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.

So to be clear off the get go, this is NOT a RAW argument or RAW vs RAI.

This is simply, rules that exist that okay might not make huuuuge sense from a game perspective but you explain using your imagination and fluff.

For example:

True LOS, means you can shoot the model if the foot is sticking out. For the enemy they aren't shooting at the foot, the foot has given away the units position. So the shooting unit proceeds to shoot through the wall at the unit as they now know where they are. This is why they get the cover save for 50% obscured.

What are some of your rules/situations you explain with fluff and imagination.

A lot of rules people take issue with can be explained away by pointing out that a battlefield is not static. In your own example you could say the shots were taken as the enemy moved to cover or whatever. Same with tank sponsons firing at things outside their arc. Are we supposed to believe the tank just stood stock still in one spot for the duration of the battle?

 Sim-Life wrote:
A lot of rules people take issue with can be explained away by pointing out that a battlefield is not static. In your own example you could say the shots were taken as the enemy moved to cover or whatever. Same with tank sponsons firing at things outside their arc. Are we supposed to believe the tank just stood stock still in one spot for the duration of the battle?

Sounds like the excuse of some one who can't handle proper positioning of their units.

 Sim-Life wrote:
A lot of rules people take issue with can be explained away by pointing out that a battlefield is not static. In your own example you could say the shots were taken as the enemy moved to cover or whatever. Same with tank sponsons firing at things outside their arc. Are we supposed to believe the tank just stood stock still in one spot for the duration of the battle?

In a more modern game system, a reaction system would allow a unit positioned on overwatch to actually fire as the enemy moves to cover.

As it stands in 40K, per your explanation, you can fire as the unit moves to cover if they end up forgetting to hide an outstretched limb behind the wall- but if they remember to tuck it in at the end, then they can waltz into cover unopposed. Also, everybody is scooting across the battlefield in their assigned heroic pose, so that sergeant with his arm in the air to signal his men is physically incapable of not sticking it above the wall to get shot off.

I try not to rationalize the weirdness of certain aspects of 40K rules because the rationalizations quickly become dumber than the game is on its own.

In general, yes, because a turn represents a bunch of simultaneous events resolved in sequence as a matter of convenience, firing during the shooting phase does represent firing during the movement of the units in question. The actual battle isn't occurring in turns and phases with a tank driving forward, stopping, waiting for the psyker to make it Prescient, then shooting, then waiting for it's friends to charge and fight in melee, then waiting for the enemy to take all their actions, then moving again.

This is just a generalization common to all tabletop wargames as a limitation of the medium, so I wouldn't call it justifying it with fluff.

ccs wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
A lot of rules people take issue with can be explained away by pointing out that a battlefield is not static. In your own example you could say the shots were taken as the enemy moved to cover or whatever. Same with tank sponsons firing at things outside their arc. Are we supposed to believe the tank just stood stock still in one spot for the duration of the battle?

Sounds like the excuse of some one who can't handle proper positioning of their units.

Sounds like the statement of an immature person who doesn't agree with someone else's opinion.