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.

 koooaei wrote:


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.

Lack of statement about being able to choose a facing means there is not permission to choose a facing. There's only statements about THE side that the model is facing. Since there's no permission to choose, that means that you don't get a choice of facing at the time you want - after he has selected the side for the ion shield. It means that there is only one facing that the model gets to shoot at. It's up to you and your opponent to determine which facing it is, but you do NOT get the choice of 2 facings.

 doctortom wrote:

 koooaei wrote:


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.

Lack of statement about being able to choose a facing means there is not permission to choose a facing. There's only statements about THE side that the model is facing. Since there's no permission to choose, that means that you don't get a choice of facing at the time you want - after he has selected the side for the ion shield.

You say that there is no statement about choosing a facing and than make up a statement about having to choose a facing at some specific time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What little we actually have here is:

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

Won't citate this but: cover is based on line of sight. So, you can check if the target is obscured or not by measuring from any part of the shooter's body.

"Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from".

It's not written in stone but i think that the facing is also determined like cover. So, from any part of the shooting model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've asked this on the facebook but i doubt they'll answer soon as the question time was over last year.

The point still is you should be speaking with your opponent to clarify this before he pics a facing. If it is that close he/she will ask you what you consider you are shooting at.

 rawne2510 wrote:
The point still is you should be speaking with your opponent to clarify this before he pics a facing. If it is that close he/she will ask you what you consider you are shooting at.

Well, it's not entirely clear so it should be spoken before the game. And would end up in the roll-off of something like this:

1-3. The shooter gets to pick the facing => ignore the ion shield.
4-6. The shooter has to nominate all the models between facings of one or more knights. Than all the models from this list that can hurt one or more knights should roll to see which of the facings of each knight they're facing - separate roll for each knight and model. All this should be done at the start of the shooting phase before the knight player gets to decide which facing he chooses.

I accept the roll off idea. But your 2 choices are wrong.

1-3 you get to choose after the shield is chosen
4--6 you have to choose 1 side before the shield is chosen


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because if you want to randomize which facing they hit if you don´t get your preference then it should be randomized if you do get your preference

Well, it's just our little cozy houserule.

1-3 is pretty clear by now. It's the point of view that LOS = the instrument of deciding the facing. The knight player is clearly at a disadvantage here.

4-6 is a point of view that LOS =/= the instrument of deciding the facing and as there are no other rules covering it, the facing is decided randomly. But it still needs further discussion. For example, there's a squad of 3 melta bikes close to a knight. They manage to get one in the side ark, another one in the front ark and the third one right in between the arks.

So, here are a couple options:
a. If the shooter can choose the facing but has to do so before the shooting starts, he's going to choose, say, the side. And the knight player decides. Hmmm, there are 2 meltas in my side facing and one in the front. I'm going to shield my side! And thansome random eldar jsj to the front and murderise the knight or something. This way the shooter still has an advantage of being able to choose the lower armor facing.

b. It could be a random roll before the knight player chooses the facing. This way it's more benefical to a knight player cause there's a 50% chance the shooter would roll the facing with higher armor.

In both cases a. and b. declaring the facing happens as an out of sequence action and doesn't necesserely mean that the shooter is going to utilise it at all. He might want to lurk the shield on one side and than just turboboost away. Anywayz, it's going to take extra at the start of each shooting phase.

c. It could be a random roll after the facing is chosen when declaring who's shooting where. Also requires extra rolling but less so than a. and b.

I'm glad we're back to a more constructive discussion.

 rawne2510 wrote:
I accept the roll off idea. But your 2 choices are wrong.

1-3 you get to choose after the shield is chosen
4--6 you have to choose 1 side before the shield is chosen


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because if you want to randomize which facing they hit if you don´t get your preference then it should be randomized if you do get your preference

No.

The position of the shooter relative to the vehicle determines the facing that is shot at.
The only exception is LOS to that facing completely blocked, there is permission to shoot another visible facing instead, but accept a better than normal cover save.
There is no permission to make any choice regarding the facing you are shooting.

A roll-off makes sense to make the game continue only if
- the position of the shooter is really too close to call the facing with certainty
AND
- and the players cannot agree on the facing.
For example when
- the shooter is queried by the knight player trying to decide the shield facing
OR
- the shooter resolves his shots and claims an unlikely armor facing.

As soon as the facing has been determined - which it will be when in questioned or used - that is the facing.

You don't get to make up a choice that you don't have any permission for and then compromise by having only a 50% chance of an unfair advantage.
That'd be just moderately less silly as the knight player claiming that all your weapons automatically have get's hot against his units, and compromise by only insisting on it on a 4+.

The issue comes from the lack of description of how the facing is decided at all. All it says is "from where the shot is coming from". And the closest thing to tracing this mysterious shot route is assuming that it IS los. And los is clearly discribed as being traced from any part of the model.

Also, your example with los being blocked to a facing => pick another facing there's los makes the problem even more obvious. There is simply no description in the rulebook of how to determine where the shot is coming from. Means we have to roll off every time or make a houserule about it or something.

 Stephanius wrote:


No.

The position of the shooter relative to the vehicle determines the facing that is shot at.
The only exception is LOS to that facing completely blocked, there is permission to shoot another visible facing instead, but accept a better than normal cover save.
There is no permission to make any choice regarding the facing you are shooting.

A roll-off makes sense to make the game continue only if
- the position of the shooter is really too close to call the facing with certainty
AND
- and the players cannot agree on the facing.
For example when
- the shooter is queried by the knight player trying to decide the shield facing
OR
- the shooter resolves his shots and claims an unlikely armor facing.

As soon as the facing has been determined - which it will be when in questioned or used - that is the facing.

You don't get to make up a choice that you don't have any permission for and then compromise by having only a 50% chance of an unfair advantage.
That'd be just moderately less silly as the knight player claiming that all your weapons automatically have get's hot against his units, and compromise by only insisting on it on a 4+.

Have you read the whole conversation. The whole issue is that he is saying that the model wishing to fire is directly on the center apex between 2 facing. He wishes to fire at the side opposite to which his opponent as set the facing. The reason for the roll off is because koooaei won´t state which facing he will shoot at till after the facing is decided. but put the odds in a negative favor to the Knight player.


"Well, it's just our little cozy houserule.

1-3 is pretty clear by now. It's the point of view that LOS = the instrument of deciding the facing. The knight player is clearly at a disadvantage here.

4-6 is a point of view that LOS =/= the instrument of deciding the facing and as there are no other rules covering it, the facing is decided randomly. But it still needs further discussion. For example, there's a squad of 3 melta bikes close to a knight. They manage to get one in the side ark, another one in the front ark and the third one right in between the arks. "

I still don´t accept this. in a 50/50 roll of you either get your way or you don´t. You can´t set it out that you get your way or you get your way a little less. The only option is you get your way or you don´t otherwise you make it a very complicated roll off as there are so many possibilities to this issue.

1. You get to choose the side you are firing at after the facing is chosen (may split each model as you see fit)
2. You get to choose the side you are firing at after the facing is chosen (all models fire at the same side)
3. You randomise the side you shoot at after facing is chosen
4. You randomise the side you shoot at before facing is chosen
5. You get to choose the side you are firing at before the facing is chosen (may split each model as you see fit)
6. You get to choose the side you are firing at before the facing is chosen (all models fire at the same side)

It's not 'My' way. It's either we assume that los determines where the shot is coming from or not. All 'my' shots are coming from the power klaws that are in no way affected by this.

 koooaei wrote:

Also, your example with los being blocked to a facing => pick another facing there's los makes the problem even more obvious. There is simply no description in the rulebook of how to determine where the shot is coming from. Means we have to roll off every time or make a houserule about it or something.

Incorrect. There is a specific rule regarding this issue when shooting at vehicles. You can shoot at a vehicle if you have LoS to any part of the vehicle. If however the facing is obscured then the vehicle receives +1 to its cover save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
It's not 'My' way. It's either we assume that los determines where the shot is coming from or not. All 'my' shots are coming from the power klaws that are in no way affected by this.

Power Klaws?? Power Klaw is a melee weapon

So, it does depend on los?

Yes but it is more than just you get your way or you randomise it. that isn´t a fair roll off.

If it IS determined by los than cause los is traced from any point of the model, you can technically choose the arc.

Fairness is a subjective matter. I don't think it's fair that the shooter can explode my trucks when he sees 1% of the model and all my truck ever gets is 5+ cover for it.

To be honest this whole conversation I suppose lies on the fact that the Knight player accepts that you model is exactly between his 2 arcs. If you are going to spend that much time fiddling around measuring to get an exact spot then the game will end after 2-3 turns maximum.

Still curious what you were on about with Power claws though. They are melee weapons

 rawne2510 wrote:
To be honest this whole conversation I suppose lies on the fact that the Knight player accepts that you model is exactly between his 2 arcs. If you are going to spend that much time fiddling around measuring to get an exact spot then the game will end after 2-3 turns maximum.

You can measure los from any part of the model, so even if the model has a toe in another facing, it can choose to measure from a toe. Oh, the wonders of true los, right?

 rawne2510 wrote:
Still curious what you were on about with Power claws though. They are melee weapons

Yeah

Melee against a walker if front arc only


Automatically Appended Next Post:
unless it is immobilised

 koooaei wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 koooaei wrote:


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.

Lack of statement about being able to choose a facing means there is not permission to choose a facing. There's only statements about THE side that the model is facing. Since there's no permission to choose, that means that you don't get a choice of facing at the time you want - after he has selected the side for the ion shield.

You say that there is no statement about choosing a facing and than make up a statement about having to choose a facing at some specific time.

No, I'm saying that you and the opponent agree one which facing it is It's not a matter of choosing a facing, it's a case of making sure you two agree that you both are thinking it's the same facing.. He might say it's obviously only in one facing while you might think it's the other. You two should agree on what facing it is.

He is saying its both

And I refute that. If he wants to pretend that agreeing to the side that can be hit is "choosing" a side, fine. But, the opponent should be allowed to know what he thinks is the side that can be hit instead of trying to say "that's for me to know and you to find out". IIf he tried this in a tournament, the other player would be in bounds to have the tournament organizer come over and rule what side the model is firing at if he doesn't want to say, making his little tactic come to naught.

 rawne2510 wrote:
Melee against a walker if front arc only


Automatically Appended Next Post:
unless it is immobilised

He's saying his only weapons against knights are power klaws, so shooting arcs on them makes no difference to him as he won't be shooting anyway. He's saying he's not arguing this for an advantage for himself, because he won't actually get an advantage out of it. He's just arguing the side he thinks is right or playing devil's advocate.

Thought I'd clarify that for you since he doesn't seem to want to.

At least that's what we're forced to assume, otherwise there was no reason to bring it up.

 rawne2510 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

Also, your example with los being blocked to a facing => pick another facing there's los makes the problem even more obvious. There is simply no description in the rulebook of how to determine where the shot is coming from. Means we have to roll off every time or make a houserule about it or something.

Incorrect. There is a specific rule regarding this issue when shooting at vehicles. You can shoot at a vehicle if you have LoS to any part of the vehicle. If however the facing is obscured then the vehicle receives +1 to its cover save.

You shoot at the facing you are able to see and its gets +1 to its cover save.

 rawne2510 wrote:
../

Have you read the whole conversation. The whole issue is that he is saying that the model wishing to fire is directly on the center apex between 2 facing. He wishes to fire at the side opposite to which his opponent as set the facing. The reason for the roll off is because koooaei won´t state which facing he will shoot at till after the facing is decided. but put the odds in a negative favor to the Knight player.

...

Yes, I have read the entire conversation and participated previously.
I have understood the roll off idea and reject it as silly, because it is based on a flawed premise.

 koooaei wrote:
The issue comes from the lack of description of how the facing is decided at all. All it says is "from where the shot is coming from". And the closest thing to tracing this mysterious shot route is assuming that it IS los. And los is clearly discribed as being traced from any part of the model.

Also, your example with los being blocked to a facing => pick another facing there's los makes the problem even more obvious. There is simply no description in the rulebook of how to determine where the shot is coming from. Means we have to roll off every time or make a houserule about it or something.

No. Line of Sight is immaterial in this, strawman argument use aside.

The position of the shooter determines the facing. It is not mysterious. There are exactly four sitauations
a) shooter is in front of the vehicle, hits the front. (*)
b) shooter is on the right side of the vehicle, hits the right side. (*)
c) shooter is on the left side of the vehicle, hits the left side. (*)
d) shooter is behind the vehicle, hits the back. (*)

It will be always (*) a), b), c) or d). That's it.
(*) Exception: the facing you are positioned for is completely blocked, but an ajecent facing is visible as per vehicle cover rules. BRB, p.77

If two players cannot agree on the shooting unit's position relative to the facings - because it's not obvious or because one of them is being obtuse - either measure to determine in which facing more of the model is positioned or roll off to make the call if that cannot be reliably determined.

It is a useless argument anyway, since it is nearly impossible to actually place a model on the table perfectly stradling the line between the facings in the first place. Keep in mind that the line is drawn across the corners of the Knight's shoulder pads, which tend to be about 20cm up from the table. Even if someone would bring a square and a line laser and assuming that the knight is standing straight so there is no tilt to compensate for, they'll have a hard time getting it "right". If they then explain to the bemused onlookers what they are trying to do they'' ll most likely be laughted at for brazenly attempting to cheat and not understanding the squence of events in the vehicle rules.

 Stephanius wrote:
It is a useless argument anyway, since it is nearly impossible to actually place a model on the table perfectly stradling the line between the facings in the first place. Keep in mind that the line is drawn across the corners of the Knight's shoulder pads, which tend to be about 20cm up from the table. Even if someone would bring a square and a line laser and assuming that the knight is standing straight so there is no tilt to compensate for, they'll have a hard time getting it "right". If they then explain to the bemused onlookers what they are trying to do they'' ll most likely be laughted at for brazenly attempting to cheat and not understanding the squence of events in the vehicle rules.

Why would they laugh? You can easily do this topic with a vehicle or passengers in an open topped vehicle without debate. Why couldnt you do this with a large model?

Jacksmiles wrote:

 rawne2510 wrote:
Melee against a walker if front arc only


Automatically Appended Next Post:
unless it is immobilised

He's saying his only weapons against knights are power klaws, so shooting arcs on them makes no difference to him as he won't be shooting anyway. He's saying he's not arguing this for an advantage for himself, because he won't actually get an advantage out of it. He's just arguing the side he thinks is right or playing devil's advocate.

Thought I'd clarify that for you since he doesn't seem to want to.

At least that's what we're forced to assume, otherwise there was no reason to bring it up.

100% correct

Fragile wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
It is a useless argument anyway, since it is nearly impossible to actually place a model on the table perfectly stradling the line between the facings in the first place. Keep in mind that the line is drawn across the corners of the Knight's shoulder pads, which tend to be about 20cm up from the table. Even if someone would bring a square and a line laser and assuming that the knight is standing straight so there is no tilt to compensate for, they'll have a hard time getting it "right". If they then explain to the bemused onlookers what they are trying to do they'' ll most likely be laughted at for brazenly attempting to cheat and not understanding the squence of events in the vehicle rules.

Why would they laugh? You can easily do this topic with a vehicle or passengers in an open topped vehicle without debate. Why couldnt you do this with a large model?

The initial premise was that the shooting model had to be placed EXACTLY on the line dividing the facings. This is very difficult to do in practice and important to insert uncertainty into the situation, which can them be resolved by the made up solution granting the solution provider the discussed unfair advantage. Later the premise was changed to just being on the line, as long as the model is in two facings able to draw LOS. Of course, the rules do not support either premise.

Laughter is a common reaction to someone doing something ridiculous or cheeky. ;-]

Rules don't support you having to choose the facing you're facing at the start of the shooting phase. It's like forcing the opponent to declare what units are going to move, shoot, run, charge, manifest spells, what their targets and directions of movement would be - before the game starts. So that you could place the models without suffering disadvantages. Don't forget to ask if he's going to steal the ini or not before you start placing the models. Rules don't support him keeping it secret.

Fragile wrote:

 rawne2510 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

Also, your example with los being blocked to a facing => pick another facing there's los makes the problem even more obvious. There is simply no description in the rulebook of how to determine where the shot is coming from. Means we have to roll off every time or make a houserule about it or something.

Incorrect. There is a specific rule regarding this issue when shooting at vehicles. You can shoot at a vehicle if you have LoS to any part of the vehicle. If however the facing is obscured then the vehicle receives +1 to its cover save.

You shoot at the facing you are able to see and its gets +1 to its cover save.

No you still shoot at the facing you are within but get the bonus

It still doesn't help us determine a facing when we're in between a couple of them.

No it doesn´t. You need to accept that no Knight player is going to accept your premise and that a TO will be called each time. In a pick up game you are going to have to roll off that you get to pick your side to shoot at before or after the shield is decided. Remembering that this scenario is very unlikely to happen and really didn´t need 3 pages on it.