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.

Quick question, does line of sight come from the weapon, or the models in base contact that are firing the missiles?

Thanks.

It's an Emplaced Weapon. See page 96 of the rulebook for how to fire it.

Thanks, I totally missed the Manuel Fire section...
So the silo never gets to use a BS, unless the target is right on top of it?

 Ray Age wrote:
So the silo never gets to use a BS, unless the target is right on top of it?

Since it's pretty much impossible to draw LOS to anything not directly above the silo, yes, that's correct.

Yep. It has a really 'poor' interaction with RAW currently given how the model was produced. (well, unless the intent was that the missiles are always fired blindly anyway, a possibility I suppose)

I suspect you were 'intended' to draw LOS from one of the corners of the roof, or the design team simply did not take the time to play test them. (or both really)

But as written, you cannot draw LOS from anything not towering over the tower. (so some titans maybe, but probably not even then)

I disagree Neorealist,
Keep in mind it calls it a Silo, so it makes sense for it to be designed in the way it is.

Missile Silo's are often fortified positions, constructed under the ground, to hold dozens of missile large enough to only be seen in Silo's and on 'one shot' Ballistic-type Launchers. Now it is a little different in this case, it is a cluster of warhead being delivered via several medium sized missiles that are launched together as a volley, but the concept is still the same. These missiles are designed to work is to Arc over top of the battle and then rain down on top of the unsuspecting fools, blanketing an area in explosive death more effectively then an artillery bombardment. That isn't even touching on the fact that 'volleys of missiles,' or even a single cluster warhead on a lone missile, have a reputation for scattering over a larger area then intended to begin with.

Now such a base is rarely on the front lines but explaining why the attack is occurring on this base is part of the Narrative side of things;
Personally, I would narrate it that the non-redemption player is part of a spear head designed to get rid of this threat so the main column won't be devastated before it even hit's the front line... that front line being some other battle-field for another day.

Which is a nice fluffy explanation, sure. However such things are typically targeted using advanced radar and other similar installations, not fired blindly in the hope that they'll be able to accomplish their goal effectively.

I'm still of the opinion it is a design flaw or a lack of awareness of the vehicle shooting rules that lead to it's particular setup.

I disagree,
The idea that the designer had no clue about the Vehicle Shooting rules, a staple rule for Vehicles that are used in 100% of games, is a lot less probable then the idea that the designer didn't want these missiles launched with reduced Scatter.

Seeing we are talking about why they designed the building in such a way that wouldn't allow Line of Sight requirements, the only answers are going to be 'fluffy' one. This is because any crunch-related reasoning does not ask 'what was the designer thinking' but simply uses the end results and how the Rules are applied to those results. In this case the only 'crunch' answer that could be forth coming is a circle argument; The designers didn't intend for these missiles to be launched by Direct Fire, as evident by the fact they designed the building in such a way it would be near impossible to Direct Fire.

Given the presence of rules such as those found on the greyknight/inquisitor orbital strike relay, I'd suggest that if the developers had intended that they could certainly have used actual rules to represent it rather than an oddly shaped model.

That said this is purely hypothetical, there is no real way for either of us to know their intent here.

Agreed on the inability to know intent, hence why we have to accept it as it is.

JinxDragon wrote:
Agreed on the inability to know intent, hence why we have to accept it as it is.

Yep, I agree with that sentiment.

JinxDragon wrote:
I disagree,
The idea that the designer had no clue about the Vehicle Shooting rules, a staple rule for Vehicles that are used in 100% of games, is a lot less probable then the idea that the designer didn't want these missiles launched with reduced Scatter. .

These are the same guys who designed a flyer on a 6" tall flight base with a multi-melta turret on its roof. The idea that they might not be completely up to date on the vehicle shooting rules isn't really that hard to swallow...

To be fair the MM is on the front - assault cannons on the roof (if you're talking about the Stormraven... Not sure who else has a MM)

True, it is certain that they did not intend for it to only be fired indirectly. thats the way it ended up though. Look on the bright side, unless the enemy is also using indirect barrage fire or is over top of it themselves, they will never be able to target the missiles..

A side question, the way it is set up , you cant get into contact with it unles you are down inside of the missiles which will block LOS from the model firing it because of them standing so far below deck level and the defensive wall around the deck. Since the weapon is actually "inside' the bunker, would models inside be considered in base contact? Much as the heavy bolters on the bastions. Those are actually "inside" the bastion just as this is.

Insaniak,
When it comes to fliers I would be more willing to accept the 'the designers had no clue what they are doing' argument then in any other situation. This is because the writers themselves don't seem to know what they are doing when it comes to fliers, so the model designers had no chance to begin with. The fact the writers penned, within the rules for vertical weapons, that you would only rarely encounter situations where a model is elevated is enough to show this point. Personally, I think they designed fliers to be immune to this line but being Game Workshop failed to inform us of this fact. So I can't blame the model designers if they over-look a single sentence, that even the writers wrote would 'rarely occur,' when it comes to poor weapon design on Fliers.

Vastly different from an over-sight on a vehicle or a building, but I can think of one or two models which clearly have this oversight.

Honestly, the more I think on that sentence the more I think my assumption is correct: They had NO rules at all for dealing with the third dimension and only during play testing did someone ask what happens if a weapon can't swivel vertically. In response they quickly threw that single sentence together, not even bothering to flesh it out or re-work a few other rules to prevent clashes, and sent the book to the printer. Cause it is quite clear that a flier is going to hit this problem 100% of the time, not "rarely...."

But I do know what you are saying, just take a look at any of the Tau aircraft and how the missile launcher is positioned where it would be difficult to draw Line of Sight to any target...

rigeld2 wrote:To be fair the MM is on the front - assault cannons on the roof (if you're talking about the Stormraven...

So it is. It's still a short range weapon on the roof.

EVIL INC wrote:A side question, the way it is set up , you cant get into contact with it unles you are down inside of the missiles which will block LOS from the model firing it because of them standing so far below deck level and the defensive wall around the deck. Since the weapon is actually "inside' the bunker, would models inside be considered in base contact? Much as the heavy bolters on the bastions. Those are actually "inside" the bastion just as this is.

It's an emplaced weapon, not a gun emplacement. You manual fire it by occupying the building. There is no need for base contact.

So yes, models would have to be inside the missile annex to fire the weapon. But since it can only fire indirectly, there is no point in doing so, since there will be absolutely no difference between manual or automatic fire.

Evil,
They are emplaced weapons, not weapon emplacements.

Thanx, i was just curious. I have seen the model and thought about getting it for cool value and terrain (possibly an activated objective in friendly games) but not as part of my list.

 insaniak wrote:

So yes, models would have to be inside the missile annex to fire the weapon. But since it can only fire indirectly, there is no point in doing so, since there will be absolutely no difference between manual or automatic fire.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Telion or a Vindicare assassin is firing it, wouldn't they get to allocate their own wounds?

 Jimsolo wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Telion or a Vindicare assassin is firing it, wouldn't they get to allocate their own wounds?

Whelp, now I need to go buy a D-cannon to put my Vindi on.

I thought that was how it worked, but in the two times I've used it so far, I've been severely unimpressed. (It usually scatters too far to make a difference.)

I use my GK Purg squad to fire the Krak Storm missiles then I can just astral aim them and if Coteaz or the GK Inq. gets ignores cover I add them to that squad.

Astral Aim won't allow a Barrage weapon to fire directly. It just lets you choose a target that is outside LOS, which Barrage weapons can already do anyway.

I believe the point was that Astral Aim allows to use full BS for reducing scatter for Krakstorm.

Yes... And my point was that it won't, because it's a barrage weapon firing without LOS. Astral Aim or not makes no difference, it's still firing indirectly, so the firer's BS won't matter.

I do believe your are wrong b/c astral aim allows you to target something you can't see why would I not get my full BS?

Astral aim "can target an an enemy unit even if I do not have line of sight or it is outside of night fighting range"

An astral aim unit doesn't use Los rules or cover rules that is why astral aim provides a 4+ cover save to any unit you shoot at.

If you use astral aim you do not use Los rules including cover. It has its own cover rules even.

You are no longer using indirect fire you are using astral aim.

Astral Aim lets you target something that you can't see. It doesn't make you count as having LOS... it just removes the need to have LOS in order to choose a target.

If you fire a barrage weapon, and you don't have LOS to the target, then you are firing indirectly.


Astral Aim will convey absolutely zero benefit to indirect-firing Barrage weapons.

Which is more specific to the situation:
A rule stating you can fire a weapon even if there is no direct Line of Sight
or
A rule stating when shots with this weapon type are fired without Line of Sight you do not reduce the scatter

Added:
Insaniak,
It would still give the target an additional cover save, not that it is a good thing....

You don't use LOS rules they go out the window with astral aim. The only thing that matters for the rule is if they are in weapons range.

If you use astral aim at no point do you use in or out of LOS rules. They don't matter. You don't use the models eyes at all. There is no determining cover.



Astral aim states btw they get a 4+ unmodifiable cover save. No stealth, Jink, or shrouded as those all have to do with line of sight.

 Mythra wrote:
You don't use LOS rules they go out the window with astral aim. The only thing that matters for the rule is if they are in weapons range.

If you use astral aim at no point do you use in or out of LOS rules. They don't matter. You don't use the models eyes at all. There is no determining cover.

The LOS rules aren't the issue. The Barrage rules are the problem.

Yes, you don't follow the LOS rules to choose a target. That doesn't change the fact that if you fire a Barrage weapon and you don't have LOS to the target, the weapon will fire indirectly.


In fact, taking your interpretation, it could be argued that Astral Aim would never allow you to fire directly with Barrage, since you would never check LOS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Which is more specific to the situation:
A rule stating you can fire a weapon even if there is no direct Line of Sight
or
A rule stating when shots with this weapon type are fired without Line of Sight you do not reduce the scatter

Why would both rules not apply? There is no conflict there.