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 as I've poured through the rule book all I can find on shooting weapons is that if your not sure about line of sight get down "behind " the model shooting to see if it has line of sight. Does this mean that all vehicals can only shoot in their forward arc or are pivots free during the shoot phase since movement does not specify how to move a vehical.

I'm pretty sure "behind" refers to "behind your model when looking at the target through your own model", and doesn't refer to the actual back/rear of the model.
And if it was the latter, it wouldn't just affect vehicles, but infantry models could also only shoot at what's in front of them.

Well the rules are pretty vague on targeting and have nothing about line of sight. Me and the shop owner are talking about supplementing our local tournaments with some of the concrete rules from 7th but we need more games to decide on them. I feel that the lack of rules is going to cause a lot of arguments especially with the kinds of players.i know.

there are no more arcs, everything shoots 360.
why make it harder?
let 7th edition go...

Rules as written, everything shoots anywhere, no such thing as firing arcs anymore.

And I'm ok with that. The only amendment I would make, and how I will probably play it, is that you measure distances from the gun, not the hull, and the gun needs to be able to see the target, assuming full and free rotation of the vehicle.

For example: If a unit is on the left side of a land raider, I'm fine with guns on both sides of the raider being able to shoot at it. You can presume that the vehicle could turn and fire, because there's no such thing as vehicle facing or side/rear armor.

What is dumb, to me, is that according to the rules, if the front bumper of that same land raider can see a target from around the corner of a solid bunker, all the guns can shoot from that bumper.

this edition is about ease of play.
you're fighting that by adding extra rules

My first game at five hundred points took three hours. My first game of 6th took two hours at 1500 points. Eighth is complicatedly simple. It's a bunch of guidelines which means that there is no solid black and white for how units interact. Granted, I'm only a couple. Games in but I feel all the rules should be laid out black and white not all over the books and mix n match.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
there are no more arcs, everything shoots 360.
why make it harder?
let 7th edition go...

Its not about shooting 360, its about where exactly you are able to draw line of sight from. And sadly because the rules provide absolutely no guidance beyond (get behind your model and look), you really have to talk with your opponent about how the two of you are going to play checking line of sight, just so both players are on the same page. And sadly when the rules are in that state, you really need to have some kind of tournament guidelines or else there will be arguments when one player wants to stretch the rule as far it will go, and the other guy wants to play a style that makes more logical sense to him.

The main question you need to ask your opponent before you start: do you want to draw line of sight from behind ANY part of the model, including from its feet? Because I think that's probably the easiest way to find the line where players stand on this matter. If both players are cool with drawing line of sight from the firing models feet, under the tracks of a Leman Russ to shoot a guardsman's feet behind that tank (which is RAW), then cool, everyone will be on the same page. But if one guy wants to play with drawing line of sight only from slightly 'above' models and the discussion isn't had pre-game, then there will be arguments and the game might potentially be ruined for one player.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Rules as written, everything shoots anywhere, no such thing as firing arcs anymore.

And I'm ok with that. The only amendment I would make, and how I will probably play it, is that you measure distances from the gun, not the hull, and the gun needs to be able to see the target, assuming full and free rotation of the vehicle.

For example: If a unit is on the left side of a land raider, I'm fine with guns on both sides of the raider being able to shoot at it. You can presume that the vehicle could turn and fire, because there's no such thing as vehicle facing or side/rear armor.

What is dumb, to me, is that according to the rules, if the front bumper of that same land raider can see a target from around the corner of a solid bunker, all the guns can shoot from that bumper.

This is what I am on board with. It makes sense and isn't complicated. Just like troops in the rear aren't visually obstructed by troops in the front, for the sake of simplicity the tank shouldn't obstruct its own weaponry. I.e. Left lascannon can shoot to the right. However if another obstruction is in the way like a building, the tank can't choose the target. Otherwise we willl have everyone parallel parking behind buildings with their noses sticking out, reaping in that +1 cover save. And that isn't sportsmanlike

Don't make it overly complicated. I assume if the bumper of a pred can see the target the las can punch through whatever it's shooting at to get the shots to the target.

I actually prefer this over firing arcs and not being able to split fire. It's much simpler and speeds up the game a great deal.

Don't forget this edition is a lot more about the models being used as abstract representations of a whirling maelstrom of carnage and bloodshed than other editions.

You're not actually using the Holy Mudflap of Malcador's Left Testicle to see around corners with a Land Raider, perhaps you shot it while moving INTO position, or some other such abstraction.

To this end it's easier to just draw LOS from anywhere on the model. Remember in previous editions they went so far out of their way to define firing arcs and whatnot and then leave it to the physical model to depict it instead of the unit's rules, meaning you could turret mount sponsons for an objective advantage.

vaurapung wrote:
My first game at five hundred points took three hours. My first game of 6th took two hours at 1500 points. Eighth is complicatedly simple. It's a bunch of guidelines which means that there is no solid black and white for how units interact. Granted, I'm only a couple. Games in but I feel all the rules should be laid out black and white not all over the books and mix n match.

How in the world did a 500 pt game of 8th Edition take 3 hours? You could literally spend 2 hours re-reading the core rules and handful of datasheets and then spend an leisurely hour playing the game. My first 1000 pt game took about an hour.

So after reading and reading the rules and index for several hours every single turn was filled with well how does this work exactly and then ten to fifteen minutes of its not in the book. Plus all weapon and special rules changed and then having to flip the index to find the unit then find the weapon then check the unit again for special rules that aren't in the rule book then go back to the rule book and see if any of the rules conflict. Oh and deployment for only war took an hour because we couldn't find the section on how to deploy and start a game. In the end after today's arguments in a two hour 1000 point game the rule book needs to have some better rules. We spent 30 minutes on what is the hull of a triarch stalker when charging it because it has no base and the rule book doesn't specify as far as I know. Then another 30 minutes on wether a ghost ark had cover from my guardians shooting at it. The rules being vague just invites conflicts.

 yakface wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
there are no more arcs, everything shoots 360.
why make it harder?
let 7th edition go...

Its not about shooting 360, its about where exactly you are able to draw line of sight from. And sadly because the rules provide absolutely no guidance beyond (get behind your model and look), you really have to talk with your opponent about how the two of you are going to play checking line of sight, just so both players are on the same page. And sadly when the rules are in that state, you really need to have some kind of tournament guidelines or else there will be arguments when one player wants to stretch the rule as far it will go, and the other guy wants to play a style that makes more logical sense to him.

The main question you need to ask your opponent before you start: do you want to draw line of sight from behind ANY part of the model, including from its feet? Because I think that's probably the easiest way to find the line where players stand on this matter. If both players are cool with drawing line of sight from the firing models feet, under the tracks of a Leman Russ to shoot a guardsman's feet behind that tank (which is RAW), then cool, everyone will be on the same page. But if one guy wants to play with drawing line of sight only from slightly 'above' models and the discussion isn't had pre-game, then there will be arguments and the game might potentially be ruined for one player.

well as "behind" is opposite from the "front" then you would need to basically go through the center of the model.

LOS is now from any part of the shooter to any part of the target. Once you have let the "FEELS WRONG" go it plays quite nicely.

Then you also have to let go "how come I don't get a cover save you can only see my turret?" And when you do it's also still fine as you have tonnes of wounds.

8th plays fine so long as you don't try and 7th it.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
LOS is now from any part of the shooter to any part of the target. Once you have let the "FEELS WRONG" go it plays quite nicely.

Then you also have to let go "how come I don't get a cover save you can only see my turret?" And when you do it's also still fine as you have tonnes of wounds.

8th plays fine so long as you don't try and 7th it.

Well the rules do state cover can be fifty percent obscurity but I'm not holding on to 7th I'm trying to absolve the issues of not having a real rule book and line of sight is going to be the biggest issue in our club since everyone can play it different.

Eighth feels like playing a game of chess when you don't know what piece can do what but instead of having a book that you can read to learn about the pieces (unit types) we are left to argue about it.

As much I want to implement seventh rules for Los and unit types. After about five years of playing I was planning for this to be my first year of going to a big tournament but now I'm just lost not knowing what to do about the lack of rules. How will I know if I'm getting cheated Or the one cheating and with a minimum of tow hour drive just to go to a tournament I don't want to spend my time there trying to learn how to play. I already play an underdog army as is.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Don't forget this edition is a lot more about the models being used as abstract representations of a whirling maelstrom of carnage and bloodshed than other editions.

You're not actually using the Holy Mudflap of Malcador's Left Testicle to see around corners with a Land Raider, perhaps you shot it while moving INTO position, or some other such abstraction.

To this end it's easier to just draw LOS from anywhere on the model. Remember in previous editions they went so far out of their way to define firing arcs and whatnot and then leave it to the physical model to depict it instead of the unit's rules, meaning you could turret mount sponsons for an objective advantage.

Nope. Game clearly isn't abstracting things with ideas that tank would be shooting on the way. That's stupid idea that is not supported by rules that obviously assume things in battle happen like in game steps

I'm just speaking American English here but from what I understand Englishmen say exactly what they mean. If it is left vague - that doesn't mean they didn't consider the fact that your gun might not actually have line of site to the vehicle. They fully knew that might be the case - but they told you how to handle that situation. If you can see the target at eye level with your eyes - then you can shoot it.

If that were the case then what does "from behind the model mean. Does the vehical need to end it's movement front facing the target since the rules have nothing to note about what weapons are (like turret, hull mounted, sponson). And what is the front of the vehical. What is the hull of a vehical if a triarch stalker has a front limb in sight can I shoot it or is that a weapon not the hull. Vice versa can he shoot his heat ray from that limb.

"2. Choose Targets
Having chosen a shooting unit, you must pick the target unit, or units, for the attacks. In order to target an enemy unit, a model from that unit must be within the Range of the weapon being used (as listed on its profile) and be visible to the shooting model. If unsure, stoop down and get a look from behind the shooting model to see if any part of the target is visible. For the purposes of determining visibility, a model can see through other models in its own unit."

So there is no line of sight just range measured from weapon then the target unit need to be visible and in front of the firing model.

So what is the front of a vehical. Or do we need to keep a running tab of handshake rules. That way no one can change "their rules" mid game.

And when I say my games have taken multiple hours it's this rule and this whole discussion every game so far with necrons. Nids are no problems it's understood (from 7th) that monstrous creatures can shoot from any point of the model.

vaurapung wrote:
If that were the case then what does "from behind the model mean. Does the vehical need to end it's movement front facing the target since the rules have nothing to note about what weapons are (like turret, hull mounted, sponson). And what is the front of the vehical. What is the hull of a vehical if a triarch stalker has a front limb in sight can I shoot it or is that a weapon not the hull. Vice versa can he shoot his heat ray from that limb.

"2. Choose Targets
Having chosen a shooting unit, you must pick the target unit, or units, for the attacks. In order to target an enemy unit, a model from that unit must be within the Range of the weapon being used (as listed on its profile) and be visible to the shooting model. If unsure, stoop down and get a look from behind the shooting model to see if any part of the target is visible. For the purposes of determining visibility, a model can see through other models in its own unit."

So there is no line of sight just range measured from weapon then the target unit need to be visible and in front of the firing model.

So what is the front of a vehical. Or do we need to keep a running tab of handshake rules. That way no one can change "their rules" mid game.

"For the purposes of determining visibility, a model can see through other models in its own unit." - This means the model (which is a model in it's own unit) can see through itself.

Other models implies that there has to be more than one model in the unit for the rule. New point if I can shoot through my own unit then does that mean that if Los draws though another unit I can't shoot that target.

Stop thinking its 7ed, You just draw LoS from the model to a model in all situations. Vehicles don't have to draw LoS from its gun, you can draw LoS from the hub cap and you'd get to shoot. If you can see any part of the unit then you can shoot it.

And you I would never play because your gonna peek that land raider in front of a corner and claim all your guns can shoot me. Thats preposterous and it not how the rules are stated. And I'm not thinking its seventh edition I'm thinking the rules aren't clear, just maybe concrete rules meant that when there was a disagreement we could actually check the rules on it rather than be bitter about for the rest of the game because one of us dealt cheated.

vaurapung wrote:
And you I would never play because your gonna peek that land raider in front of a corner and claim all your guns can shoot me. Thats preposterous and it not how the rules are stated. And I'm not thinking its seventh edition I'm thinking the rules aren't clear.

The rule is clear - it's just blowing you mind because it would be physically impossible for such a large tank to shoot all it's guns through a little hole. But in this game it can do it.

A single model is still a member of it's own unit - they just wrote the rule so it also covers shooting through any of your units.

Forget everything you know about 7th edition. Don't compare 8th edition to 7th edition. Look at it as a completely different game. This rule "makes no sense" because you are looking at it from a 7th edition perspective where you drew line of sight from the actual vehicle weapon.

Now, you draw line of sight from anywhere on the vehicle. If this means that a Land Raider can poke just a small sliver of it's hull around a building to shoot both Lascannons, the Heavy Bolter, and pintle mounted Multi Melta, then that's the rule. If you say that is a dumb rule, then how so? Fluff reason: That Land Raider isn't sitting still. Imagine it moving forward, taking it's shots, then ducking back behind cover. Or maybe it shot its weapons on the way to that spot. Or maybe the target moved within sight of the Land Raider and it took the shots as shots of opportunity. There are a bunch of fluff reasons to make this rule work. You are just not using your imagination to justify it.

The mechanics of the game are very abstract. Battles are not fought in real life according to move, psychic phase, shoot, fight, and morale check. Rules wise: it simplifies and speeds up game play and prevents the old arguments about weapons drawing line of sight, as well as those stupid weapon fire arcs that no one used anyways.

Then tell me sir. Why not write the rule book to describe what you just did. Why did games workshop not explain any of that in the book.

vaurapung wrote:
Then tell me sir. Why not write the rule book to describe what you just did. Why did games workshop not explain any of that in the book.

why would they need to? Why should they write rules like people are carrying baggage from previous editions?

Read a rule book for chess. It states what Evey piece is what it's purpose is and how is a can move and how it can capture another piece. That's all I'm asking for clear tangibly tactile rules. Just because eighth is made for the people who would lead with the tape measure or not properly measure their ranges does not mean that it needed to have no rules. Not because 7th had them. Because every war game I have ever played has them. Word Star Wars minutures, chess, shogi, risk, mid evil total war, empire at war and so many more. What makes eighth different


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually now that I'm thinking about it. For the bumper trick I would argue that the model your looking behind is the pilot or gunner of the vehical, the target needs to be in his sights in order to declare the attack.

vaurapung wrote:
Read a rule book for chess. It states what Evey piece is what it's purpose is and how is a can move and how it can capture another piece. That's all I'm asking for clear tangibly tactile rules. Just because eighth is made for the people who would lead with the tape measure or not properly measure their ranges does not mean that it needed to have no rules. Not because 7th had them. Because every war game I have ever played has them. Word Star Wars minutures, chess, shogi, risk, mid evil total war, empire at war and so many more. What makes eighth different


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually now that I'm thinking about it. For the bumper trick I would argue that the model your looking behind is the pilot or gunner of the vehical, the target needs to be in his sights in order to declare the attack.

Even with the baggage from 7th, it's clear that in 8th edition, "Vehicle" is just a tag. So, if you already accept a monstrous "creature" such a a wraithknight shooting from a little sliver, and you can see that now a land raider is treated as the same thing, it's obvious that a land raider should now benefit from the same treatment.

We have one set of rules now for everything, and you want GW to add in some patronizing statements like, yes, the rules also apply to vehicles, and yes, they apply to walkers, and yes, they apply to flyers, and yes, they apply to fortifications, and to orks, and to space marines, and to chaos, and to tau, and all the rest. If a unit works differently, it will say so.

The rules for chess wouldn't have to give you separate rules for every single piece if they all moved the same way. The rules for pawns aren't repeated 16 times.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Don't forget this edition is a lot more about the models being used as abstract representations of a whirling maelstrom of carnage and bloodshed than other editions.

You're not actually using the Holy Mudflap of Malcador's Left Testicle to see around corners with a Land Raider, perhaps you shot it while moving INTO position, or some other such abstraction.

To this end it's easier to just draw LOS from anywhere on the model. Remember in previous editions they went so far out of their way to define firing arcs and whatnot and then leave it to the physical model to depict it instead of the unit's rules, meaning you could turret mount sponsons for an objective advantage.

I agree with this. A model is a model. It is an abstraction. For years we've been told that vehicles have facings and arcs of fire and turrets, etc. Now, they're just models with X amount of shooting weapons. Draw line of sight from the model and then fire all of its weapons. There are no "facings", so assume that the vehicle wheeled about to bring all of its weapons to bear. Choose a spot on the vehicle, draw line of sight from it. If it can see the opposing model, it can fire.

This edition is all about making the game easier to play.


Edit: Basically, what Pink Horror said above. Think about a Land Raider the same way you'd think about a Carnifex, because when it comes to their rules, there's no distinction other than what's on their datasheets.