PDA

View Full Version : Line of Sight???



chaos-nightwing
31-10-2007, 12:29
I was wondering for quite a while that a charictor mounted on monster such as damonic mount block the line of sight of archers from shooting at a unit of 25 marauder in 5 times 5 formation?

Atrahasis
31-10-2007, 12:34
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking (run-on sentence with no punctuation), but I think you're asking whether a character on a daemonic mount blocks line of sight.

The answer is yes, though it's highly unlikely that it will block LOS to an entire unit.

Artemis
31-10-2007, 13:02
When determining who can shoot, draw a line from each model that is able to fire (usually the front rank). If the base of the character on his mount (or any other model for that matter) blocks that line, then that model cannot shoot. Consequently, any model in the shooting unit that has a direct line of sight to any part of the target unit, may shoot.

See the rulebook p. 26 cf. p 8 for more details.

Kadrium
31-10-2007, 14:51
If the base of the character on his mount (or any other model for that matter) blocks that line, then that model cannot shoot.

In the interest of complete accuracy, the shooting model who's LoS is blocked does shoot, but is considered to miss automatically.

It seems like a minor point, but it can have implications in the game.

Take a unit of 3 Ogre Leadbelchers, for example. Say that two of the leadbelchers have line of sight to the intended target, but the third does not. Rather than the 3rd leadbelcher simply "not shooting", he does shoot but is counted as missing automatically.

This is important because that leadbelcher has expended his shot just like the other two, and must reload. Also, he is prone to misfires. If he did not actually shoot because of LoS, neither would impact him. Since he shoots but automatically misses, he must reload and may misfire, even though he did not have LoS to the target.

Artemis
31-10-2007, 15:08
Yes, and that's why the rules from the rulebook should be read, and an answer to a specific question should never be taken as a rule to play by.

Jonke
01-11-2007, 03:04
In the interest of complete accuracy, the shooting model who's LoS is blocked does shoot, but is considered to miss automatically.

Not sure if I agree with this. The rules says only models with los can shoot, thus models with no los cannot shoot, and a model which cannot shoot does not shoot. This most of the time has the same effect as missing.

Peace!

Artemis
01-11-2007, 03:33
Sorry, Jonke. "...and the rest automatically miss" BRB p. 26. That means they count as having fired.

Jonke
01-11-2007, 04:20
So you just ignore the line "If this is the case, only those that have line of sight to the target can shoot"? Also brb p. 26.

I interpret this rule as those with line of sight shoot, the rest doesn't and thus automatically miss. It never says those without los shoot, it says only those with los shoot implying the rest does not shoot.

Artemis
01-11-2007, 09:50
No I do not ignore that line. But you declare shooting before cheking each models's los, right ? The same way as you declare before checking range. It is stretching the wording a bit, but as the two sentences are in direct opposition one of the solutions has to be chosen. The rules say first they may not shoot, but then they have added that they automatically miss. It is not possible to miss without having shot. And that last sentence seems to be added to underline that they count as having fired, as long as you have declared shooting with that unit.

The reason I did not go into detail about this is that it is not at all in answer to the original question asked in the thread. It is more a massive derailing.

DeathlessDraich
01-11-2007, 10:59
1) "only those that have LOS [or in range - 2nd column] can shoot and the remainder automatically miss" - as usual poorly worded.

2) Warhammer terms have a specific meaning which is not always consistent with its real life equivalent. Shooting, in Warhammer, is a roll to hit using BS followed by a roll to wound OR it has its own warmachine special rules.

3) 'Automatically miss' has to be defined in terms of the game. A real life comparison for this term would be automatically miss = shot and miss (Artemis). Unfortunately this is not fully compatible with the first part of rule (1) above (Jonke).

4) pg 26 "you must roll a D6 for each model that is shooting" shows that *only* models that are shooting need to roll to hit.
Models that do not shoot, do not roll to hit. i.e. models that 'automatically miss' do *not* roll to hit.

If models that 'automatically miss' need to roll to hit, then the rules should have been phrased as: "For each model that is shooting or has automatically missed"
Or a more nebulous version - "For each model that is attempting to shoot" .

In the case of the Leadbelcher however, the artillery dice roll is for the *number of shots* and still has to be made by models without LOS or out of range.


Artemis: The danger with your version is that it seems to compel a model out of range or not having LOS to shoot (roll to hit etc). Therefore a unit of a single model without LOS has to roll to hit etc.

Artemis
01-11-2007, 13:21
DD: I didn't mean that. They obviously do not roll to hit, but they count as havig fired their weapon if that is ever relevant (bar the leadbelchers I can't think of it, really).

DeathlessDraich
01-11-2007, 16:52
Roger, understood and gotcha as they say in the states Artemis

Jonke
02-11-2007, 01:26
But you declare shooting before cheking each models's los, right ?

I can't find that in the rules and have never played anyone who has done it that way. Since you can only shoot at targets you can see you can't declare a unit is shooting at a target it doesn't see. Imo you check which targets the firer sees, then choose one to shoot at.

I find the first part of the sentence being the most important, that is where the rule is. The 'automatically miss' part is just subordinate clause meant to clarify what the effect of those not seeing anything is (unfortunately the writer never thought of leadbelchers and sallies and thus just made everything very uncler).