PDA

View Full Version : Firing Blind?



BigbyWolf
01-03-2009, 14:24
Just finished a game which featured my Greenskins against a magic heavy VC army, I won, but in the first turn we had an interesting tactical issue.

He deployed all of his units behind cover, so they were totally out of sight to the three rocklobbers and doomdiver I had on a hill. Lacking any viable targets I asked my opponent if I could fire at random pieces of scenary, with the chance of hitting something through scatter (something we'd never tried before). As we didn't have a rulebook handy we were unable to check the rules on this, but my opponent said it was realistic and he was fine with it. So I fired my artillery and managed to take down a couple of skeletons and 2 Blood Knights due to lucky rolls.

We were just wondering if anybody else had done this or had any thoughts on the situation?

selone
01-03-2009, 14:37
I didn't think you could fire at things you couldn't see? thats where the whole, frowned upon, deliberately guessing too long gameplay issue came from.

Braad
01-03-2009, 14:41
I don't think there is any rule on this. I guess they assumed you should fire at a target. But I don't think there is anything stopping you from firing at something that isn't there.

Though I do think that it is prohibited to shoot behind LoS blocking terrain on purpose, as you need line of sight to your intended target, even if that target is open ground.

I don't think it is a nice thing to target a piece of scenery with enemy behind it, to hope for a lucky hit, when your crews can't have a clue if there is something behind it.

Stuffburger
01-03-2009, 14:49
Rules as written a stone thrower fires at a specific model it can see. If no models are visible, you are out of luck.

However, I and many others would allow blind firing at cover if no other choices are around, as that would be the logical thing for the crews to do.

Avian
01-03-2009, 14:50
By the rules, you have to nominate a visible enemy model as the target and guess the range to that as accurately as you are able to (the latter is of course not always easy to check).

theunwantedbeing
01-03-2009, 14:51
Illegal to intentionally fire at a target you cannot see.
Page 92, BRB, under Firing a Stone thrower, second paragraph

Rock Lobba's and Doom Divers fire using the rules for Stone throwers
Page 27, Orcs&Goblins Armybook

Can't see anything, can't fire at anything.

On a side note, it's always makes the game more interesting if you allow scenery to be destroyed by rogue hits from war machines. Although the scenery is still not going to be a valid target unless something is visibly hiding in it.

Condottiere
01-03-2009, 15:49
It's fun in video games - on the tabletop I'd have to say no, since it's too easy to abuse it.

BigbyWolf
01-03-2009, 16:13
Just to clarify...I didn't aim at things they were hiding behind, I picked a well and a tied up dwarf (from BfSK boxed set?) which were out in the open and about 8-9" away from anything of his.

"Illegal to intentionally fire at a target you cannot see.
Page 92, BRB, under Firing a Stone thrower, second paragraph"

I only intentionally fired at the terrain.

However, if, as Avian states "you have to nominate a visible enemy model as the target" I shouldn't have been allowed to do it...although the bound dwarf could have loosely been considered as one! :D

Good job it was just a friendly game...

With regards to damaging the terrain, I did score a direct hit on both of the pieces of terrain, so we just removed the dwarf and assumed the rock dropped into the well with a loud "Splosh!"...which resulted in us declaring the ground 1" in diamater from the well as difficult terrain, due to the spreading puddle!