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.

Hey everyone,

Reece has posted the v1.2 of the Bay Area Open FAQ here:

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2013/02/22/bao-tournament-faq-v-1-2/


For those not in the know, more or less, essentially the same FAQ rulings will be used between BAO, Adepticon, WargamesCon and Feast of Blades...with the big caveat that they all reserve the right to change any of this stuff by the time their particular event rolls around.

If you're familiar with the 1st version that was released a week or two ago, then you're probably most interested in the two most contentious previous rulings, neither of which were reversed in v1.2 (although the wording on both has been changed since v1).

They are:

• For ease of tournament play, at this event, all vehicle weapons are assumed to be able to swivel vertically 180 degrees on their mount, instead of the normal 45 degrees.

• For ease of tournament play, at this event, a scoring unit is always considered to be a denial unit as well.

For the v1 release, I was not privy to the discussion involving either of these rulings, so I couldn't provide any reasoning for them. Both were discussed at length and essentially the original rulings were upheld, and I'll explain why:


As you can see from the updated wording, the attempt is being made to explain a bit that these rulings are intended not to set a precedent of what is necessarily 'right', but rather have been made primarily from a tournament organization perspective.

Resolving disputes involving vehicle vertical arc of sight shots, especially those involving flyers, is one of the most time-consuming elements for a judge (and even just for players to resolve between themselves). Unlike with horizontal arc of sight where you can lean over the table and easily hold a template above a vehicle's weapon, when dealing with vertical arc of sight, you actually have to get under the flyer model, in between any terrain and try to figure out exactly which models are within arc of sight or not.

All 4 tournament organizers unanimously agreed that they did not want this kind of issue to halt gameplay and draw judges into relatively tough judgement calls, so the decision was made to effectively lift the rules for vertical arc of sight almost completely (a 180 degree vertical arc of sight means the weapon can shoot directly up or down so long as something else isn't in its way, including its own hull, of course).


The second ruling: making all scoring units also into denial units (mostly important for The Scouring and Big Guns Never Tire missions) was made for a similar reason. One of the worst situations that can occur in a tournament is when both players finish a game thinking they've won only to then get into an argument about objective scoring. While the RAW is fairly clear on this particular matter, there seems to be a very large split of how people actually think this should be played. So the decision was made for these events that they would go with the common sense interpretation so as hopefully to reduce the amount of 'gotcha' situations at the end of games between players.


Obviously to many, these rulings will seem like blasphemy and that the tournament organizers are trying to 'change the game'. But please remember that tournament organizers reserve the ultimate right to make the call on disputes at their event, and this FAQ just clarifies how those disputes will be resolved at their events. How you play outside of these events should not be impacted by these FAQs. Finally, remember that ultimately how you choose to play a game at any event is still up to you and your opponent. If, at the start of a game you both decide you hate a particular FAQ ruling, nobody is going to come by and force you to play a certain way. This FAQ is only there to let you know how judges will rule in the case of a player dispute.

• For ease of tournament play, at this event, all vehicle weapons are assumed to be able to swivel vertically 180 degrees on their mount, instead of the normal 45 degrees.

• For ease of tournament play, at this event, a scoring unit is always considered to be a denial unit as well.

As I'm actually going to the BAO, the 180 *will* make a lot of close up Flyer measurements easier to determine. Plus, there won't be an LOS issue with the HBs on Vendettas. It's a reasonable ruling, IMHO.

Something that occurred to me; their one ruling says "dangerous terrain" creaming drop pods, not *difficult terrain*. Yes, Difficult T is dangerous for vehicles, but I wonder about the slight distinction.

Rules noted, now I can begin appeasing the dice Gods. See you there!

Wow, 180 degrees. If I was going to use a simplification for ease of guaging it, I'd probably allow them to point 45" down, since anyone can make an easy template for that using a piece of paper. But this will certainly make it easy to judge using just eyeballs...

Its all in the presentation. There's more of a distinction of "rules of engagement at this event", rather than just a "FAQ". (the right/correct/clarifying interpretation, if you will)

Actually, the math really isn't that hard:
Tan(90-22.5)=x/height of gun, x=height of gun*tan(67.5):

Ex: A tesla cannon is roughly 4in above ground, therefore, x=4*tan(67.5)=9.657...

X is the distance that a model must be from the barrel of the gun in order to be in LOS. This can easily be figured out ahead of time and a summary of flyers can be made. Furthermore, when enforced, it helps reduce the perceived power level of flyers to where the designers intended.. When you consider that a Necron Scythe actually needs to be ~9in away from a model in order to allocate wounds to it, it significantly reduces the efficacy of its firepower.

Having said that, I'm not opposed to the ruling.. Explaining this to players is easier said than done, and I'm all for games running smoothly and without delay.

 hippesthippo wrote:
Actually, the math really isn't that hard:
Tan(90-22.5)=x/height of gun, x=height of gun*tan(67.5):

Ex: A tesla cannon is roughly 4in above ground, therefore, x=4*tan(67.5)=9.657...

X is the distance that a model must be from the barrel of the gun in order to be in LOS. This can easily be figured out ahead of time and a summary of flyers can be made. Furthermore, when enforced, it helps reduce the perceived power level of flyers to where the designers intended.. When you consider that a Necron Scythe actually needs to be ~9in away from a model in order to allocate wounds to it, it significantly reduces the efficacy of its firepower.

Having said that, I'm not opposed to the ruling.. Explaining this to players is easier said than done, and I'm all for games running smoothly and without delay.

From Ferris Bueller's Day Off : Ben Stein, "The republican controlled house of representatives, in an effort to control ... " and then my eyes glassed over.

Sorry, man.

 hippesthippo wrote:
Actually, the math really isn't that hard:
Tan(90-22.5)=x/height of gun, x=height of gun*tan(67.5):

Ex: A tesla cannon is roughly 4in above ground, therefore, x=4*tan(67.5)=9.657...

X is the distance that a model must be from the barrel of the gun in order to be in LOS. This can easily be figured out ahead of time and a summary of flyers can be made. Furthermore, when enforced, it helps reduce the perceived power level of flyers to where the designers intended.. When you consider that a Necron Scythe actually needs to be ~9in away from a model in order to allocate wounds to it, it significantly reduces the efficacy of its firepower.

Having said that, I'm not opposed to the ruling.. Explaining this to players is easier said than done, and I'm all for games running smoothly and without delay.

Huh?

Triangle's. Welcome back to geometry and trig

Like I said, I'm not opposed to the ruling. I suppose a picture would make it easier, but it doesn't really matter at this point.

The math is off (as you don't have to shoot at a model's feet, and most models are over an inch tall these days), but the principle is good. And yes - I'd prefer a quick cheat sheet along the lines of "can't hit a marine-sized target closer than 6 inches" over being able to shoot straight down.

Can the hull-mounted guns on a Leman Russ shoot straight up at the fliers in return?

Wow, that's a really good point, and one that I'd completely overlooked. I suppose it would be entirely dependent on the height of each unit you're shooting at. Which, when you consider the size difference between a wraith and a marine, is actually quite substantial.

For reference, it would then have to be x=(g-t)*tan(67.5), where g is the height of the gun, t is the height of the target, and x is the distance away a target must be in order to be in LOS.

Not really sure if that would be easily applicable to a battlefield situation at this point. Nice job catching that, Janthkin.

 Janthkin wrote:
The math is off (as you don't have to shoot at a model's feet, and most models are over an inch tall these days), but the principle is good. And yes - I'd prefer a quick cheat sheet along the lines of "can't hit a marine-sized target closer than 6 inches" over being able to shoot straight down.

Can the hull-mounted guns on a Leman Russ shoot straight up at the fliers in return?

A cheat sheet wouldn't work as models being fired at vary wildly in height. For example, a flyer in front of a Trygon can see it 1" away as it is so tall...so the cheat sheet would have to cover every weapon mount on every flyer against every possible target, which is obviously impossible realistically to produce and maintain.

And yes, all vehicle weapon mounts are assumed to have a 180 degree arc of sight.

Allies of Convenience are never counted as denial units against the purchasing player. [pg. 112, W40KRB]

I don't have the rule book on me, but I just want to clarify, does this mean an allying unit will not deny a friendly primary unit from an objective? Or am I interpreting it wrong and it means an ally unit cannot deny enemy objectives, but primary units can?

 SabrX wrote:

Allies of Convenience are never counted as denial units against the purchasing player. [pg. 112, W40KRB]

I don't have the rule book on me, but I just want to clarify, does this mean an allying unit will not deny a friendly primary unit from an objective? Or am I interpreting it wrong and it means an ally unit cannot deny enemy objectives, but primary units can?

The former.

What was clear to me was even if you could get the math right (and that is a big if), either by coming up with some fancy cheat sheet, or event swag to provide some template to streamline the process. You still had the modeling issue to address. From experience, with the amount of custom flyer stands, and custom bases out there. The height and angle of how the flyer is mounted plays a significant role in determining the vertical arc. The opportunity for modeling flyers to gain an advantage on the arc ( either unintentionally or intentionally) was significant. The 180 degree call streamlines the math and lessons the impact of the modeling.

The 180 degree call streamlines the math and lessons the impact of the modeling.

It legitimizes cheaters who model for advantage and people who cheat by purposefully misinterpreting the firing arc rules.

Basically it caters to cheaters while harming everyone else. I feel like the amount of people modeling flyers to be in a perpetual nosedive needs to be confronted by TOs, not catered to.

I would be fine with 180 degree arc if you added a 'blind spot' to flyers so they can't shoot directly down. If you said 180 degree arc but cannot target models within 10" that is better than just 180 arc.

Infantry have a punishment in hitting flyers. Flyers have blindspots to balance it out. if you give flyers 180 degree arc, then allow infantry hit with regular BS.

Modeling for advantage and playing rules wrong should be confronted and not legitimized.

nkelsch wrote:

It legitimizes cheaters who model for advantage and people who cheat by purposefully misinterpreting the firing arc rules.

So your telling me my GW model Dakka Jet is modeled for advantage since the GW flight stand puts its nose down in a more dynamic pose verse my custom build dakka jet/flying rhino which has a 3rd party flight stand and is flying both higher and straight ahead? Im going to try and win at the painting level so Im not a power gamer in the least. The arc ruling levels the playing field and speeds up the game. Ive seen many people get into arguments over what a flyer can shoot and bogged down games so much they dont end and have to e babysat by a TO. This doesnt cater to cheaters, it caters to getting games done. If your infantry cant handle it, go borrow some flyers for the event.

 MikeFox wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

It legitimizes cheaters who model for advantage and people who cheat by purposefully misinterpreting the firing arc rules.

So your telling me my GW model Dakka Jet is modeled for advantage since the GW flight stand puts its nose down in a more dynamic pose verse my custom build dakka jet/flying rhino which has a 3rd party flight stand and is flying both higher and straight ahead? Im going to try and win at the painting level so Im not a power gamer in the least. The arc ruling levels the playing field and speeds up the game. Ive seen many people get into arguments over what a flyer can shoot and bogged down games so much they dont end and have to e babysat by a TO. This doesnt cater to cheaters, it caters to getting games done. If your infantry cant handle it, go borrow some flyers for the event.

SHENANIGANS. I have dakkajets and they are not nosediving like the way necron airforces are modeling. The Dakkajet barley has a 2-3 degree slant when modeled correctly.

It speeds up the game and also gives fliers a massive advantage by not needing to think tactically about your next move, as long as it is 'in front' you can hit it which is not what the rules do.

It eliminates a way for ground units to maneuver into fliers blind spots and doesn't allow infantry hit fliers easier, while fliers gain a huge advantage, become easier to play and they gain large advantage.

And 'just load up on fliers' isn't a solution or a validation of massively shifting the meta towards fliers.

The truth is cheaters have been MFA by pointing fliers down at an angle the default construction of the model do not allow and the rules do not support. This is cowardice and game harming.

muwhe wrote:
The 180 degree call streamlines the math and lessons the impact of the modeling.

While it does streamline the math for judges, I have to agree with nkelsch. This is a big boon for flyers with this call by giving a big advantage in expanding the firing opportunity with no negative repercussion. The limited angle is there for a reason as with other vehicles that have to follow similar limitations.

 yakface wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:
The math is off (as you don't have to shoot at a model's feet, and most models are over an inch tall these days), but the principle is good. And yes - I'd prefer a quick cheat sheet along the lines of "can't hit a marine-sized target closer than 6 inches" over being able to shoot straight down.

Can the hull-mounted guns on a Leman Russ shoot straight up at the fliers in return?

A cheat sheet wouldn't work as models being fired at vary wildly in height. For example, a flyer in front of a Trygon can see it 1" away as it is so tall...so the cheat sheet would have to cover every weapon mount on every flyer against every possible target, which is obviously impossible realistically to produce and maintain.

And yes, all vehicle weapon mounts are assumed to have a 180 degree arc of sight.

Let's not make this is a harder problem than it is. The GW flying stand is standard across all the available fliers, and there are only so many fliers out there. Yes, models have different heights, but you've already accepted an approximation for this ruling; the ruling could just as easily been "fliers can't shoot infantry targets w/in 6" of their base, or vehicles/MCs within 3" of the base," and been as easily enforced. And since this ruling discards the actual model already, you could just as easily discard the actual model for your cheat sheet - no MFA concerns at all.

I can play by this ruling, and I can enforce this ruling at the events I'm judging. But I think it's a bad ruling; it is the most powerful possible rule change available for flyers along the spectrum of trying to streamline gameplay.

I guess we'll just have to wait 5 days and see how much of an impact it actually has on the game.

 Janthkin wrote:
Let's not make this is a harder problem than it is. The GW flying stand is standard across all the available fliers, and there are only so many fliers out there. Yes, models have different heights, but you've already accepted an approximation for this ruling; the ruling could just as easily been "fliers can't shoot infantry targets w/in 6" of their base, or vehicles/MCs within 3" of the base," and been as easily enforced. And since this ruling discards the actual model already, you could just as easily discard the actual model for your cheat sheet - no MFA concerns at all.

I can play by this ruling, and I can enforce this ruling at the events I'm judging. But I think it's a bad ruling; it is the most powerful possible rule change available for flyers along the spectrum of trying to streamline gameplay.

This. Sorry for the short post, but Janthkin has rephrased the complaint in the exact polite, constructive, and clear way I was going to. I've run lists with multiple flyers for a good bit of 6th ed, and not giving them a dead zone for LOS in front of them is quite excessively beneficial to them.

Quick everyone, it's time to put hurricane bolters on your Stormravens now that they'll be able to more easily double tap

Exalted and +1 to Janthkin. It isn't going to be a huge difference but it is a nice compromise between RAW and ease of play.

 Janthkin wrote:
Let's not make this is a harder problem than it is. The GW flying stand is standard across all the available fliers, and there are only so many fliers out there. Yes, models have different heights, but you've already accepted an approximation for this ruling; the ruling could just as easily been "fliers can't shoot infantry targets w/in 6" of their base, or vehicles/MCs within 3" of the base," and been as easily enforced. And since this ruling discards the actual model already, you could just as easily discard the actual model for your cheat sheet - no MFA concerns at all.

I can play by this ruling, and I can enforce this ruling at the events I'm judging. But I think it's a bad ruling; it is the most powerful possible rule change available for flyers along the spectrum of trying to streamline gameplay.

Well, the notion was brought up, but frankly I do think that would be much harder for people to remember and does not take into consideration that models can be up on tall terrain directly in front of a flyer or that some flyers have multiple weapons mounted at different heights (Stormtalon, for example).

Obviously this change is a benefit to flyers from the strict rules in the rulebook, but frankly IMHO, I don't think that the 45 degree vertical arc of sight rule is something GW even considered in the 6th edition rules in relation to flyers. It was exactly the same in 5th edition, and chances are they just went with what was already there without thinking about the implications of what that meant to flyers in the actual game. I would be shocked to see the studio playing their games actually getting down and trying to figure out vertical arc of sight when firing their flyers.

I mean, just look at what they ruled regarding the Baleflamer on the Helldrake. I don't think anyone pre-FAQ could have imagined that they would rule so generously towards the Baleflamer being able to target 360 degrees. Now, I'm not saying that this is the same situation as a general arc of sight ruling for all flyers, but my point is that if I were a betting man I would bet that the studio doesn't even follow the vertical arc of sight rules for their games and therefore isn't aware of what a pain in the butt in can be to decipher when you have a bunch of flyers on the table amidst tall terrain.

So frankly, I'm okay with the ruling despite the fact that I think flyers are pretty OTT without it. I understand why the TO's involved would want and need something like this as well.

 Janthkin wrote:
Let's not make this is a harder problem than it is. The GW flying stand is standard across all the available fliers, and there are only so many fliers out there. Yes, models have different heights, but you've already accepted an approximation for this ruling; the ruling could just as easily been "fliers can't shoot infantry targets w/in 6" of their base, or vehicles/MCs within 3" of the base," and been as easily enforced. And since this ruling discards the actual model already, you could just as easily discard the actual model for your cheat sheet - no MFA concerns at all.

I can play by this ruling, and I can enforce this ruling at the events I'm judging. But I think it's a bad ruling; it is the most powerful possible rule change available for flyers along the spectrum of trying to streamline gameplay.

Completely agreed.

yakface wrote:Well, the notion was brought up, but frankly I do think that would be much harder for people to remember and does not take into consideration that models can be up on tall terrain directly in front of a flyer or that some flyers have multiple weapons mounted at different heights (Stormtalon, for example).

This ruling ignores those considerations as well and does so in a way that IMO alters core gameplay much more significantly.

yakface wrote:I mean, just look at what they ruled regarding the Baleflamer on the Helldrake. I don't think anyone pre-FAQ could have imagined that they would rule so generously towards the Baleflamer being able to target 360 degrees.

Actually I was almost certain this would happen given any FAQ and I believe the same will likely happen if/when the Doom Scythe is ever FAQed. The community interpretation of Torrent and other "draw a line" type weapons is IMO clearly at odds with designer intent. Whether that makes the game better or worse is of course a different question.

If folding a piece of paper in half to make a 45 degree angle is too difficult for people then why not go the extra mile and just give everything a 360 degree arc of fire? This change eliminates a major balancing element with a realllllly flimsy justification.

And this flimsy fix does nothing to address the storm raven top turret shooting through its own hull.

And I see nothing that the vertical arc rule for vehicles somehow was never intended to apply to flyers, and tha the creators are in a magic room ignoring established, non-ambiguous aspects of the core rules.

Saying a dragon with a flexible neck dropping flames everywhere means the creators intended for all flyers to shoot straight down and that tanks in turn gain the ability to shoot straight up, is absurd.

It is a bad ruling which basically rewards the only people who have a problem following the core rules... Basically because cheaters MFA and/or argue about not understanding how fire arc rules, the entire event rolls over and let's them "win" the argument, legitimizing their indefensible positions.

If flyers shooting directly down was not a huge advantage, why would people MFA with nosediving models, or argue they should get. Larger fire arcs in the first place? This is more than FAQing away a hard to use rule mechanic which has no clear advantages.

nkelsch wrote:
And this flimsy fix does nothing to address the storm raven top turret shooting through its own hull. .

Sorry, I might be missing something, but how does this in anyway suggest you can shoot through your own hull? Even with this ruling I don't see how it's any different than land raider sponsons. Edit: In fact, Yakface states that your own hull would block your LOS.

Now for my main point - I am not in any shape or form saying I agree with such a ruling (I really think it is wildly unnecessary) but as somebody who has been playing with Night Scythes for the entirety of 6th edition I have to say this:

Even when playing with a 45 degree (which from the BRB is pretty clear it's 45 degrees in either direction), it's extremely hard for a player to deny a NS shooting at a unit short of blocking its ability to move. Measuring it myself right now with my 100% vanilla modeled Night Scythe and a standard AOBR marine, you have to be roughly within 2.5" for me to not be able to fire at it. I have to be at least 1" away, so you have roughly a 1.5" area for you're entire unit of your MEQ to fill in. You have to somehow measure all that out before I even move my model.. so you're talking about an incredible amount of effort to prevent me from shooting. Even then, you're probably not considering that I could move a few degrees left or right and see you're unit that way (don't forget.. the guns also have a 45 degree horizontal swivel...).

I guess my point is just that while I think this ruling was completely unnecessary, I really don't think it changes much.. If you were able to move to the position to be in my blind spot before, you can probably move that extra 0.51" and just prevent me from moving to that space altogether.

Lastly as a general comment, if you're playing against some guy that has his flyers MFA and he's really trying to cheese out that extra little bit of LOS, simply talk about it ahead of time. If he's nasty about it, call a judge over. I've never heard of a tournament being won by a player doing this, generally if somebody is scummy enough that they need to do something like that to try and win, they're probably a pretty terrible player.