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.

Rules also allow you to shoot a model if you see 0.0001% of it. So, talk about pulling crap.

Anywayz, let's go back to the question of Line of Sight =/= Line of Shooting.

Line of Sight is the ability to see a model.

Line of shooting I might suggest is a specific line you are required to shoot at because of restrictions within rules (not a term I remember seeing in the rule book)

My point still stands that you would be required to confirm with the Knight player what is considered the "Line of Shooting" for your model before he/she is required to select shield facing. The question from Knights players is always:

"OK Model A, B & C is in front arc. Model D, E & F in left arc. Hmm more worried about E and F so I will put it on left arc."

This is a normal thinking of a Knight player when deciding arcs and requires interaction with his opponent. Are you thinking about not answering or lying to him about the likely position of the firer?

So, how exactly do you determine this "Line of shooting"? When model A wants to shoot model B.

(_)... Model A
...__ Barricade
.......
.......
.......
(_)... Model B


The line of sight can be traced so that model B will be obscured and get cover or won't be obscured and won't get cover. Also note that htere's no such thing in the rulebook as line of shooting - only line of sight that can be measured from any point of the model. So, what exactly prohibits you to determine cover and vehicle facing from any point of the shooting model that you want?

 rawne2510 wrote:


You must be the only ork player I haven´t seen take Lootas then.

Lootas are not among our best units. In the most competitive lists they're completely absent. They're still nice but orks now prefer to spam s5 shots/blasts and s8 rokkits.

I just don't shoot that much. But let's try to finally determine how exactly is shooting, line of sight and facing's determined.

Ok give me your conversation with a Knight player when it comes to him/her choosing shield arc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
what is your answer when they ask which facing you consider that model to be shooting at?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You are the person that brought up Line of Shooting!!

If the game's more relaxed there'd be no issue as there'd be no knights in a fun casual game. If it would matter when determining cover, i'd just go with cover-1 and call it a day.
If it's more competitive I'd play by the brb, so would choose any part of the model to measure los from and as so, would choose which facing i'm shooting at right before shooting. This interpretation seems to be the closest to RAW.

So you are saying you would refuse to answer his question in a tournament setting

i wrote the answer pretty clearly. The firer traces los from any part of the model and by the brb it so happens that it could result in either shooting one facing or another. You can trace los at any given time of the game - including the start of the shooting phase when the knight player places a shield. So he's free to do it and place the shield wherever he wants. And than i'm free to trace another los from any part of the model to determine which facing i'm shooting at.

So you are "that guy".

Not going to bother anymore.

You're free to houserule it however you like. I'm trying to determine what's the right thing to do by the rules.

ps. glad you feel better now

Imho, conversation should look like this, no imtemt to seem hostile I can jist imagine it like this

"What firing arc is he in?"

"Both"

"Well the permissive ruleset doesn't provide enough information for us to determine a target facing or AV, so you have no shot"

Then perhaps a short book dive, and hopefully a compromise.

 Rismonite wrote:
Imho, conversation should look like this, no imtemt to seem hostile I can jist imagine it like this

"What firing arc is he in?"

"Both"

"Well the permissive ruleset doesn't provide enough information for us to determine a target facing or AV, so you have no shot"

Then perhaps a short book dive, and hopefully a compromise.

4+ ftw

1) The Ion Shield rule is written to allow knight players to position the Ion shield with the knowledge of the threats in each facing. Since there is, battle focus aside, no movement happening between positioning the shield and shooting, that information is the same status as the one valid for shooting.

2) Unless the facing the shooter will hit is absolutely obvious, the knight player will ask his opponent in which facing the shooter is considered to be. The options are facing A or facing B. Per (1) the knight player is entitled to that information.

The decision cannot be postphoned to the advantage of the shooter. Sure you can 4+ it, but that would be 4+ for B, not 4+ for A/B.

 Stephanius wrote:
1) The Ion Shield rule is written to allow knight players to position the Ion shield with the knowledge of the threats in each facing. Since there is, battle focus aside, no movement happening between positioning the shield and shooting, that information is the same status as the one valid for shooting.

Except for
1) Crystal targeting matrix
2) Skyhammer Orbital Strike Force
3) Deathwing Strike Force
4) any flyer in a Unmerciful attack pattern
and thats just off the top of my head.

 Stephanius wrote:
2) Unless the facing the shooter will hit is absolutely obvious, the knight player will ask his opponent in which facing the shooter is considered to be. The options are facing A or facing B. Per (1) the knight player is entitled to that information.

The decision cannot be postphoned to the advantage of the shooter. Sure you can 4+ it, but that would be 4+ for B, not 4+ for A/B.

Can you provide me with a rules quote which states that at the start of the shooting phase a player must declare which facing of a vehicle he is in?

Alright this has been fun and all but you guys know that it is impossible to place a model exactly in the center of that line right ? So you guys can stop theory hammering about it now since its an impossibility in its pure theoretical form.

Any situation like this on the board is purely the result of you and or your opponent not being sure of the actual location of the model and should be treated as any other uncertainty in the game. There is no need for any RAW debating here since this is not a rules situation at all. This is a case of common decency. However you and your opponent want to settle it is up to you, but I would advice against the childish "nope you can't hit me I am on the other side" solution.

ItsPug wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
1) The Ion Shield rule is written to allow knight players to position the Ion shield with the knowledge of the threats in each facing. Since there is, battle focus aside, no movement happening between positioning the shield and shooting, that information is the same status as the one valid for shooting.

Except for
1) Crystal targeting matrix
2) Skyhammer Orbital Strike Force
3) Deathwing Strike Force
4) any flyer in a Unmerciful attack pattern
and thats just off the top of my head.

Ok, you could think of additional exceptions besides Battle Focus. Great, those are however in no way different to Battle Focus, in that they permit the shooting unit to change position between declaring the Ion Shield facing the start of the shooting phase and shooting with the unit.

ItsPug wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
2) Unless the facing the shooter will hit is absolutely obvious, the knight player will ask his opponent in which facing the shooter is considered to be. The options are facing A or facing B. Per (1) the knight player is entitled to that information.

The decision cannot be postphoned to the advantage of the shooter. Sure you can 4+ it, but that would be 4+ for B, not 4+ for A/B.

Can you provide me with a rules quote which states that at the start of the shooting phase a player must declare which facing of a vehicle he is in?

Can you provide me with a rules quote that allows you to obfuscate or declare secret which facing the shooter is in?
Per default, there are no secret positions, stats or lines of sight or other status information on the board. When something is secret, it is clearly stated - such as secret mission objective cards.

At times, the markers on the board cannot be properly placed due to terrain or something may not be clear. That may be intentional from one player's perspective and advantageous if the other player fails to ask for clarification, but when the matter is addressed, a common understanding is the only way forward. I've seen it argued that sharing which unit is in which transport isn't required, as long as the information has been recorded - which obviously prevents the transport owning player from changing the content to his advantage later in the game.

The Ion Shield facing is declared at the start of the opponents shooting phase. The clear RAI is that the knight player can make an informed decision regarding the threat to each facing. Even the threat from units that can still move in the shooting phase and can therefore threaten more than one facing is known. The knight player may forget about the special rules, but that of course is his problem. There is however no provision for unilaterally declaring the position secret, refusing to clarify the information represented by the board and expecting the game to continue in good faith.

 rawne2510 wrote:
So you are "that guy".

Not going to bother anymore.

Perhaps you should find a different forum. You do not seem to understand this is about rules not how you feel about "that guy".

 Stephanius wrote:

ItsPug wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
2) Unless the facing the shooter will hit is absolutely obvious, the knight player will ask his opponent in which facing the shooter is considered to be. The options are facing A or facing B. Per (1) the knight player is entitled to that information.

The decision cannot be postphoned to the advantage of the shooter. Sure you can 4+ it, but that would be 4+ for B, not 4+ for A/B.

Can you provide me with a rules quote which states that at the start of the shooting phase a player must declare which facing of a vehicle he is in?

Can you provide me with a rules quote that allows you to obfuscate or declare secret which facing the shooter is in?
Per default, there are no secret positions, stats or lines of sight or other status information on the board. When something is secret, it is clearly stated - such as secret mission objective cards.

At times, the markers on the board cannot be properly placed due to terrain or something may not be clear. That may be intentional from one player's perspective and advantageous if the other player fails to ask for clarification, but when the matter is addressed, a common understanding is the only way forward. I've seen it argued that sharing which unit is in which transport isn't required, as long as the information has been recorded - which obviously prevents the transport owning player from changing the content to his advantage later in the game.

The Ion Shield facing is declared at the start of the opponents shooting phase. The clear RAI is that the knight player can make an informed decision regarding the threat to each facing. Even the threat from units that can still move in the shooting phase and can therefore threaten more than one facing is known. The knight player may forget about the special rules, but that of course is his problem. There is however no provision for unilaterally declaring the position secret, refusing to clarify the information represented by the board and expecting the game to continue in good faith.

Firstly there is no rules saying I have to confirm how far away a model is from another, you do however have a rule that says you can measure it yourself at any time. The position of the model is in no way secret, anymore than the text I am writing now is secret. Its right there in front of you.

Secondly, to continue your "RAI" example, which I dont believe it is, " that the knight player can make an informed decision regarding the threat to each facing." would seem to suggest that if I had 2 units in two facings that could fire either at the knight or another target I should have to declare what they are shooting at so you can make an informed decision? You can see the units on the board, you can make a judgement about which facing you want to put the shield based on the knowledge you have from the board.

Finally, if you asked me which facing the model is in in the example above I would answer as per the rules it is within both, but wholly within neither, which is RAW as there is no requirement in the shooting at vehicles rules which state that the model must be wholly within the facing it wishes to fire at..

ItsPug wrote:


Finally, if you asked me which facing the model is in in the example above I would answer as per the rules it is within both, but wholly within neither.

This isn't the issue. The issue is that the majority of the model has to in one of the 2 facings it is physically impossible to be exactly in the middle of the facings.

 oldzoggy wrote:

ItsPug wrote:


Finally, if you asked me which facing the model is in in the example above I would answer as per the rules it is within both, but wholly within neither.

This isn't the issue. The issue is that the majority of the model has to in one of the 2 facings it is physically impossible to be exactly in the middle of the facings.

Games Workshop makes a distinction between within and wholly within. Majority does not come into it. If I have part of a squad within 12" of your unit, even if the majority is more than 12" away, then I am within 12".


Noweher in the rule for shooting at vehicles does it state anything about the majority of the model either


So as long as the model is on the line between facings it is within both facings, even if the majority is in one facing it doesnt matter as per the rules it is in both. thats RAW, How you actually play it is up to yourself.

[Edit] Nevermind

ItsPug wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

ItsPug wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
2) Unless the facing the shooter will hit is absolutely obvious, the knight player will ask his opponent in which facing the shooter is considered to be. The options are facing A or facing B. Per (1) the knight player is entitled to that information.

The decision cannot be postphoned to the advantage of the shooter. Sure you can 4+ it, but that would be 4+ for B, not 4+ for A/B.

Can you provide me with a rules quote which states that at the start of the shooting phase a player must declare which facing of a vehicle he is in?

Can you provide me with a rules quote that allows you to obfuscate or declare secret which facing the shooter is in?
Per default, there are no secret positions, stats or lines of sight or other status information on the board. When something is secret, it is clearly stated - such as secret mission objective cards.

At times, the markers on the board cannot be properly placed due to terrain or something may not be clear. That may be intentional from one player's perspective and advantageous if the other player fails to ask for clarification, but when the matter is addressed, a common understanding is the only way forward. I've seen it argued that sharing which unit is in which transport isn't required, as long as the information has been recorded - which obviously prevents the transport owning player from changing the content to his advantage later in the game.

The Ion Shield facing is declared at the start of the opponents shooting phase. The clear RAI is that the knight player can make an informed decision regarding the threat to each facing. Even the threat from units that can still move in the shooting phase and can therefore threaten more than one facing is known. The knight player may forget about the special rules, but that of course is his problem. There is however no provision for unilaterally declaring the position secret, refusing to clarify the information represented by the board and expecting the game to continue in good faith.

Firstly there is no rules saying I have to confirm how far away a model is from another, you do however have a rule that says you can measure it yourself at any time. The position of the model is in no way secret, anymore than the text I am writing now is secret. Its right there in front of you.

The position isn't secret, but clearly, the intent here is to have a secrect option with perfectly 50/50 placement between facings and gain an advantage from this. Even assuming that would be possible, it would require using the Knight facings FAQ and a line laser to pull off properly. Even with that, perfect placement is unlikely. That is why people ask the other player about their understanding before making decisions based on what the positioning might look like, even ignoring distortion due to perspective.

ItsPug wrote:
Secondly, to continue your "RAI" example, which I dont believe it is, " that the knight player can make an informed decision regarding the threat to each facing." would seem to suggest that if I had 2 units in two facings that could fire either at the knight or another target I should have to declare what they are shooting at so you can make an informed decision? You can see the units on the board, you can make a judgement about which facing you want to put the shield based on the knowledge you have from the board.

I made no claim regarding target selection. To the contrary, placing units with other target opportunities as threat is both smart and fair play. The knight player is deciding the facing of the ion shield at the beginning of the opponents shooting phase. That permits him to take into account the placement of the units which could shoot each facing and gives him the chance to remember which units could still move and then shoot. That information is what the board shows and what he can know of the rules.

ItsPug wrote:
Finally, if you asked me which facing the model is in in the example above I would answer as per the rules it is within both, but wholly within neither, which is RAW as there is no requirement in the shooting at vehicles rules which state that the model must be wholly within the facing it wishes to fire at..

Actually, the vehicle rules clearly note singular "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from." BRB p.75, emphasis mine. So having the option to decide for the one or other facing isn't something the rules permit. It is assumed to be determined to by checking the position of the shooter relative to the target. If that is not possible or unclear, it follows that the players have to agree or roll off what the facing is. Only for units with models placed in more than one armor facing is there an exception and even then each model is resolved as it stands.

I conclude that there is neither rules support nor practical way to actually provoke this situation.

 Stephanius wrote:


Actually, the vehicle rules clearly note singular "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from." BRB p.75, emphasis mine. So having the option to decide for the one or other facing isn't something the rules permit. It is assumed to be determined to by checking the position of the shooter relative to the target. If that is not possible or unclear, it follows that the players have to agree or roll off what the facing is. Only for units with models placed in more than one armor facing is there an exception and even then each model is resolved as it stands.

I conclude that there is neither rules support nor practical way to actually provoke this situation.

In no way it contradicts the statement that you can choose any facing. The shot is coming at one facing. You just choose which one.

 koooaei wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:


Actually, the vehicle rules clearly note singular "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from." BRB p.75, emphasis mine. So having the option to decide for the one or other facing isn't something the rules permit. It is assumed to be determined to by checking the position of the shooter relative to the target. If that is not possible or unclear, it follows that the players have to agree or roll off what the facing is. Only for units with models placed in more than one armor facing is there an exception and even then each model is resolved as it stands.

I conclude that there is neither rules support nor practical way to actually provoke this situation.

In no way it contradicts the statement that you can choose any facing. The shot is coming at one facing. You just choose which one.

Why would the rules contradict a far-fetched player statement?
In a permissive ruleset you need to demonstrate permission to do something. There is no permission granted to make a deliberate choice which armor facing to shoot.

 koooaei wrote:
So, the idea is that you can fire from any point of the non-vehicle model. If you place the model so that it can trace the line of firing to 2 knight's facings, you can choose from which part of the model you shoot after the shield's facing is decided.

Sure, you can ignore the ion shield that way, but since you are hitting 2 armor facings simultaneously, you will have to beat the 25 net armor it has

 pumaman1 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So, the idea is that you can fire from any point of the non-vehicle model. If you place the model so that it can trace the line of firing to 2 knight's facings, you can choose from which part of the model you shoot after the shield's facing is decided.

Sure, you can ignore the ion shield that way, but since you are hitting 2 armor facings simultaneously, you will have to beat the 25 net armor it has

Got a rules quote for that? It would definitely be an argument for a 25mm base Space Marine to claim to be in both facings but change that little green dot in the example to a Wraithknight centered on two facings. It can easily fire at either side it wants. This example is no different than a open topped vehicle parked in two different facings.

Fragile wrote:
It can easily fire at either side it wants.

{citation needed}

The rules explicitly state that a model fires at THE facing that is in. THE, singular. And there are no rules for choosing which facing you are going to fire at. The inescapable conclusion here is that you must somehow, before resolving any shots, determine which single facing each firing model is located in. The only question left is exactly how to resolve the question of which single facing a model on the dividing line is located in.

 Peregrine wrote:

Fragile wrote:
It can easily fire at either side it wants.

{citation needed}

The rules explicitly state that a model fires at THE facing that is in. THE, singular. And there are no rules for choosing which facing you are going to fire at. The inescapable conclusion here is that you must somehow, before resolving any shots, determine which single facing each firing model is located in. The only question left is exactly how to resolve the question of which single facing a model on the dividing line is located in.

The rules explictly state aboute firing at a single facing. And that's correct. But they don't state or imply anything about facing a single facing. There is really no contradiction with facing multiple sides simultaniously and having to shoot only one.

For example, a marine with a plazma is standing within 12" in between the side and rear arcs of an enemy rhino. He's facing both side and read, so he chooses to shoot one of them. For example, the rear is 25% obscured, so he chooses side. But as he has to shoot at one facing, he can't spread his shots at both - he has to choose one. He shoots both his shots at the side. But he could have easilly chosen to shoot them at the rear as he's also facing it.

And there is also no contradiction with open information. The opponent is free to measure the distance to a model at any given time. He can make sure that you're facing multiple sides. But he can't make sure which facing the opponent is going to target until he actually targets it. You don't ask your opponent at the start of his shooting phase what are his devastators going to shoot at or would his jetbikes turboboost instead of shooting. The opponent declares that right before performing the action. The same with knight's shield. The knight player can only check which side the opponent's models are facing. He can't know which facing they'll choose to shoot at or if they would choose to run or go to ground or whatever is going to happen in the opponent's shooting phase with HIS models. He might even not know yet.

I hope we're clear about that. And the only thing left to find out is how exactly the line of shooting for checking cover and facings is traced. If it's separate from line of sight than the question is moot but we'd need some RAW support for that and not RAI assumptions. As for now, the rulebook says that you check los and you shoot. So the interpretation of "Line of sight = Tracing line for checking cover and facings" seems the closest to RAW. And probably RAI. If you check line of sight from any part of the model (which is what the rulebook states you should do) - what's exactly prohibiting you from tracing shots from this very part of the model? We know for sure that you don't trace it from the gun unless it's vehicle. And there is no rule of shooting from the closest parts or middles of the models or whatever.

Fragile wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So, the idea is that you can fire from any point of the non-vehicle model. If you place the model so that it can trace the line of firing to 2 knight's facings, you can choose from which part of the model you shoot after the shield's facing is decided.

Sure, you can ignore the ion shield that way, but since you are hitting 2 armor facings simultaneously, you will have to beat the 25 net armor it has

Got a rules quote for that? It would definitely be an argument for a 25mm base Space Marine to claim to be in both facings but change that little green dot in the example to a Wraithknight centered on two facings. It can easily fire at either side it wants. This example is no different than a open topped vehicle parked in two different facings.

You missed the humor of the matter entirely. There are no rules in the game for adding armor together, so it was meant to be obviously outlandish.

More seriously, the line that bisects to armor facings is infinitely thin, and as such, you will in practice never be "right on" the line, so the argument is entirely academic. The model will either be mostly in 1 facing, or just barely .000...0001% more within 1 facing or the other, but that's the facing you get. If you are so close you cannot tell, let your opponent choose, elect to take the worse option (for casual games both), or call the judges over to make a formal ruling in that setting (tournament setting).