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.

It's pretty easy to achieve when you have something like bikers, deepstrikers - especially droppods - or mages that can move something across the board.

And if the knight player doesn't accept the concept that seems to be the closest to raw simply because he is using knights...doesn't it make him TFG actually?

How do you solve this situation? CSM stayed in back armour arc. But he can't see dreadnought's back. BRB says that vehicle will get +1 to a cover? But which armour is faced by CSM? If you think that armor facing depends on LOS CSM is faced side armour. But in this case you can ignore ion shield because of it.(armour facing depends on LOS). Otherwise CSM shots are resolved on dreadnought's back.
P.S. Sorry for my English. It's not my native language.

Reading the thread and the BRB, I have to say that the model can effectively ignore the ion shield. The reason is:
"A model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy, weather with a power sword, gun or psychic power... 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" (pg 14)
"if, when you come to allocate a wound, the target model's body is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save" (pg 37)
So when we ask where a shot comes from, we determine it as the point of view from the firer (as shown with the cover saves). This point of view can be from any part of the firers body.
So then applying this to the following rule: "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from." (pg 75) this allows us to effectively chose the facing we shoot at if the shooters body is in both arcs.

Not that this bothers me as I like to run Burning Chariots

ahnob wrote:
How do you solve this situation? CSM stayed in back armour arc. But he can't see dreadnought's back. BRB says that vehicle will get +1 to a cover? But which armour is faced by CSM? If you think that armor facing depends on LOS CSM is faced side armour. But in this case you can ignore ion shield because of it.(armour facing depends on LOS). Otherwise CSM shots are resolved on dreadnought's back.
P.S. Sorry for my English. It's not my native language.

You resolve against the rear armour because that is the side you are shooting at. LoS to side armour is what is letting you shoot at the model but that is all. The model will get a 3+ cover save

JakeSiren wrote:
Reading the thread and the BRB, I have to say that the model can effectively ignore the ion shield. The reason is:
"A model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy, weather with a power sword, gun or psychic power... 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" (pg 14)
"if, when you come to allocate a wound, the target model's body is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save" (pg 37)
So when we ask where a shot comes from, we determine it as the point of view from the firer (as shown with the cover saves). This point of view can be from any part of the firers body.
So then applying this to the following rule: "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from." (pg 75) this allows us to effectively chose the facing we shoot at if the shooters body is in both arcs.

Not that this bothers me as I like to run Burning Chariots

Seems legit

rawne2510 wrote:

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

JakeSiren wrote:Reading the thread and the BRB, I have to say that the model can effectively ignore the ion shield. The reason is:
"A model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy, weather with a power sword, gun or psychic power... 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" (pg 14)
"if, when you come to allocate a wound, the target model's body is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save" (pg 37)
So when we ask where a shot comes from, we determine it as the point of view from the firer (as shown with the cover saves). This point of view can be from any part of the firers body.
So then applying this to the following rule: "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from." (pg 75) this allows us to effectively chose the facing we shoot at if the shooters body is in both arcs.

rawne2510 wrote:

ahnob wrote:
How do you solve this situation? CSM stayed in back armour arc. But he can't see dreadnought's back. BRB says that vehicle will get +1 to a cover? But which armour is faced by CSM? If you think that armor facing depends on LOS CSM is faced side armour. But in this case you can ignore ion shield because of it.(armour facing depends on LOS). Otherwise CSM shots are resolved on dreadnought's back.
P.S. Sorry for my English. It's not my native language.

You resolve against the rear armour because that is the side you are shooting at. LoS to side armour is what is letting you shoot at the model but that is all. The model will get a 3+ cover save

Incorrect, most of you.

From Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets:

It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case, they may take the shot against the facing they can see, but to represent such an extremely angled shot, the vehicle receives a cover save one point better than that given by the cover obscuring the vehicle’s other facing.

My apologies on that one.

 Charistoph wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:Reading the thread and the BRB, I have to say that the model can effectively ignore the ion shield. The reason is:
"A model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy, weather with a power sword, gun or psychic power... 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" (pg 14)
"if, when you come to allocate a wound, the target model's body is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save" (pg 37)
So when we ask where a shot comes from, we determine it as the point of view from the firer (as shown with the cover saves). This point of view can be from any part of the firers body.
So then applying this to the following rule: "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from." (pg 75) this allows us to effectively chose the facing we shoot at if the shooters body is in both arcs.

Incorrect, most of you.

From Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets:

It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case, they may take the shot against the facing they can see, but to represent such an extremely angled shot, the vehicle receives a cover save one point better than that given by the cover obscuring the vehicle’s other facing.

That's true, I had forgotten about that situation. However I believe my core argument is still correct. If you are on the line you still get to chose which arc you are firing in. In the situation where one facing is obscured it basically means whether or not you chose to give a +1 cover save or not.

A shooter is permitted to resolve their shots against THE singular facing he is in relative to the target vehicle. There is no provision for a choice. The BRB authors did consider a unit comprised out of multiple models across two facings, even there each individual model is counted as wholly within one facing.

Ergo : You get to choose which facing you shoot by moving around your target to that facing. If you are on the line, it's either majority or roll off. The End.

 Stephanius wrote:
A shooter is permitted to resolve their shots against THE singular facing he is in relative to the target vehicle. There is no provision for a choice. The BRB authors did consider a unit comprised out of multiple models across two facings, even there each individual model is counted as wholly within one facing.

Ergo : You get to choose which facing you shoot by moving around your target to that facing. If you are on the line, it's either majority or roll off. The End.

Your choice is chosing where on your model the shot comes from. This point determines the armour facing that you are shooting at as well as cover saves and other factors. I see no rules issues doing it this way as shown in my rules quotes earlier in the thread. Your "majority" has no basis in the rules as near as I can tell.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
From Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets:

It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case, they may take the shot against the facing they can see, but to represent such an extremely angled shot, the vehicle receives a cover save one point better than that given by the cover obscuring the vehicle’s other facing.

That's true, I had forgotten about that situation. However I believe my core argument is still correct. If you are on the line you still get to chose which arc you are firing in. In the situation where one facing is obscured it basically means whether or not you chose to give a +1 cover save or not.

It is not a choice of which side you shoot. This is detailing a situation where you are in the Rear arc, but literally cannot see it, but you can see the Side Arc. It is a choice of giving a +1 Cover Save or not firing at all. You do not choose which side you shoot at here.

 Charistoph wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
From Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets:

It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle. In this case, they may take the shot against the facing they can see, but to represent such an extremely angled shot, the vehicle receives a cover save one point better than that given by the cover obscuring the vehicle’s other facing.

That's true, I had forgotten about that situation. However I believe my core argument is still correct. If you are on the line you still get to chose which arc you are firing in. In the situation where one facing is obscured it basically means whether or not you chose to give a +1 cover save or not.

It is not a choice of which side you shoot. This is detailing a situation where you are in the Rear arc, but literally cannot see it, but you can see the Side Arc. It is a choice of giving a +1 Cover Save or not firing at all. You do not choose which side you shoot at here.

Then we are talking about different situations as I was initially talking about when a model was on the line in both arcs. As you quoted me I assumed you were then talking about a situation where by a model was in both arcs but terrain was positioned in such a way that the shooter could only see one facing regardless of which arc they were shooting from, hence my comment above.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
A shooter is permitted to resolve their shots against THE singular facing he is in relative to the target vehicle. There is no provision for a choice. The BRB authors did consider a unit comprised out of multiple models across two facings, even there each individual model is counted as wholly within one facing.

Ergo : You get to choose which facing you shoot by moving around your target to that facing. If you are on the line, it's either majority or roll off. The End.

Your choice is chosing where on your model the shot comes from. This point determines the armour facing that you are shooting at as well as cover saves and other factors. I see no rules issues doing it this way as shown in my rules quotes earlier in the thread. Your "majority" has no basis in the rules as near as I can tell.

No. You are confusing shooting rules and line of sight with the "shooting at vehicles, vehicles and armour values" rules.

Shooting rules say that if you have LOS to your target, you can shoot it. Agreed, but that has nothing to do with armour facings.
You do NOT shoot an armor facing, you shoot the entire vehicle. As such checking LOS, range, cover all deal with one target model, not four model-parts.

Vehicle Facing and Armour Values. BRB p.75
Shots are resolved aginst the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from.
To see what facing a shot is comming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below).
If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of the target vehicle (...) shots are resolved separattely for each facing.

The third sentence clarifies that the position of the firing models determines "where the shots are comming from".
Which actually makes sense, since the shooting rules only cover being able to see, hit and damage an entire model, not part of a model and we are dealing with model parts here.

Since the rules make no provision for models on the line between two facings, each model must be treated as standing in and shooting from one facing.
The logical way to do that is to check in which facing more of the model is positioned, or failing that, rolling 4+ for it.

 Stephanius wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
A shooter is permitted to resolve their shots against THE singular facing he is in relative to the target vehicle. There is no provision for a choice. The BRB authors did consider a unit comprised out of multiple models across two facings, even there each individual model is counted as wholly within one facing.

Ergo : You get to choose which facing you shoot by moving around your target to that facing. If you are on the line, it's either majority or roll off. The End.

Your choice is chosing where on your model the shot comes from. This point determines the armour facing that you are shooting at as well as cover saves and other factors. I see no rules issues doing it this way as shown in my rules quotes earlier in the thread. Your "majority" has no basis in the rules as near as I can tell.

No. You are confusing shooting rules and line of sight with the "shooting at vehicles, vehicles and armour values" rules.

Shooting rules say that if you have LOS to your target, you can shoot it. Agreed, but that has nothing to do with armour facings.
You do NOT shoot an armor facing, you shoot the entire vehicle. As such checking LOS, range, cover all deal with one target model, not four model-parts.

Vehicle Facing and Armour Values. BRB p.75
Shots are resolved aginst the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from.
To see what facing a shot is comming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below).
If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of the target vehicle (...) shots are resolved separattely for each facing.

The third sentence clarifies that the position of the firing models determines "where the shots are comming from".
Which actually makes sense, since the shooting rules only cover being able to see, hit and damage an entire model, not part of a model and we are dealing with model parts here.

Since the rules make no provision for models on the line between two facings, each model must be treated as standing in and shooting from one facing.
The logical way to do that is to check in which facing more of the model is positioned, or failing that, rolling 4+ for it.

Ok, so how do you determine what part of the shooter the shots are coming from? I ask because if the shooter is sitting behind a chest high ruins wall, is shooting at an otherwise unobscured vehicle, and isn't using a specific point on their body as determined by the controlling player for the shot, what cover save does the vehicle receive? If we go with the majority of the shooter then the Vehicle would get a 4+ cover save.


Side note: Ugh, never realized how badly the below bolded part was written. "My Lascannon shot is coming from your side armour". Me thinks they meant "shot is hitting"

Vehicle Facing and Armour Values. BRB p.75
Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from.
To see what facing a shot is coming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below).[/b][/i]
If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of the target vehicle (...) shots are resolved separattely for each facing.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
A shooter is permitted to resolve their shots against THE singular facing he is in relative to the target vehicle. There is no provision for a choice. The BRB authors did consider a unit comprised out of multiple models across two facings, even there each individual model is counted as wholly within one facing.

Ergo : You get to choose which facing you shoot by moving around your target to that facing. If you are on the line, it's either majority or roll off. The End.

Your choice is chosing where on your model the shot comes from. This point determines the armour facing that you are shooting at as well as cover saves and other factors. I see no rules issues doing it this way as shown in my rules quotes earlier in the thread. Your "majority" has no basis in the rules as near as I can tell.

No. You are confusing shooting rules and line of sight with the "shooting at vehicles, vehicles and armour values" rules.

Shooting rules say that if you have LOS to your target, you can shoot it. Agreed, but that has nothing to do with armour facings.
You do NOT shoot an armor facing, you shoot the entire vehicle. As such checking LOS, range, cover all deal with one target model, not four model-parts.

Vehicle Facing and Armour Values. BRB p.75
Shots are resolved aginst the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from.
To see what facing a shot is comming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below).
If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of the target vehicle (...) shots are resolved separattely for each facing.

The third sentence clarifies that the position of the firing models determines "where the shots are comming from".
Which actually makes sense, since the shooting rules only cover being able to see, hit and damage an entire model, not part of a model and we are dealing with model parts here.

Since the rules make no provision for models on the line between two facings, each model must be treated as standing in and shooting from one facing.
The logical way to do that is to check in which facing more of the model is positioned, or failing that, rolling 4+ for it.

Ok, so how do you determine what part of the shooter the shots are coming from? I ask because if the shooter is sitting behind a chest high ruins wall, is shooting at an otherwise unobscured vehicle, and isn't using a specific point on their body as determined by the controlling player for the shot, what cover save does the vehicle receive? If we go with the majority of the shooter then the Vehicle would get a 4+ cover save.

...

We are not drawing LOS at this point. Checking LOS, range and so on happens before we roll to hit. That is already done, or we wouldn't be trying to check armour penetration.

We are instructed to check the relative position of the shooting model to the target vehicle. There is no destinction for model parts, parts you drew LOS from earlier or anything else. Each model has to pen against the armour facing determined by its relative position. In fact, you could replace the model with an empty base as position marker and it would not matter for determining the facing
.

 Stephanius wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
A shooter is permitted to resolve their shots against THE singular facing he is in relative to the target vehicle. There is no provision for a choice. The BRB authors did consider a unit comprised out of multiple models across two facings, even there each individual model is counted as wholly within one facing.

Ergo : You get to choose which facing you shoot by moving around your target to that facing. If you are on the line, it's either majority or roll off. The End.

Your choice is chosing where on your model the shot comes from. This point determines the armour facing that you are shooting at as well as cover saves and other factors. I see no rules issues doing it this way as shown in my rules quotes earlier in the thread. Your "majority" has no basis in the rules as near as I can tell.

No. You are confusing shooting rules and line of sight with the "shooting at vehicles, vehicles and armour values" rules.

Shooting rules say that if you have LOS to your target, you can shoot it. Agreed, but that has nothing to do with armour facings.
You do NOT shoot an armor facing, you shoot the entire vehicle. As such checking LOS, range, cover all deal with one target model, not four model-parts.

Vehicle Facing and Armour Values. BRB p.75
Shots are resolved aginst the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from.
To see what facing a shot is comming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below).
If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of the target vehicle (...) shots are resolved separattely for each facing.

The third sentence clarifies that the position of the firing models determines "where the shots are comming from".
Which actually makes sense, since the shooting rules only cover being able to see, hit and damage an entire model, not part of a model and we are dealing with model parts here.

Since the rules make no provision for models on the line between two facings, each model must be treated as standing in and shooting from one facing.
The logical way to do that is to check in which facing more of the model is positioned, or failing that, rolling 4+ for it.

Ok, so how do you determine what part of the shooter the shots are coming from? I ask because if the shooter is sitting behind a chest high ruins wall, is shooting at an otherwise unobscured vehicle, and isn't using a specific point on their body as determined by the controlling player for the shot, what cover save does the vehicle receive? If we go with the majority of the shooter then the Vehicle would get a 4+ cover save.

...

We are not drawing LOS at this point. Checking LOS, range and so on happens before we roll to hit. That is already done, or we wouldn't be trying to check armour penetration.

We are instructed to check the relative position of the shooting model to the target vehicle. There is no destinction for model parts, parts you drew LOS from earlier or anything else. Each model has to pen against the armour facing determined by its relative position. In fact, you could replace the model with an empty base as position marker and it would not matter for determining the facing
.

Where does it say we check the relative position of the shooting model? Read it again, it's talking about the relative position of the shot, which comes from a point on the models body, or did you forget "Shots are resolved aginst the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from. To see what facing a shot is comming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below)"

So we check where the shot is coming from (a point on the firing model), then check which arc it lands in by using the imaginary lines. I don't see how your position is supported by the rules.

"The Ork with the Melta Gun, which firing arc is he in?"

"The front and the side"

"Ok, my Ion Shield will be on Side Armor then"

"Alright I am going to fire the Melta Gun at the knight, I am going to fire from this model's right hand, striking the front arc as per all the fancy and legal measuring I am about to do."

"Aw ya dang dirty Ork, why you do that, I wanted you to shoot from his left hand, striking his side?"

"Harr harr harr"

A hostile hulking walking robot with blades whirling and guns blazing is rapidly crossing the field. The sound of explosions everywhere around you. You run up to the robot's side but there's only time to get so far before getting blasted to bits. You line up your trusty meltagun and...everything suddenly goes silent.
The robot asks: "Where are you gona shoot?".
You think: "Well, the side should probably have more weak points than the front and i can see it as well.
"The side" - you say.
"Ok" - says the enormous death-dealing robot. A thin blue shell apears over it's side. "Proceed".
"Darn, i should have chosen the front" - you think to yourself before aiming at the side with a shield and pulling a trigger.

 koooaei wrote:
A hostile hulking walking robot with blades whirling and guns blazing is rapidly crossing the field. The soulnd of explosions everywhere around you. You run up to the robot's side but there's only time to get so far before getting blasted to bits. You line up your trusty meltagun and...everything suddenly goes silent.
The robot asks: "Where are you gona shoot?".
You think: "Well, the side should probably have more weak points than the front and i can see it as well.
"The side" - you say.
"Ok" - says the enormous death-dealing robot. A thin blue shell apears over it's side. "Proceed".
"Darn, i should have chosen the front" - you think to yourself before aiming at the side with a shield and pulling a trigger.

I charge the enemy and wipe them out. I am then surrounded by Vindicators in their turn.

"Curses, if only I were able to kill all but one enemy so these Vindicators wouldn't attack me!"

OR

The enemy charge into your lines and slaughter a unit, leaving all but one expendable guardsman surrounded by enemies in the swirling melee.
Your Leman Russ Demolisher brings it's cannon round, but the Company Commander yells out over the vox.

"Are you mad, man? You might hit our own soldier! We'll just have to wait until he dies in a matter of moments, wait for them to move, shoot and charge, and THEN you can destroy them!"

Realise how stupid that logic is now?

It all comes down to who has the priority. The shooter, who's arc must be decided, or the Knight, who's arc must be decided. Given that the shooter should only be able to hit one side, as per the rules, and the impossibility of being equidistant, I would give the Knight priority. If you want to bypass the shield, bait it out instead of relying on playing a psuedo-shell game.

In fact, better yet, write both intentions down on a piece of paper. Shooter writes their angle, Knight writes theirs. Reveal at the same time. If it works, it works.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Realise how stupid that logic is now?

I guess i'm too obscure

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
A shooter is permitted to resolve their shots against THE singular facing he is in relative to the target vehicle. There is no provision for a choice. The BRB authors did consider a unit comprised out of multiple models across two facings, even there each individual model is counted as wholly within one facing.

Ergo : You get to choose which facing you shoot by moving around your target to that facing. If you are on the line, it's either majority or roll off. The End.

Your choice is chosing where on your model the shot comes from. This point determines the armour facing that you are shooting at as well as cover saves and other factors. I see no rules issues doing it this way as shown in my rules quotes earlier in the thread. Your "majority" has no basis in the rules as near as I can tell.

No. You are confusing shooting rules and line of sight with the "shooting at vehicles, vehicles and armour values" rules.

Shooting rules say that if you have LOS to your target, you can shoot it. Agreed, but that has nothing to do with armour facings.
You do NOT shoot an armor facing, you shoot the entire vehicle. As such checking LOS, range, cover all deal with one target model, not four model-parts.

Vehicle Facing and Armour Values. BRB p.75
Shots are resolved aginst the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from.
To see what facing a shot is comming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below).
If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of the target vehicle (...) shots are resolved separattely for each facing.

The third sentence clarifies that the position of the firing models determines "where the shots are comming from".
Which actually makes sense, since the shooting rules only cover being able to see, hit and damage an entire model, not part of a model and we are dealing with model parts here.

Since the rules make no provision for models on the line between two facings, each model must be treated as standing in and shooting from one facing.
The logical way to do that is to check in which facing more of the model is positioned, or failing that, rolling 4+ for it.

Ok, so how do you determine what part of the shooter the shots are coming from? I ask because if the shooter is sitting behind a chest high ruins wall, is shooting at an otherwise unobscured vehicle, and isn't using a specific point on their body as determined by the controlling player for the shot, what cover save does the vehicle receive? If we go with the majority of the shooter then the Vehicle would get a 4+ cover save.

...

We are not drawing LOS at this point. Checking LOS, range and so on happens before we roll to hit. That is already done, or we wouldn't be trying to check armour penetration.

We are instructed to check the relative position of the shooting model to the target vehicle. There is no destinction for model parts, parts you drew LOS from earlier or anything else. Each model has to pen against the armour facing determined by its relative position. In fact, you could replace the model with an empty base as position marker and it would not matter for determining the facing
.

Where does it say we check the relative position of the shooting model? Read it again, it's talking about the relative position of the shot, which comes from a point on the models body, or did you forget "Shots are resolved aginst the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from. To see what facing a shot is comming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below)"

So we check where the shot is coming from (a point on the firing model), then check which arc it lands in by using the imaginary lines. I don't see how your position is supported by the rules.

As I said above, the first two sentences talk about shots, the third sentence clarifies that the position of the shooting models is what matters.
Besides, I also bet RAI for "where did that shot come from?" was simply "that model there, behind the rhino", not "that cleverly positioned models left foot".

 Stephanius wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
A shooter is permitted to resolve their shots against THE singular facing he is in relative to the target vehicle. There is no provision for a choice. The BRB authors did consider a unit comprised out of multiple models across two facings, even there each individual model is counted as wholly within one facing.

Ergo : You get to choose which facing you shoot by moving around your target to that facing. If you are on the line, it's either majority or roll off. The End.

Your choice is chosing where on your model the shot comes from. This point determines the armour facing that you are shooting at as well as cover saves and other factors. I see no rules issues doing it this way as shown in my rules quotes earlier in the thread. Your "majority" has no basis in the rules as near as I can tell.

No. You are confusing shooting rules and line of sight with the "shooting at vehicles, vehicles and armour values" rules.

Shooting rules say that if you have LOS to your target, you can shoot it. Agreed, but that has nothing to do with armour facings.
You do NOT shoot an armor facing, you shoot the entire vehicle. As such checking LOS, range, cover all deal with one target model, not four model-parts.

Vehicle Facing and Armour Values. BRB p.75
Shots are resolved aginst the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from.
To see what facing a shot is comming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below).
If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of the target vehicle (...) shots are resolved separattely for each facing.

The third sentence clarifies that the position of the firing models determines "where the shots are comming from".
Which actually makes sense, since the shooting rules only cover being able to see, hit and damage an entire model, not part of a model and we are dealing with model parts here.

Since the rules make no provision for models on the line between two facings, each model must be treated as standing in and shooting from one facing.
The logical way to do that is to check in which facing more of the model is positioned, or failing that, rolling 4+ for it.

Ok, so how do you determine what part of the shooter the shots are coming from? I ask because if the shooter is sitting behind a chest high ruins wall, is shooting at an otherwise unobscured vehicle, and isn't using a specific point on their body as determined by the controlling player for the shot, what cover save does the vehicle receive? If we go with the majority of the shooter then the Vehicle would get a 4+ cover save.

...

We are not drawing LOS at this point. Checking LOS, range and so on happens before we roll to hit. That is already done, or we wouldn't be trying to check armour penetration.

We are instructed to check the relative position of the shooting model to the target vehicle. There is no destinction for model parts, parts you drew LOS from earlier or anything else. Each model has to pen against the armour facing determined by its relative position. In fact, you could replace the model with an empty base as position marker and it would not matter for determining the facing
.

Where does it say we check the relative position of the shooting model? Read it again, it's talking about the relative position of the shot, which comes from a point on the models body, or did you forget "Shots are resolved aginst the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from. To see what facing a shot is comming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle (see diagram below)"

So we check where the shot is coming from (a point on the firing model), then check which arc it lands in by using the imaginary lines. I don't see how your position is supported by the rules.

As I said above, the first two sentences talk about shots, the third sentence clarifies that the position of the shooting models is what matters.

You mean this one? "If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of the target vehicle (...) shots are resolved separately for each facing." where it tells us to resolve the shots separately if you are hitting different facings? Rather then the first sentence that says we use where the shot is coming from on the model?
Ok, let's assume you are 100% right regarding how you determine armour facing. As written the rules don't distinguish between a vehicle shooting at a vehicle, a MC shooting at a vehicle, or a biker shooting at a vehicle.
So if we have a Predator tank with Las Sponsons. The Predator moves so that it is half and half on the imaginary dividing line. Each sponson is clearly in separate armour arcs. So, by your argument both Las shots hit the same armour facing as it is the position of the shooting models that is what matters, not where the shot is coming from. Did I understand your argument correctly?

JakeSiren wrote:

...

You mean this one? "If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of the target vehicle (...) shots are resolved separately for each facing." where it tells us to resolve the shots separately if you are hitting different facings? Rather then the first sentence that says we use where the shot is coming from on the model?
Ok, let's assume you are 100% right regarding how you determine armour facing. As written the rules don't distinguish between a vehicle shooting at a vehicle, a MC shooting at a vehicle, or a biker shooting at a vehicle.
So if we have a Predator tank with Las Sponsons. The Predator moves so that it is half and half on the imaginary dividing line. Each sponson is clearly in separate armour arcs. So, by your argument both Las shots hit the same armour facing as it is the position of the shooting models that is what matters, not where the shot is coming from. Did I understand your argument correctly?

You did understand my argument clearly.

The relative position of the whole model will also work fine for vehicles, however I agree with you that you can end up with silly situations when combining sponsons limited fire-arcs with close proximity to the target. In that case I would indeed borrow from the vehicle shooting rules and use firing arcs to help determine the hit armor facing.

Note that in this case the armour facing is still determined by the position of the model and not a choice the shooter makes in the shooting phase.
That might also be the reason for the funky wording "where the shot is comming from", i.e. "that model there, to the tank's side" or "that sponson here, in the rear facing".


In the interest of clarity, I've made three diagrams as a summary.
(note: I'm aware that even that knight's facings are not perfect 90 degree angels, but as a visual aid I figured it was fine.)


This is what the BRB illustration and rules talks about. Each model is sitting nice and pretty in one facing.

My reading as to possible shots the units can take:
Cawl: rear
Breacher unit 1: 1x rear, 2x right side
Breacher unit 2: 1x rear, 2x left side




This is what the thread is primarily about. Koooaei's claim that he can make a deliberate choice to shoot different facings - either because the model is in two facings or because he can trace LOS for the shooting from any part of the model.

My reading as to possible shots the units can take:
Cawl: rear
Breacher unit 1: 2x right side, 1x rear. 1B is further into the side than the rear. 1A further to the rear.
Breacher unit 2: 2x rear, 1x left side. 2A and 2B are further into the rear than to the side.

Koooaei's reading would be - if I understood correctly:
Cawl: rear
Breacher unit 1: 1x rear, 2x rear OR(*) right side
Breacher unit 2: 1x left side, 2x rear OR(*) left side
(*) to be decided by the shooter when shooting, not to be declared for the ion shield.




JakeSiren then pointed out that vehicles with limited fire arcs might be very close.

My reading on the predator would be:
Autocannon and left sponson left side, right sponson rear.

I'm guessing the opposite view would be:
Autocannon shoots rear OR side
Sponsons shoot side and rear respectively.

 Stephanius wrote:

I'm guessing the opposite view would be:
Autocannon shoots rear OR side
Sponsons shoot side and rear respectively.

Actually, no. The opposite view is that LOS = Line of shooting. Los for vehicle is measured from the weapon's barrel. So, The autocannon's gona trace to side. Now is you place it directly in the middle, it's gona be a roll-off. But it's gona happen right before shooting cause you measure los before shooting.

It's also a far less cumbersome system than measuring the percentage of the model in one side or another - especially cause it can't be done with just bases - the bodies matter. It's understandable why you want the knight side to have an advantage - such a well painted model.

 koooaei wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

I'm guessing the opposite view would be:
Autocannon shoots rear OR side
Sponsons shoot side and rear respectively.

Actually, no. The opposite view is that LOS = Line of shooting. Los for vehicle is measured from the weapon's barrel. So, The autocannon's gona trace to side. Now is you place it directly in the middle, it's gona be a roll-off. But it's gona happen right before shooting cause you measure los before shooting.

ok, the line diving the facings is tangential to the turret's mount, rather than running through the turret's pivot point, so turning the turrent may place the muzzle on the line, but it won't place the gun on the line. That may however be sufficient for 40k physics, and I'm not certain that any rule explicitly forbids you to shoot in a 30 or even 90 degree angle from your guns muzzle, any more than any rules prohibit tanks from moving sideways.

The point remains, you claim a choice of facing for that gun, I was just wrong about the exact way you'd claim it.

 koooaei wrote:

It's also a far less cumbersome system than measuring the percentage of the model in one side or another - especially cause it can't be done with just bases - the bodies matter. It's understandable why you want the knight side to have an advantage - such a well painted model.

Thank you for the compliment ... even if it does come with an accusation of bias! That is a Cerastus Knight Atrapos, which requires at least as many knights of other types in an Oathsworn detachment. It's the only knight I have, which means that I cannot play it as ally to my Cult Mechanicus or even if I would play War Convocation, couldn't play it there either. CM and Skitarii have no LOW slots, I'd need to put 500 points minimum into CAD requirements to unlock a LOW slot or play ally games. That is not something I like to do. In fact, I usually see knights only on the opposing side. So I'm right in the boat with your greenskins where knights are concerned - shooting at them. Granted, two shots haywire from the breachers are nicer than some rocket orks. However, the knight as vehicle target is only relevant due to the ion shield rule. In principle the claim of a facing choice applies to all vehicles.

I find it funny that you'd consider rolling off or trying to get away with a deliberate choice of facing more cumbersome than eyeballing it. If you look at the second picture, it is very easy to see which model is in which facing. No measuring as such needed. That is also my experience when playing. The only questions that have ever come up are to establish a common understanding, i.e. "That guy and that guy are in the rear, the others in the side." "ok".

 Stephanius wrote:

...
JakeSiren then pointed out that vehicles with limited fire arcs might be very close.

My reading on the predator would be:
Autocannon and left sponson left side, right sponson rear.

Thank you for the awesome visual aids. They really help in discussions like this.

So I wanted to discuss the situation of the Predator specifically. To me it doesn't appear that you are applying what you have been arguing consistently. As I mentioned before, the rules for shooting at vehicles don't differentiate between a vehicle shooting at a vehicle, or a Breacher shooting at a vehicle. So what rule are you using to allow the left sponson and right sponson to hit different sides?

I would like to say that I don't disagree with your conclusion for the Predator, as I believe that you have used Line of Sight of the weapons. But you should also be consistent and also use Line of Sight for the Breachers - which allows you to specify any point on their body as being where the shot comes from and would therefore determine which armour arc they are shooting in.

Holy feth Balls! You've painted your Cawl already?!?!

 kronk wrote:
Holy feth Balls! You've painted your Cawl already?!?!

Yup!

Say hello to my little friend!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

...
JakeSiren then pointed out that vehicles with limited fire arcs might be very close.

My reading on the predator would be:
Autocannon and left sponson left side, right sponson rear.

Thank you for the awesome visual aids. They really help in discussions like this.

So I wanted to discuss the situation of the Predator specifically. To me it doesn't appear that you are applying what you have been arguing consistently. As I mentioned before, the rules for shooting at vehicles don't differentiate between a vehicle shooting at a vehicle, or a Breacher shooting at a vehicle. So what rule are you using to allow the left sponson and right sponson to hit different sides?

I would like to say that I don't disagree with your conclusion for the Predator, as I believe that you have used Line of Sight of the weapons. But you should also be consistent and also use Line of Sight for the Breachers - which allows you to specify any point on their body as being where the shot comes from and would therefore determine which armour arc they are shooting in.

It's not as clean as I'd like, I agree, but I actually didn't use LOS.

For a vehicle which is unable to hit the facing that the majority of the model is in with at least one of its weapons, I treated those like the rules for units with multiple models in more than one facing. I used the location of the weapons - since that is where the shots came from.

I still don't think LOS "any part of the model" is applicable for non-vehicles. Yes, it is used to check if you have the option to take a shot, but that doesn't make the shot come from the models left foot. The shot comes from the whole model for non-vehicles. If it didn't, we could use that to deny cover saves left and right: "no cover, see, my guy can see all of your guy from the hand he has stretched out" or "no cover, my dood is shooting with his left foot this time to avoid that skimmer nose he would otherwise have in the view.".

Iirc there is no restriction on measuring from the closest point of a vehicle hull or fire hatch so embarked crews that can shoot have always been able to do this if they park the hull or fire hatch anywhere along the areas that differentiate sides from front or rear.

 Stephanius wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

...
JakeSiren then pointed out that vehicles with limited fire arcs might be very close.

My reading on the predator would be:
Autocannon and left sponson left side, right sponson rear.

Thank you for the awesome visual aids. They really help in discussions like this.

So I wanted to discuss the situation of the Predator specifically. To me it doesn't appear that you are applying what you have been arguing consistently. As I mentioned before, the rules for shooting at vehicles don't differentiate between a vehicle shooting at a vehicle, or a Breacher shooting at a vehicle. So what rule are you using to allow the left sponson and right sponson to hit different sides?

I would like to say that I don't disagree with your conclusion for the Predator, as I believe that you have used Line of Sight of the weapons. But you should also be consistent and also use Line of Sight for the Breachers - which allows you to specify any point on their body as being where the shot comes from and would therefore determine which armour arc they are shooting in.

It's not as clean as I'd like, I agree, but I actually didn't use LOS.

For a vehicle which is unable to hit the facing that the majority of the model is in with at least one of its weapons, I treated those like the rules for units with multiple models in more than one facing. I used the location of the weapons - since that is where the shots came from.

The rules don't allow you to treat vehicles as a unit with multiple models. And you basically used LoS for the weapons on the vehicle to determine the armour facing - "When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them at the target and then trace line of sight from each weaons' mounting and along its barrel..." pg 74

 Stephanius wrote:

I still don't think LOS "any part of the model" is applicable for non-vehicles.

What about open topped chariots? Such as the Tzeentch Burning Chariot? Where I can sit it in between the arcs and specify where on the Chariot model the LoS, and therefore shot is drawn from?

 Stephanius wrote:
Yes, it is used to check if you have the option to take a shot, but that doesn't make the shot come from the models left foot. The shot comes from the whole model for non-vehicles. If it didn't, we could use that to deny cover saves left and right: "no cover, see, my guy can see all of your guy from the hand he has stretched out" or "no cover, my dood is shooting with his left foot this time to avoid that skimmer nose he would otherwise have in the view.".

Completely wrong. Let's look at the bolded sentence and assume you are correct for a moment. Say a Breacher is behind a ruin's wall which comes up chest high on it. If the shot is coming from the entire Breacher's body then the wall would be blocking over 75% of the shot. Which gives the Knight a 4+ cover save.
Alternatively, we use Line of Sight, which the shot would be coming from the Breachers head (assuming the controlling player is maximizing damage), and would not grant the Knight a cover save from the chest high wall.


Do you see all of the problems created by avoiding using Line of Sight as the origin of the shot? And how the rules work properly when you do use LoS as the origin? To demonstrate how the process would work:

Shooter would decide on where LoS is determine from, or where the shot is determined from. They consult the rule book on determining the armour facing.
Step 1: "Shots are resolved against the facing of the vehicle that the shot comes from"
Ok, so we know that we are considering where the shot comes from, but how to do we determine the armour facing?
Step 2: "To see what facing a shot is coming from, draw two imaginary lines through the corners of the vehicle"
Ok, awesome, so now we know we need to resolve the shot against front / side / rear armour. But what happens if I have shots in different facings?
Step 3: "Shots are resolved separately for each facing"
Sweet, so for my Predator each Las Sponson is resolved separately on each facing. Too easy.

See how much easier that is? We don't have to make exceptions for vehicles. We don't have to give extra cover saves. It. Just. Works. RAW.