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.

I believe the ITC FAQ has walkers being able to shoot anything within their front 180 degree view, yes?

Then, can a walker, i.e. Imperial Knight, assault a unit *behind* it, behind its 180 view? I can't find a negation, other than you need to be able to see the unit you're after (page 45 in bold print), which goes back to my first Q.

Thus, if a unit of footers is behind the Imp Knight, can the IK assault them? Any further page citation is welcome!

You can't assault something unless it was the target of your shooting. Nothing in the superheavy rules changes that. It still behaves as a walker.

I can't fathom a reason your walker isn't going to be pointed at the thing you wish to charge. You can pivot 360 degrees if you want during your movement phase after you've moved to your destination so, enlighten me on how this scenario even comes up.

I don't know of anything in the case of a Super-heavy Walker that overrides this from the Assault phase rules:

"A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit that it cannot see..."

 SRSFACE wrote:
You can't assault something unless it was the target of your shooting. Nothing in the superheavy rules changes that. It still behaves as a walker.

I can't fathom a reason your walker isn't going to be pointed at the thing you wish to charge. You can pivot 360 degrees if you want during your movement phase after you've moved to your destination so, enlighten me on how this scenario even comes up.

Warp Spiders were in front of the Imp K. Then they get targeted and Flicker Jump *behind* the Imp K.

How does the Imp K player continue that turn?

I believe that the Imp K cannot shoot the elves because they are now out of his LoS. And therefore can't be assaulted either. Given it is a ... one gun Imp K (forgot the danmed name, C something) it was not able to point at something else and go after another elf unit.

The situation was Game End objective grabbing. Very Chess like "if this, then that" kinda working out of 3 to 4 outcomes.

Better?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
I don't know of anything in the case of a Super-heavy Walker that overrides this from the Assault phase rules:

"A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit that it cannot see..."

Yeah that's the relevant bullet item.

I think we played it wrong, but wanted some YMDC weight added to it.

Technically all of the vehicle LoS rules only apply to drawing LoS for a vehicle's gun. Walker assault like infantry, so it can be argued they have 360 LoS to declare a charge like infantry

 Mr. Shine wrote:
I don't know of anything in the case of a Super-heavy Walker that overrides this from the Assault phase rules:

"A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit that it cannot see..."

Walkers assault as infantry - who have a 360 degree LoS.

Only a walkers weapon arcs are limited.

Its entirely possible for it to charge backwards like any other infantry

CrownAxe wrote:Technically all of the vehicle LoS rules only apply to drawing LoS for a vehicle's gun. Walker assault like infantry, so it can be argued they have 360 LoS to declare a charge like infantry

Massaen wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
I don't know of anything in the case of a Super-heavy Walker that overrides this from the Assault phase rules:

"A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit that it cannot see..."

Walkers assault as infantry - who have a 360 degree LoS.

Only a walkers weapon arcs are limited.

Its entirely possible for it to charge backwards like any other infantry

I'm not sure that I agree per RAW - I believe that's taking the line you both mention out of context:

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that Walkers make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

The way in which they assault and are assaulted as Infantry is specifically qualified to explain that, unlike other vehicles, in the same way as Infantry they can make charge moves and be locked in combat.

That said I think it's ridiculous to hold Walkers per RAW to their 45 degree firing/line of sight arc anyway, so it's not HIWPI.

If you were the TO:

Massaen, you'd call it as, "Spiders can be assaulted". Okay.

CrownAxe, you? Mr. Shine? SRSFACE?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Technically all of the vehicle LoS rules only apply to drawing LoS for a vehicle's gun. Walker assault like infantry, so it can be argued they have 360 LoS to declare a charge like infantry

Massaen wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
I don't know of anything in the case of a Super-heavy Walker that overrides this from the Assault phase rules:
"A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit that it cannot see..."

Walkers assault as infantry - who have a 360 degree LoS.
Only a walkers weapon arcs are limited.
Its entirely possible for it to charge backwards like any other infantry

I'm not sure that I agree per RAW - I believe that's taking the line you both mention out of context:
"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that Walkers make charge moves and can be locked in combat."
The way in which they assault and are assaulted as Infantry is specifically qualified to explain that, unlike other vehicles, in the same way as Infantry they can make charge moves and be locked in combat.
That said I think it's ridiculous to hold Walkers per RAW to their 45 degree firing/line of sight arc anyway, so it's not HIWPI.

If you are not familiar with the ITC, in the Western USA, a community, the ITC, has both vertical and horizontal shooting as 180 degrees.

Given that, would the ImpK still be able to assault the Warp S. ?

 Brothererekose wrote:
If you were the TO:

Massaen, you'd call it as, "Spiders can be assaulted". Okay.

CrownAxe, you? Mr. Shine? SRSFACE?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Technically all of the vehicle LoS rules only apply to drawing LoS for a vehicle's gun. Walker assault like infantry, so it can be argued they have 360 LoS to declare a charge like infantry

Massaen wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
I don't know of anything in the case of a Super-heavy Walker that overrides this from the Assault phase rules:
"A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit that it cannot see..."

Walkers assault as infantry - who have a 360 degree LoS.
Only a walkers weapon arcs are limited.
Its entirely possible for it to charge backwards like any other infantry

I'm not sure that I agree per RAW - I believe that's taking the line you both mention out of context:
"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that Walkers make charge moves and can be locked in combat."
The way in which they assault and are assaulted as Infantry is specifically qualified to explain that, unlike other vehicles, in the same way as Infantry they can make charge moves and be locked in combat.
That said I think it's ridiculous to hold Walkers per RAW to their 45 degree firing/line of sight arc anyway, so it's not HIWPI.

If you are not familiar with the ITC, in the Western USA, a community, the ITC, has both vertical and horizontal shooting as 180 degrees.

Given that, would the ImpK still be able to assault the Warp S. ?

Walkers rules allow them to Overwatch even if the charging unit it's outside of his weapon arc (literally allow them to turn to fire)

assault rules for walkers simply states "Walkers assault , and are assaulted, like Infantry models"

The spiders flickerjump may allow them to move out of the firing arc of the knight 45degress as raw 180 as ITC ruling , but if they remain within range of charge and visible (for the knight not his guns) they can be assaulted.

 Brothererekose wrote:
If you were the TO:

Massaen, you'd call it as, "Spiders can be assaulted". Okay.

CrownAxe, you? Mr. Shine? SRSFACE?

Yeah I think I'm with Massaen. As a walker, it draws line of sight in a 360 degree arc (just like Infantry do, as per "Walkers are like Infantry" rule). It's just that weapons firing is limited. So while they'd be able to escape the fire, the walker itself should still be able to charge as it's not ineligible from any other rule from charging the unit it attempted to fire at.

So near as I can see the situation was as follows.

Warp Spiders in front of IK.
IK targets Warp Spiders.
Warp Spiders flickerjump behind IK.

Continuing with the order of operations.
Per Walker shooting rules, IK turns to face target.
Warp Spiders are now back in front of IK.

The knight never turns - it just charges backwards!

 Happyjew wrote:
So near as I can see the situation was as follows.

Warp Spiders in front of IK.
IK targets Warp Spiders.
Warp Spiders flickerjump behind IK.

Continuing with the order of operations.
Per Walker shooting rules, IK turns to face target.
Warp Spiders are now back in front of IK.

Hi HJ!

Gotta page citation? Nothing in the paragraph on page 90 supports this directly, since the Spiders are the ones being charged. "To represent vastly superior agility" etc *points* in that direction, though.

How would you play it, HJ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Massaen wrote:
The knight never turns - it just charges backwards!

Just sits on them.

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Massaen wrote:
The knight never turns - it just charges backwards!

Just sits on them.

That gives a whole new meaning to Flomp Attack... I mean Stomp Attack.

Arc of fire(the vehicle shooting los rules) only regard LOS for shooting the weapons. There are no separate rules for LOS on vehicles for any other purposes so we must default to the basic LOS rules for charge declaration: draw LOS from any part of the model).

Also: you do not have to shoot in order to charge; you just cannot charge a unit other than the one(or one of the ones) you shot at if you did shoot.

In your example if the IK moved and then another unit targeted the spiders, who then flickerjumped behind the knight, the knight could still charge them if it fired no weapons. It can also freely turn as part of the charge(move) and as long as you can draw a line between some part of the knight and some part if a warpspider model you have LOS(or "can see" them which has no game definition)

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
So near as I can see the situation was as follows.

Warp Spiders in front of IK.
IK targets Warp Spiders.
Warp Spiders flickerjump behind IK.

Continuing with the order of operations.
Per Walker shooting rules, IK turns to face target.
Warp Spiders are now back in front of IK.

Hi HJ!

Gotta page citation? Nothing in the paragraph on page 90 supports this directly, since the Spiders are the ones being charged. "To represent vastly superior agility" etc *points* in that direction, though.

How would you play it, HJ?

OK, so apparently they changed the rules for Walkers so they no longer pivot to face their target in the shooting phase. Good to know.

I did not realize that GW changed that rule, In my statement above I just left out the part where the IK would then fire at Warp Spiders.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Technically all of the vehicle LoS rules only apply to drawing LoS for a vehicle's gun. Walker assault like infantry, so it can be argued they have 360 LoS to declare a charge like infantry

Massaen wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
I don't know of anything in the case of a Super-heavy Walker that overrides this from the Assault phase rules:

"A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit that it cannot see..."

Walkers assault as infantry - who have a 360 degree LoS.

Only a walkers weapon arcs are limited.

Its entirely possible for it to charge backwards like any other infantry

I'm not sure that I agree per RAW - I believe that's taking the line you both mention out of context:

"Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that Walkers make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

The way in which they assault and are assaulted as Infantry is specifically qualified to explain that, unlike other vehicles, in the same way as Infantry they can make charge moves and be locked in combat.

That said I think it's ridiculous to hold Walkers per RAW to their 45 degree firing/line of sight arc anyway, so it's not HIWPI.

There is nothing blocking LOS for the purposes of Assault for a Walker.

""For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.""

Nothing overrides this rule for walkers and assaults. There is a specific rule for Shooting, but none for assault.

Fragile wrote:
There is nothing blocking LOS for the purposes of Assault for a Walker.

""For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.""

Nothing overrides this rule for walkers and assaults. There is a specific rule for Shooting, but none for assault.

I think we have a winner. Thanks, Fragile.

Fair point - looks like I'd conflated from the mounting point and along the barrel LoS for shooting with Walker LoS in general.

Also, the only codex single gun knight is the one with two close combat weapons. The rest all have at least two if not three or four guns.

It's easy to forget the useless carapace gun but it's ideal for creating an additional option for an assault target.

Interesting point about the situation with the Warps Spiders Flicker Jumping behind the knight:

Is the Overwatch resolved against the Knight's rear armor?

Hunam0001 wrote:
Interesting point about the situation with the Warps Spiders Flicker Jumping behind the knight:

Is the Overwatch resolved against the Knight's rear armor?

If they were in the rear arc, then yes.

 Happyjew wrote:

OK, so apparently they changed the rules for Walkers so they no longer pivot to face their target in the shooting phase. Good to know.

I did not realize that GW changed that rule, In my statement above I just left out the part where the IK would then fire at Warp Spiders.

Yup, that change, combined with the 45 degree fire arc, is a large part of what makes dreadnoughts not worth using in the current rules. They get to make use of their 'superior agility' for resolving Overwatch, but the rest of the time are worse at shooting than almost every other unit in the game.

 insaniak wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

OK, so apparently they changed the rules for Walkers so they no longer pivot to face their target in the shooting phase. Good to know.

I did not realize that GW changed that rule, In my statement above I just left out the part where the IK would then fire at Warp Spiders.

Yup, that change, combined with the 45 degree fire arc, is a large part of what makes dreadnoughts not worth using in the current rules. They get to make use of their 'superior agility' for resolving Overwatch, but the rest of the time are worse at shooting than almost every other unit in the game.

Yeah, but they can pivot as much as they need to in the movement phase, so it's kind of assumed that you could get them facing the right direction.

I'm having difficulties seeing how them not being able to pivot in the shooting phase is that big of a hindrance.

Scenario: movement phase you move your walker to take out a threat and turn to face that unit. Shooting phase you choose to fire with a tac squad at the unit your dread is facing, dice all go way your way and you wipe that unit(you had only expected to soften it up a bit) now your dread cannot fire due to nothing in its firing arc.

Shure it is incredibly rare of a scenario and you could have fired the dread first; but why blame your poor choices when you could just blame the rules?

LoS with a particular weapon on a vehicle is not the same as LoS in general.

Would anyone think that you could infiltrate 12" behind (and in no cover) a forward firing only tank because it doesn't have LoS to the infiltrators?

Hunam0001 wrote:

I'm having difficulties seeing how them not being able to pivot in the shooting phase is that big of a hindrance.

When every non-vehicle model can fire at whatever they want, and when almost every other vehicle has a fire arc of more than 45 degrees, it's just one more limiting factor on a unit that was already severely handicapped by the addition of Hull Points last edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Would anyone think that you could infiltrate 12" behind (and in no cover) a forward firing only tank because it doesn't have LoS to the infiltrators?

That's been a fairly common interpretation for several editions now, yes.

The issue is that Walkers are vehicles, vehicles can pivot their weapons appropriately, and Walker models have weapons that seem to be designed to follow vehicle rules for pivoting weapons. So why, oh why, did GW write Walkers to have a restrive 45-degree arc? Bad copy-paste.

SJ

Dreads do not even look like they could pivot the main gun at all. The fist-gun, however, does look like it could pivot much more.

It is not even a bad copy-paste, it just shouldn't even be there. A flat shooting with the vehicle arc of fire rules functions just fine.

It actually gets really absurd with the Stompa: the shootas on the giant chainsword are pointing straight to the left of the stompa, most of the other shootas are on little turrets, and then most of the big guns are all on 1 arm facing the same direction.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Dreads do not even look like they could pivot the main gun at all. The fist-gun, however, does look like it could pivot much more.

The vertical arc is actually the worst bit, there... since most dreads have the fist-gun pointing more or less towards the ground...