of Night fighting is between 2 units and the 36'' is written assuming both units are under the effects of nightfighting (And why not, that is the norm), its not written to support one unit under the rule, and another not under the rule. I can see both sides, but IMO RAI was to be able to shoot at the unit which is over 36.

Nem - it isnt a strange one, and doesnt require you to separate out NF at all.

As I pointed out, even if you negate the NF entirely from the lit-up unit, another unit firing at them, that HAS the NF rule, still is not allowed to target ANY unit on the board more than 36" away. There is no requirement in that restriction that the unit being targeted is still under the effects of the NF rule itself; jus tthat the firing unit has NF.

The firing unit has NF. Unless you negate the NF rule ON THE FIRING UNIT the firing unit may not target ANY unit more than 36" away.

Now - I'd like to clarify that I believe the intent is that the restriction is lifted, but I don't play that way because I prefer playing by the rules if possible.

Imperial guard codex, page 71:

"Searchlights /.../ For the rest of the shooting phase, any other unit that fires at the illuminated unit does not use the night fighting rule. ..."

IG Codex searchlights are better than BRB stock searchlights. A good day (night) to be guardsmen

Force majeure - please do others the courtesy, before replying, of reading and understanding the thread.

The IG codex has been FAQd to use the BRB. This was raised a number a posts ago.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Force majeure - please do others the courtesy, before replying, of reading and understanding the thread.

The IG codex has been FAQd to use the BRB. This was raised a number a posts ago.

Sorry, it seems like I missed that page when I went through the tread. No harm intended.

Then by all means, all NF targeting beyond 36" is by RAW impossible, lights or not.

 insaniak wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
your al still ignoring the fact the range restriction is put in place by the unit being in darkness,

Did someone turn out the lights?

The unit being in darkness is a fluffy way of describing an in game effect.
The unit being illuminated is a fluffy way of describing that you apply another specific in game effect.

Those effects are applied not as per real world physics, but as described in the rules entries for those effects. And in this case, the effect of being illuminated is that the illuminated unit no longer gets the benefit applied by the Night Fight rule.

But there is only one benefit applied by the Night Fight rule to the illuminated unit. That's the cover bonus. The other part of the Night Fight rule, that part that imposes the range limitation, does not apply to the targeted unit. It is a restriction placed on units wishing to shoot.


Whether or not the illuminated unit is supposed to be able to be shot at from further than 36" away is debatable... and I suspect that if GW ever FAQ it, they will allow it. But I'm just not seeing that the rules as they currently stand go for that interpretation.

It is still a benefit that the unit could not be targeted. A restriction for the firing unit, a benefit for the target unit. It gives the targeted unit an advantage, which is by definition a benefit. Therefore they do not gain that benefit.

Christopher300 wrote:
It is still a benefit that the unit could not be targeted. A restriction for the firing unit, a benefit for the target unit. It gives the targeted unit an advantage, which is by definition a benefit. Therefore they do not gain that benefit.

Please, cite the permission to remove the Night Fighting rule from the shooting unit. Maybe you can where dkellyj could not.

I can not at this present moment. I am going from what you and others have been saying, and you talk about benefit, well its a benefit for the targetted unit.

Christopher300 wrote:
I can not at this present moment. I am going from what you and others have been saying, and you talk about benefit, well its a benefit for the targetted unit.

I haven't been saying that actually - keep up.
There are no rules that back up your assertion.
Since we know that the range limitation is tied to the shooting unit and not the "lit up" unit, you need permission to ignore the limitation on a unit other than the one effected by the searchlight.
Until you can cite rules allowing that you have no valid argument.

thats a shame

rigeld2 wrote:

Christopher300 wrote:
It is still a benefit that the unit could not be targeted. A restriction for the firing unit, a benefit for the target unit. It gives the targeted unit an advantage, which is by definition a benefit. Therefore they do not gain that benefit.

Please, cite the permission to remove the Night Fighting rule from the shooting unit. Maybe you can where dkellyj could not.

Actually I have cited it several times, you are just refusing to accept it.
The rule is based on the language used in the Search Light Rule. It clearly states an illuminated unit "loses the benefit of the Night Fight Rule."
Not the benefits in the rule, or a specifc part of the rule, but of the rule itself. The entire rule. That would include an enforced limitation on range.

I've punted this to the GWFAQ box (got a reciept email this morning).
A simple non-confrontational question that hopefully will make the next FAQ:
Q. During Night Fighting, if a unit is illuminated by a search light or other means, can units beyond 36" then target that unit?
A. Y/N.

Until then, you apparently will maintain that the Night Fight Rule is divided into specific Benefits and Penalties/Restrictions.
I will maintain that the 3 conditions are effects to simulate darkness and losing the benfit of the rule means you lose all of the effects the rule imposes.
We will not agree on this issue so it's best to let the individual house rules and TO rulings go where they may until GW decides to clarify.

dkellyj wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Christopher300 wrote:
It is still a benefit that the unit could not be targeted. A restriction for the firing unit, a benefit for the target unit. It gives the targeted unit an advantage, which is by definition a benefit. Therefore they do not gain that benefit.

Please, cite the permission to remove the Night Fighting rule from the shooting unit. Maybe you can where dkellyj could not.

Actually I have cited it several times, you are just refusing to accept it.
The rule is based on the language used in the Search Light Rule. It clearly states an illuminated unit "loses the benefit of the Night Fight Rule."
Not the benefits in the rule, or a specifc part of the rule, but of the rule itself. The entire rule. That would include an enforced limitation on range.

Answer one question:
Do the rules attach the range limitation to the shooting unit or the lit up unit?
The actual rules attached the limitation to the shooting unit. You are attaching it to the lit up unit. Since I prefer playing by the actual rules, and this forum is for discussing actual rules, you're incorrect.
You have never - not once - cited permission to remove Night Fighting from the shooting unit. You've cited permission to remove it from the lit up unit.

Until then, you apparently will maintain that the Night Fight Rule is divided into specific Benefits and Penalties/Restrictions.

That's a lie.

I will maintain that the 3 conditions are effects to simulate darkness and losing the benfit of the rule means you lose all of the effects the rule imposes.
We will not agree on this issue so it's best to let the individual house rules and TO rulings go where they may until GW decides to clarify.

Yes, the lit up unit loses the entirety of the Night Fighting rule. Absolutely. No doubt in my mind whatsoever.
It's a shame, then, that the range limitation is not applied to the lit up unit whatsoever.

***That's a lie.***
No, you just did it again. You are applying 1 part of the rule to 1 unit, and the other part of the rule to a second unit. Yet the rule is not broken intro parts. You have a single paragraph used to define what the effects of the NF rule is.

***Yes, the lit up unit loses the entirety of the Night Fighting rule. Absolutely. No doubt in my mind whatsoever.***
So your position on this is once a unit has been iluminated it loses the entirty of the NF rule. This includes the range restriction that another unit may no longer pick it as a target if beyond 36".
Thats is what I have been saying.
The range restriction is based on the condition of BOTH units having the NF conditions applied to them. If 1 of those units has lost the rule (the illuminated unit) then that restriction is lifted from all units on the board who has LoS to the illuminated unit. He is iluminated. Everyone can now see him regardless of range and he gets no cover benefits.
He has lost the benefit of the NF rule.

dkellyj wrote:
***That's a lie.***
No, you just did it again. You are applying 1 part of the rule to 1 unit, and the other part of the rule to a second unit. Yet the rule is not broken intro parts. You have a single paragraph used to define what the effects of the NF rule is.

The rule isn't broken into parts? It doesn't apply to two completely different units in completely different ways? Are you really sure?

***Yes, the lit up unit loses the entirety of the Night Fighting rule. Absolutely. No doubt in my mind whatsoever.***
So your position on this is once a unit has been iluminated it loses the entirty of the NF rule. This includes the range restriction that another unit may no longer pick it as a target if beyond 36".

No, that's not my position. The lit unit loses the entirety of the NF rule.
The shooting unit does not. And it is the shooting unit that has the range limitation, not the lit unit - despite your assertions otherwise.

The range restriction is based on the condition of BOTH units having the NF conditions applied to them.

Really? That's not what the rules say - unless you have a quote?

Also, it helps make your posts significantly more readable if you use quote tags.

dkellyj 566792 6337205 null. wrote:You are applying 1 part of the rule to 1 unit, and the other part of the rule to a second unit.

Because that's how the rule is written. It has one part that confers a cover save bonus to a unit being shot at, and another part that imposes a range restriction on a unit that wants to shoot.

Yet the rule is not broken intro parts. You have a single paragraph used to define what the effects of the NF rule is.

Being in a single paragraph doesn't mean that the rule doesn't have multiple parts. It just means that those multiple parts are listed in a single paragraph.

So your position on this is once a unit has been iluminated it loses the entirty of the NF rule. This includes the range restriction that another unit may no longer pick it as a target if beyond 36".

Please post the part of the Night Fight rule that says that a unit may not be picked as a target if it is beyond 36".

Hey quick question so i can understand the sidesaying nf is a multipart rule with the range restriction. lets say a unit is illuminated during the first player turn and then shot at, then on its turn you are all saying it can fire at anything wirh no range restriction? By your stance that is what it sounds like you are submitting.

Yes, that's what the rules say.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
Hey quick question so i can understand the sidesaying nf is a multipart rule with the range restriction. lets say a unit is illuminated during the first player turn and then shot at, then on its turn you are all saying it can fire at anything wirh no range restriction? By your stance that is what it sounds like you are submitting.

That's where you wind up if you go the 'being illuminated removes the whole NF rule, rather than just the part of it that is directly beneficial to the target unit' interpretation. That unit is now free to target anything on the board, but other units firing at that unit would still be bound by the range restriction.

Which is clearly not how the rule is supposed to work.


The other interpretation (that the searchlight removes the benefit, but has no effect on the range limitation as that is something imposed on other units, not the illuminated unit) results in both the target and the other units on the table still being bound by the range limitation, but the illuminated unit losing the cover bonus.


The probable RAI is for the illuminated unit to be targetable from outside 36"... but this isn't actually possible given the way the rule is written.