PDA

View Full Version : LOS and siege weapons (must see)



Dragoon999
01-09-2010, 16:59
I posted this in the Lizzy section but wanted to get some focused feedback. It just smacked me right in the face and I went DAMN!!! Heres where GW balanced the no guess range and it was right in front of me the whole time.


A note on the cannon vs stegadon issue and hiding him:
Shouldn't some chameleon skinks take care of that? Sure, the cannon can see the steg, but it's hardly of any use since it always bounces. And if he can't see the ground before the steg (since the skinks are in the way) he cant' target the ground, right?
There should be at least 12" from the skinks to the steg, and sure, chances are the cannonball bounces up to 20", but shouldn't it save him some of the time?


If the cannon can see the stegadon it can shoot at it, and it is not easy to hide a stegadon (espeacially the newest stegadons.). If you put skinks in front of a stegadon your opponent can just guess over the skinks and go bowling for stegadons, if you place them close he can go bowling for stegadons at the same time that he bowls for skinks.

Hmmm this brings up an insanely good point I believe all of us are overlooking.

1. there is no guess anymore on siege weapons
2. cannon rules clearly state it has to have line of sight to its target point(wether that be the ground or the steggy itself) it specifies a point on the table as being classified as a (target), hence following all LOS target restrictions.
3. LOS specifically says from a models point of view, meaning if you cannot see the ground beyond a unit in your LOS you cannot target that point on the ground and must target the unit in front or the steggy in this case.
4. I would say you better position your skirmish units carefully as they have gaps that a war machine can see through.

Using these 4 things together (as intended) the cannon cannot see the ground behind a ranked up unit(unless on a hill).

O.K. I'm done:cool:

russellmoo
01-09-2010, 17:52
All this type of thinking does is encourage players to bring laser pointers, to determine TLOS which is obnoxious. Just let the player shoot your steg with the cannon. That much being said, players should be reasonable when determining LOS. Personally, if a steg is behind a building, even if part of it sticks out, I wouldn't shoot at it as it's clear the only reason the steg is behind the building is because you are trying to hide it. Plus, since cannonballs don't bounce through obstacles- they probably shouldn't bounce through a building either.

Dragoon999
01-09-2010, 18:02
All this type of thinking does is encourage players to bring laser pointers, to determine TLOS which is obnoxious. Just let the player shoot your steg with the cannon. That much being said, players should be reasonable when determining LOS. Personally, if a steg is behind a building, even if part of it sticks out, I wouldn't shoot at it as it's clear the only reason the steg is behind the building is because you are trying to hide it. Plus, since cannonballs don't bounce through obstacles- they probably shouldn't bounce through a building either.

Hmmm maybe you did'nt read my post since this has nothing to do with shooting the steg but rather the ground behind the unit in front of him.

Kind of hard to judge distance when theres no scale to compare it to and the fact that the rules specify the ground as a target which therefore requires LOS.

Kind of hard to mark a point on the ground to shoot at if you cant see the ground.

Also if GW did not think it was a big deal then why put it in the rules.

Please respond about things that matter, putting a steg behind a building and obstacles does not involve targeting the ground.

This is very reasonable as it is stated in the rules(ever think it may be there for a reason)

TheKingInYellow
01-09-2010, 18:27
Enjoy playing your opponents *once* because if you actually pulled this out in a friendly game, they won't be playing you again.

Dragoon999
01-09-2010, 18:36
Enjoy playing your opponents *once* because if you actually pulled this out in a friendly game, they won't be playing you again.

WOW!!!

At any point in time did I specify this was about me or me wanting this to happen.

This is basically a brand new game with all new rules. I am trying to find anyone intelligent enough to explain it differently to me other then the way the rules are written without boiling it down to thats just wrong.

Alot of things seem wrong in this edition but they are still the rules.

A slann stands above the unit in front of him but no one ?'s why is he allowed a -2 to be shot, but you want to bash this(someone please give me a well thought out response) how is a slann bobbing behind a unit and a steg(besides 1 being a large target) subject to different rules?

Also you do realize that the steggy gets a -2 modifier to be shot if more then 50% of it is covered by anything other then an obstacle.

ChrisIronBrow
01-09-2010, 18:40
What's really amusing is the rules for template warmachines. They specify you must place the "entire" template within Line of sight...

Good luck trying to see both the top and bottom, left and right sides of the template at the same time.

Damocles8
01-09-2010, 18:47
interesting thought, kind of moot because you could see between the skinks themselves....

Dragoon999
01-09-2010, 19:55
Look at the tabletop from you models point of view instead of looking over him.
Now place a 20 man ranked unit 10" in front of him. Now give it a 1" wheel or don't
Now place a unit behind them 6"to10" and look at it from your models point of view.

P.S. if your looking between his legs or under his armpit and calling LOS who's cheating now.

now place a die behind the 1st unit and start moving it out inch by inch don't move to the left and right because your model cant do this either. If your struggling to see it (which you are) then trying to shoot a cannon through the armpit of a unit in front of you to hit the ground behind it, to me is cheating. You may target the steggy all you want but trying to shoot just beyond 1 unit to hit another behind it by targeting the ground so you compensate for the avg die roll and the bounce is cheezy as all hell.

Stop looking at the game from the same view we always have its a models view now(theres a huge difference)

Loopstah
01-09-2010, 19:59
You mean some people don't deploy their war-machines on hills?

TheKingInYellow
01-09-2010, 20:18
WOW!!!

At any point in time did I specify this was about me or me wanting this to happen.

I didn't imply that you did. I'm saying that if, in a friendly game, someone was to make this argument, it would be detrimental to many people's desire to play that person again.

Dragoon999
01-09-2010, 20:34
You mean some people don't deploy their war-machines on hills?

Thank you:D

GW actually mentions this in the rulebook for being able to see over units as it raises your units point of view and allows you to see behind the unit your trying to see over.

This is why hills still exist otherwise whats the use for them.

pg. 118
models on a hill are more likely to be able to (trace LOS) past other models on a lower level, making hills practical vantage points for your missle troops(see page 10 for a reminder of how LOS works)

I know because this game has taken such a drastic change to LOS and they don't use pictures as they do in 40k, you guys are being way to lax, allowing siege weapons way too much freedom and not taking into account that GW wrote the rules for an actual purpose.

I believe people looking through holes in ranked units to draw LOS are seriously skewing LOS, especially when trying to trace LOS to the GROUND behind a ranked unit(I mean please people)

Grey Hunter 88
01-09-2010, 20:54
I actually thought it was laid out perfectly clear in the rulebook, that a cannon needs line of sight to the point it wishes to fire. So, for example, a cannon behind a unit of guys, even though it can see the stegadon in the distance, couldn't place a marker 7" in front of him, since it would have no line of sight to the ground there.

I play dwarves, I have a pair of cannons, and I have been utterly devestating my friend's stegadons by the second turn of the game. I think re-reading the rules makes it quite clear that you can't simply place a marker anywhere within 48" of a cannon and go for gold.

Anyone who would not want to play you again for using the rules ( a very fair, and narrative rule mind you) for siege engines is daft. I'd say "Great" to not having to play them again.

If you want to have full reign of fire for a cannon, you have to deploy it with some risks. Otherwise I'd just deploy my warmachines behind dwarf warriors and have his 3 stegadons and carnosaur dead before they could sneeze, without any risk at all to my machines.

Dragoon999
01-09-2010, 20:57
Thank you to another person

I was really hoping I was not the only one reading the rules correctly and everyone on here was trying to call ME the git-lol:D

FYI I play dwarves and lizzys so either way it goes hurts me....but rules are rules and made for balance (hopefully)

Haravikk
01-09-2010, 22:39
A cannon only has to aim at a "point", while it goes on to say that this can be the ground it doesn't say that the only two things you can aim for are the ground or a model, you could aim for a point in the air if you wish. As all templates are resolved in a two dimensional way you'll still hit your intended target :)

Sure it's silly, but as with stone throwers you can position the template anywhere you like in line of sight to fire directly, doesn't mean you can't hold the template above the things you want to hit, as that's a point within line of sight and therefore meets the criteria.

If someone's going to argue that I can't hit a stegadon because some skinks are in the way, then I'm going to aim above their heads and hit whatever I damned well please anyway.

So both cases are silly; I think it's better to just say that one is a great way to bring back sportsmanship in the event of "cannon blocking", because abusing either exploit will lose you opponents :D

Grey Hunter 88
01-09-2010, 22:59
Let's not be dramatic here.

By that reading of the rules, I could position my cannon behind a rocky outcropping, aim at a "point" above it and 2" further ahead, and end up shooting my cannon over the rocky outcropping and hitting a guy hiding on the other side.

Let's be serious... =P

Quoting straight from the rulebook though:

(112): Nominate a point within the war machine's line of sight and that is not outside the cannon's maximum range. Your target does not have to be an enemy model; it can be a point on the ground if you wish.

That makes me think that if you could shoot the air, they would have said a point on the ground "for example", not as the only other option. As it is, your only two options are a model, or a point on the ground, within range and LINE OF SIGHT.

(112): Using your tape measure, extend a line from the cannon's barrel all the way to your target point. Roll the artillery dice and extend the line away from the cannon the number of inches shown - this is where your cannonball strikes the ground.

Two problems here. First, how can the cannonball strike the ground 12" into the air? Secondly, if you drew a line from the barrel of your cannon above the heads of the skinks, it would keep going at an upwards angle and would never hit the ground.

Cannons are not cruise missiles, and let's be honest, they shouldn't be. They're way too deadly as they are, without these reasonable constraints, they are utterly broken.

LOS is easier to abuse in your mind than in real life. Try positioning those skinks at the perfect angle and distance that the cannon can't draw a bead, and vice versa. It can be done, but on the tabletop, in a game, unless you're the most ornery bugger there is, it's not going to happen that easily. There are advantages and disadvantages to screening models in that way, but I don't even want to imagine hiding my warmachines behind stout blocks of warriors and killing those monsters without even facing the return wrath of those chameleon skinks and such.

Dragoon999
01-09-2010, 23:05
A cannon only has to aim at a "point", while it goes on to say that this can be the ground it doesn't say that the only two things you can aim for are the ground or a model

hmmm actually it does only list those 2 possible targets.




If someone's going to argue that I can't hit a stegadon because some skinks are in the way, then I'm going to aim above their heads and hit whatever I damned well please anyway.

Also no one is saying you can't target the steggy...rules state you can't target the ground behind the unit the steggy is in front of. Unless you are on a hill and actually have the angle to do draw LOS to the ground to cheezy guess and bounce into the steggy.

Please read before posting as you clearly stated something I never said....hence why you did not quote me.

xxRavenxx
01-09-2010, 23:38
Things which will mess up this *abuse* of the TLOS rules:

1. Cannon's are taller than skinks, this will often allow them to see over them.

2. There are gaps between skinks. You can often aim down the aisle and through.

3. I will hit you with my 150 tonne rulebook till you agree that I can see your stegadon :P

4. Being serious again, read the stone thrower rules. Tell me how you can land a rock on a unit *completely* within a stonethrowers line of sight. It is *Impossible* to place a stonethrower template on a unit in this way. :) I would say that common sense leads on from this, and lets you get on with playing with cannons in a fairer way.

Dragoon999
01-09-2010, 23:55
actually the stonethrower is targeting the unit and they did that so you would not curve the bullet so to speak...sound familiar(cannon)

By all means target my steggy no one is saying you can't

(I mean WOW can you not tell the difference)

I'm saying you have to target the ground behind my unit in front of the steggy to CHEEZ guess bounce into my steggy.......PLEASE TARGET MY STEGGY....not the ground you cannot see in front of him thats blocked by the unit-

jeez people they took the guess away from you

Who knows why they thought we were not intelligent enough to guess range on a 4' by 6' table, its not like you have nothing to break the grid down with. (your brain maybe):rolleyes:

Now you want to askew LOS to enable you to play the game the way you did for the past 7 editions

get down to your models eye view(you CANNOT see the ground behind the unit.)

FYI if your using the top of the stonethrower, cannon, bolt thrower to judge LOS instead of the guy firing then shame on you.

Please shoot the steggy, stop aiming at the ground you can't see. I know LOS is new to alot of you. This is a whole new game.

Grey Hunter 88
02-09-2010, 00:16
I am utterly astounded that some people are claiming that being able to place your cannonball guess anywhere is "fairer" than using TLOS.

Utterly astounded... I'm trying to follow the rules to make cannons fair and people are calling it TLOS abuse and unfair play? Saying nobody would play me again for playing like that?

Did nobody read my examples? Or the quotes from the rulebook? Did nobody go to grammar school?

What does a stone thrower have to do with anything? That's covered by its own rules and has absolutely nothing to do with a cannon. They even have their own special rules to deal with targeting things they DON'T have line of sight to! Fancy that. What a coincidence. I understand this whole not being able to see the entire template argument, and while I appreciate a great sophist when I see one, it's completely irrelevant.

The rules are crystal clear and absolutely non-debatable. To target a point on the ground, you have to have line of sight. Why would hills be even necessary for war machines by your logic? If I followed the "fair" way you guys are all talking about from on top of your soap-boxes, I would be hiding my cannons behind 10 foot walls and targeting points in the air, because that's in my line of sight, and templates are resolved in 2d guys!

I'm going to put on some music and pretend we're all just misunderstanding each other, and that you guys aren't really putting much thought into what you're saying.

Then I'm going to keep painting these models and realize how silly I am getting worked up over people in a different country playing a board game a different way... and make sure to mention no hard feelings to anyone posting, I just get emotional when I think of all my friend's poor stegadons I've obliterated since 8th edition.

Dragoon999
02-09-2010, 00:21
I am utterly astounded that some people are claiming that being able to place your cannonball guess anywhere is "fairer" than using TLOS.

Utterly astounded... I'm trying to follow the rules to make cannons fair and people are calling it TLOS abuse and unfair play? Saying nobody would play me again for playing like that?

Did nobody read my examples? Or the quotes from the rulebook? Did nobody go to grammar school?

What does a stone thrower have to do with anything? That's covered by its own rules and has absolutely nothing to do with a cannon. They even have their own special rules to deal with targeting things they DON'T have line of sight to! Fancy that. What a coincidence. I understand this whole not being able to see the entire template argument, and while I appreciate a great sophist when I see one, it's completely irrelevant.

The rules are crystal clear and absolutely non-debatable. To target a point on the ground, you have to have line of sight. Why would hills be even necessary for war machines by your logic? If I followed the "fair" way you guys are all talking about from on top of your soap-boxes, I would be hiding my cannons behind 10 foot walls and targeting points in the air, because that's in my line of sight, and templates are resolved in 2d guys!

I'm going to put on some music and pretend we're all just misunderstanding each other, and that you guys aren't really putting much thought into what you're saying.

Then I'm going to keep painting these models and realize how silly I am getting worked up over people in a different country playing a board game a different way... and make sure to mention no hard feelings to anyone posting, I just get emotional when I think of all my friend's poor stegadons I've obliterated since 8th edition.

nothing to add my exact point.

Loopstah
02-09-2010, 09:37
Actually I have to agree after reading the rulebook again, you do need LOS to the point you nominate for the cannonball so no nominating points behind a horde unit or on the other side of a building while your cannon is on flat ground.

Skirmishers are another story as there are plenty of gaps through them so there's more chance of being able to see through them.

Also being on a hill negates the problem as you will be able to see over pretty much everything.

I can't honestly see this cropping up very often but it is a good point, you can't just pick anywhere, you need LOS to it just like everything else that shoots.

Warboss Doink
02-09-2010, 10:04
P.S. if your looking between his legs or under his armpit and calling LOS who's cheating now.

Noone is cheating.

Models don't create rectangular blind spots as wide/high as their base/height.

Yes...to target something, you need to see the body of the target.

To block something, you need to block 100% of the view to the target measured from the attackers, meaning that if you have a gap between your legs and the attacker can see through that, you are legally giving away TLOS.

Even more 'lame' is that a cannon if a fairly low model. If you place some friendly cavalery in front of it, you will still have TLOS to your targets, but if you recieve BS-based misslefire on your cannon, you will get 'hard cover'.

PeG
02-09-2010, 10:09
My main conclusion from this discussion is that the rules for TLOS and weapons that doesnt use BS could use some more work and a FAQ/errata. As currently written several things are unclear and some interpretations can resunt in very strange outcomes.

Haravikk
02-09-2010, 10:24
hmmm actually it does only list those 2 possible targets.
No it doesn't, it gives two possible targets, the keyword being that it can be the ground if you wish, clarifying that "point" includes both models and the ground, it never states that those are the only two choices as a point includes a lot of things, if they wanted to restrict it then they should say "point on the battlefield", which is probably what they meant, but not what the rules state.

To be clear; this isn't something I would ever do in a game, but if someone were to use the tactic you're discussing, then I'd be sorely tempted to. It's all about playing in the spirit of the rules rather than to the letter of them, it's unlikely the spirit of the rules is that skinks can screen a Stegadon from a cannon, as any decent cannon crew can see their target, and judge a distance just before it. Just as choosing a point isn't meant to apply to the air so you can fire anywhere, but if someone's being snide about another rule's wording, why not do the same to counteract them?


Also no one is saying you can't target the steggy...rules state you can't target the ground behind the unit the steggy is in front of. Unless you are on a hill and actually have the angle to do draw LOS to the ground to cheezy guess and bounce into the steggy.

Please read before posting as you clearly stated something I never said....hence why you did not quote me.
Poor wording in my case, I did not mean to target the Stegadon specifically, but a point in front of it. No-one firing a cannon will target a model directly as you're certain to miss by at least 2", somehow firing through the Stegadon without hitting it. To truly target the Stegadon you have to choose a point between it and your cannon, which I believe is what you're discussing and what I'm trying to.

Warboss Doink
02-09-2010, 10:30
No it doesn't, it gives two possible targets, the keyword being that it can be the ground if you wish, clarifying that "point" includes both models and the ground, it never states that those are the only two choices as a point includes a lot of things, if they wanted to restrict it then they should say "point on the battlefield", which is probably what they meant, but not what the rules state.


"You must pick a burger, but you can also choose a salad".

What part of this example sentence gives you the impression that pizza is on the menu too?

Dragoon999 is right. Linguistically it's one or the other, not a third.

Haravikk
02-09-2010, 10:33
"You must pick a burger, but you can also choose a salad".
Except the rule doesn't say that, it says more along the lines of:
"You must pick a meal, it doesn't have to be a burger, it can be a salad if you wish".

"It doesn't have to be" is not the same as "if it isn't one, then it must be the other".

Warboss Doink
02-09-2010, 11:01
Except the rule doesn't say that, it says more along the lines of:
"You must pick a meal, it doesn't have to be a burger, it can be a salad if you wish".

Still means the same thing.

What you are tying to argue, that it's basically a disney text...

"You must pick a meal, it doesn't have to be a burger, it can be a salad if you wish... or any other magical fairy rainbow option you can dream off that we didn't mention in this limitation"

That last 'or anything else'-part, that you keep adding in your mind, does not exist.

You must do A, but you can do B if you wish. This does not add a C, it only puts a bigger emphasis on A and makes B the more 'alternative option'.

NixonAsADaemonPrince
02-09-2010, 11:07
I agree, the rules are clear, you can't target a point which you don't have LOS to. So no targeting behind a unit, unless you are on a hill. As said, you can target the steg fine, but the cannon ball may well bounce past (or over or under if you think about it, the people firing may have screwed up the trajectory when firing up in the air a bit).

So good pick up, hopefully this makes cannons a little fairer.

Haravikk
02-09-2010, 11:32
You must do A, but you can do B if you wish. This does not add a C, it only puts a bigger emphasis on A and makes B the more 'alternative option'.
What you must do is choose a point to aim at; a point is a location within an area of space, that's what you have to choose. Monsters or the ground are particular examples of points.

While I fully agree that they probably only mean "a location on the battlefield" my point is that if someone is going to try and rules-lawyer me out of shooting at a perfectly reasonable target, then it's more than possible to just rules lawyer my way around it if I have to so I can get back to just playing the game like it's meant to be played.


The simple fact of it is that if, while firing a cannon, I can see a target such as a Stegadon, then I should be able to choose any point between it and my cannon to aim at in order to attempt to hit it. Other units in the way are meaningless unless they are actually block line of sight.
The random addition to the range represents the inaccuracy or difficulty in aiming at the target, there is no need to grasp at ways to exploit your way into preventing sensible shots, because as it is cannons only get one, maybe two good shots at a target in an entire game before they're resigned to lucky opportunities, slugging it out with enemy war machines, waiting to be killed or for the game to end.

This is how I believe cannons should be played, and what the spirit of the rules are; if you have a Stegadon in plain view for a cannon, then expect it to be shot.

Warboss Doink
02-09-2010, 11:58
While I fully agree that they probably only mean "a location on the battlefield" my point is that if someone is going to try and rules-lawyer me out of shooting at a perfectly reasonable target, then it's more than possible to just rules lawyer my way around it if I have to so I can get back to just playing the game like it's meant to be played.


Yes .. the anwser to rules lawyering is always more rules lawyering instead of proving the first lawyer wrong... :rolleyes:



The simple fact of it is that if, while firing a cannon, I can see a target such as a Stegadon, then I should be able to choose any point between it and my cannon to aim at in order to attempt to hit it.


I should be able to get 10 million euro's for free every week, but wishing it was so, doesn't make it so. It's a cannon ... not a mark IV scoped sniper rifle...

You can only shoot at points you can see, so if you want to shoot at a stegadon (which you can see), but can't see any point in front of him, your table-point for the initial placement will be ON the stegadon.

Basically, cannon crew are idiots that almost always overshoot to the point they are aiming for.

mattjgilbert
02-09-2010, 12:01
This is how I believe cannons should be played, and what the spirit of the rules are; if you have a Stegadon in plain view for a cannon, then expect it to be shot.
I don't think anyone is arguing that you could not directly target the steg if it could be seen. What you cannot do is aim short of it to a point on the ground which you cannot see because LOS is blocked.

There are only 2 options, target a unit or target a point on the ground, both of which you have to have LOS to. This does not break the spirit of the rules. How can it?

Haravikk
02-09-2010, 12:38
You want to shoot at a stegadon (which you can see), but can't see any point in front of him
Except that you shouldn't need to be able to see a point on the table in front of it; if a cannon crew can see a Stegadon then it can quite happily guess a point a little closer.

Maybe you need line of sight for the target point that you'd like to hit, but requiring line of sight to a point 2 to 10" closer is stupid, and anyone that tries to play it this way can fully expect to lose opponents very quickly.


I don't think anyone is arguing that you could not directly target the steg if it could be seen.
Unless you have some kind of magic cannons that none of the rest of us have then it is not possible to directly target the Stegadon, as you're going to overshoot by at least 2" unless you happen to explode first. Unless the target happens to be at least 2" wide (as the specific case of a Stegadon may be, but that's beside the point) then you will never ever hit a target this way.

mattjgilbert
02-09-2010, 12:48
Except that you shouldn't need to be able to see a point on the table in front of it; if a cannon crew can see a Stegadon then it can quite happily guess a point a little closer.

Maybe you need line of sight for the target point that you'd like to hit, but requiring line of sight to a point 2 to 10" closer is stupid, and anyone that tries to play it this way can fully expect to lose opponents very quickly.Except that's what the rules say. If people don't play you because of that, what hope is there?



Unless you have some kind of magic cannons that none of the rest of us have then it is not possible to directly target the Stegadon, as you're going to overshoot by at least 2" unless you happen to explode first. Unless the target happens to be at least 2" wide (as the specific case of a Stegadon may be, but that's beside the point) then you will never ever hit a target this way.It is possible to target the steg. Choosing the steg as a target is not the same as hitting it.

Warboss Doink
02-09-2010, 12:48
Except that you shouldn't need to be able to see a point on the table in front of it; if a cannon crew can see a Stegadon then it can quite happily guess a point a little closer.


There you go again with your assumptions... Your 'troopers' aren't doing accurate math ... they are firing a cannon at something far away and the overshot & bounce represent their inabillity to hit anything with precision.



Maybe you need line of sight for the target point that you'd like to hit, but requiring line of sight to a point 2 to 10" closer is stupid, and anyone that tries to play it this way can fully expect to lose opponents very quickly.


Yes ... because everyone hates people that play by the rules. Especially those who play by rules, that are completely clear and cannot be challenged in any way/intepreted any other way, except by '...but I don't want it these rules to be true'.



Unless you have some kind of magic cannons that none of the rest of us have then it is not possible to directly target the Stegadon, as you're going to overshoot by at least 2" unless you happen to explode first. Unless the target happens to be at least 2" wide (as the specific case of a Stegadon may be, but that's beside the point) then you will never ever hit a target this way.

Yes ... you have only a 1/36 (2"and then misfire) chance of hitting a stegadon .... in a situation that happens about once in every 1.000.000 games and, when it does happen, it completely logical.

"I can barely hit your stegadon, that is blocked by that building in front of it..."

Seems fair to me.

Grey Hunter 88
02-09-2010, 14:49
Let's all get along guys.

For those few who find the rules as they are written uncomfortable, let me try and explain how they are actually not THAT bad. With cannons (keep in mind that I am a dwarf player whose main opponent plays lizardmen, so cruise missile cannons would be in my BEST interest) there are two ways to run cannons. RAW and Rules as "Intended", let's look at the pros and cons for both.

RAW) Pros: Cannons need to think about where they deploy. Hills, terrain features and their own armies all play into how they can see and shoot. This means that not only does a cannon have to expose itself to risk to get the best lines of fire, but it helps the enemy avoid their shots if there's terrain, or they maneuver cleverly. This helps to mitigate their godliness.

Cons: In a 1/1 000 000 scenario, there will be an unrealistic case of a cannon not being able to shoot accurately at a monster perfectly positioned behind some screenig troops without a lucky bounce.

Rules as "Intended") Pros: You can't screen cannonballs with troopers.

Cons: Cannons become cruise missiles. They can deploy behind their own army, meaning they're almost invulnerable to enemy missile fire and non-flyers. They have almost unlimited line of sight. No need to be strategic when placing them. They can use the "point" reading and the "2d template" reading to fire shots directly into the air, and have them bounce across the ground, leading to ridiculous examples, such as shooting slightly above a building, and with a bounce roll hitting people on the other side.

For me, personally, I will take RAW. If this is still not convincing, let's put things into perspective. Cannons are extremely powerful. Let's not say this "they fire twice and they're useless" tripe. With a pair of dwarf cannons, that "two shots" each is essentially a dead monster a turn. For a 100 point cannon, reliably killing a 600 point lord and his dragon is a decent return on points. I don't think they need to be any "better".

A stegadon base is pretty long. If you target the front of his base, a 2" or 4" extra distance will still land on him. I'm 90% sure about the 4", but I haven't measured it out recently. Given that 4" will still land on him, even in this WORST case scenario, that's a 1 in 3 chance of still hitting him, even if he's super-screened or whatnot. That's the same idea as rolling a hit on the scatter dice. I hear stone throwers are "way too accurate they destroy hordes on first turn, bring a stone thrower and you win!" all the time, and they have a 1 in 3 chance of landing on target without runes and such.

Now let's say someone does screen their stegadon with some skinks. Let's begin by saying that the skinks are so close to the steg, that you can't see the ground between them. That's fine. Just shoot the skinks, and bounce through them. If the steg's that close, he's probably getting hit.

If they're far enough ahead that guessing them, rolling the artillery dice and adding that distance won't bring you close to the stegadon, then that steg is like 10" behind them, at least. With all that distance between them, it's getting easier to see the ground between, especially if you're on any kind of elevation, or keeping in mind skinks are short. WORST case scenario, that stegadon is far behind, which means more time to shoot it. Or just shoot the skinks with crossbows, and fire through the hole you create.

Long story short, the rules as written are great. They put a realistic and not game-breaking or nerfing constraint on cannons that give me a true thrill deciding where to deploy them, and what risk I am willing to take to give them lines of fire. It makes hills valuable again, and it gives my opponents a chance to try and take them out before I just headshot all of his monsters. My first game before re-reading the book I was playing with the rules some players seem to advocate, and my cannons didn't miss a single shot. The stegadons might as well have been the side of a mountain, for all the difficulty they were to hit. I did not enjoy killing two stegadons and a carnosaur+old blood by the end of the second turn, with my cannons safely tucked away behind my dwarfs, far from the chameleon skinks and other threats.

The problems with "screening" that some posters seem to have are negligible. They are not exploitable, and if they manage to protect a monster in a rare case, or throw off your cannon's aim, then I say good! Weren't people whining that there's no "strategy" or tactics anymore? Well, there are some for you. Try to outmaneuver their cannons. If you just let a cannon place a ball within 48" then you pick 7" or 9" away from the target depending on their base size and it's going to be a hit almost every time. THAT is pure dice, no?

Haravikk
02-09-2010, 15:25
There you go again with your assumptions... Your 'troopers' aren't doing accurate math ... they are firing a cannon at something far away and the overshot & bounce represent their inabillity to hit anything with precision.
Which is what the artillery dice represents.

I don't for a second believe that the cannon rules are intended to allow a large monstrous creature to be screened by much smaller troops. The intent of the rule is clear "You can only fire your cannon at something you can see", no problems there.

The problem is that they've tried to word it a bit more formally than that and ended up creating an absurd case that couldn't more obviously be counter to the intention of the rule. When firing the cannon you're supposed to choose a target that you're trying to hit, this isn't complex, and if it's something your cannon can't possibly see then you can't even try the shot. If however it is something you can see, then you can aim at it, subtract a suitable amount of distance for the unpredictability of the shot, and fire away. The whole rulebook is geared towards measuring distances, then judging what your chance is of hitting/reaching your target actually is and acting accordingly. For charges this is by choosing whether or not to charge, with cannons this is represented by the artillery dice, likewise for stonethrowers with scatter.


I've already pointed out how the exact same rule can trivially be interpreted to allow you to target a point in the air and hit anything you like, RAW I can do that quite happily. Would I? The answer is no, as it's obviously not the intent of the rule.
Blocking line of sight to a monstrous creature with diminutive infantry is no different, and I doubt you'll find many players outside of forum theorising that would ever actually use that as a tactic or try to argue the rules on it. I mean, would you seriously say to your opponent "Yeah your cannon can see my Stegadon, but you can't shoot at it because a skink's in the way"?


"I can barely hit your stegadon, that is blocked by that building in front of it..."
I never mentioned buildings; if a building prevents you seeing a Stegadon, then you shouldn't be able to shoot at the Stegadon; I wouldn't, as arguing that you're firing at the building and just accidentally hit the Stegadon would be incredibly cheesy.


Rules as "Intended") Pros: You can't screen cannonballs with troopers.

Cons: Cannons become cruise missiles. They can deploy behind their own army, meaning they're almost invulnerable to enemy missile fire and non-flyers. They have almost unlimited line of sight. No need to be strategic when placing them. They can use the "point" reading and the "2d template" reading to fire shots directly into the air, and have them bounce across the ground, leading to ridiculous examples, such as shooting slightly above a building, and with a bounce roll hitting people on the other side.
What "rules as intended" are you reading? A cannon at ground level with troops in the way wouldn't be able to shoot arbitrarily, as other infantry wouldn't be visible to it (unless you go into overzealous true line of sight, another practise that any fair minded player won't do), so it can't just fire at anything. Monsters and other similarly large models however are visible, and are valid targets, as they'll be plainly visible over friendly or enemy troops.

They hardly become cruise missiles, you need to be able to see what you want to hit.

Teongpeng
02-09-2010, 15:36
cannons shoot in a straight line, thus it should hit the first closest unit in that line. This means that no, despite being able to see the Steg behind a screen, you cant target the steg.

There isnt any rules for shooting cannon balls in the air. dont make things up please.

Grey Hunter 88
02-09-2010, 15:46
Haravikk, I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but now I am convinced that you are completely ignoring everything I am saying.


The problem is that they've tried to word it a bit more formally than that and ended up creating an absurd case that couldn't more obviously be counter to the intention of the rule. When firing the cannon you're supposed to choose a target that you're trying to hit, this isn't complex, and if it's something your cannon can't possibly see then you can't even try the shot. If however it is something you can see, then you can aim at it, subtract a suitable amount of distance for the unpredictability of the shot, and fire away. The whole rulebook is geared towards measuring distances, then judging what your chance is of hitting/reaching your target actually is and acting accordingly. For charges this is by choosing whether or not to charge, with cannons this is represented by the artillery dice, likewise for stonethrowers with scatter.

This is off-topic, but a dwarf cannon has about an 11/12 chance to hit something like a monster. I know what we're discussing doesn't change this fact, but I'd just like to mention that there's not much unpredictability. They have not contradicted their rules, in fact they've made an extremely reasoned and fair requirement for the firing of cannons.


I've already pointed out how the exact same rule can trivially be interpreted to allow you to target a point in the air and hit anything you like, RAW I can do that quite happily. Would I? The answer is no, as it's obviously not the intent of the rule.

No, you have not. Not by any stirring of the imagination. I have proven to you twice (if you in fact read my posts) that by your logic of targeting a point in the air, you can make impossible cannon shots that break your own rule about a stegadon being safe behind a building, for example. Secondly, Doink I believe, crushed without a doubt your idea that "Choose a model, or the ground" means "Choose a model, or the ground, or any other point you wish". That ceases to be interpretation and just becomes plain misunderstanding.


Blocking line of sight to a monstrous creature with diminutive infantry is no different, and I doubt you'll find many players outside of forum theorising that would ever actually use that as a tactic or try to argue the rules on it. I mean, would you seriously say to your opponent "Yeah your cannon can see my Stegadon, but you can't shoot at it because a skink's in the way"?

Nobody even mentioned using skink screens as a tactic as far as I know. I have played over a dozen games with cannons in 8th, and I can tell you that there have been many times when not being able to see the ground has affected my ability to make accurate cannon shots. It's not a matter of abusing the rules, it's a matter of knowing what to do if they come up in a game. My opponent doesn't use models to screen on purpose, but if they happen to end up that way on the table, I don't gripe. I play the game as it's meant to be played, and I'm inwardly glad that I get to think about where to place and fire my cannons, instead of always picking a spot the exact same distance away from anything I want to fire, regardless of anything in the way.


I never mentioned buildings; if a building prevents you seeing a Stegadon, then you shouldn't be able to shoot at the Stegadon; I wouldn't, as arguing that you're firing at the building and just accidentally hit the Stegadon would be incredibly cheesy.

Odd, because your entire argument to this point supports the idea of being able to do that. I just target a point in the air a few inches in front of the stegadon, behind the building or not. How can you delegate rules as you see fit, but then contradict your own rule-set by saying doing that would be "cheesy". To be honest, I think your idea of placing a cannonball wherever you feel like it at anything you can vaguely see is cheesy, but I'm not saying two things at once.


What "rules as intended" are you reading? A cannon at ground level with troops in the way wouldn't be able to shoot arbitrarily, as other infantry wouldn't be visible to it (unless you go into overzealous true line of sight, another practise that any fair minded player won't do), so it can't just fire at anything. Monsters and other similarly large models however are visible, and are valid targets, as they'll be plainly visible over friendly or enemy troops.

First, "fair minded player"? The reason I'm so adamant about this is because I felt terrible for my friend telling me his monsters were going to stay in the box the next time we played. That was WITH my "unfair" reading of the rules as they are put down in the book, limiting what my own cannons could target. To try and make it even EASIER to kill his monsters hardly sounds like a "fair-minded" player, to be honest.

Three major problems as well. First, honestly, what are you shooting at with your cannons that can't be seen over the heads of normal infantry? Monsters, chariots, cavalry... what else is there? Those can all EASILY be seen over the heads of intervening dwarves, and it's NOT overzealous TLOS at all. It is the simple math of geometry.
Second, in the same vein, yes, a cannon can see saurus over the top of other dwarves. Will it see the ground in front of them? No, but it will see their head. Your logic, your "RAW", I can shoot them safely behind troops.
Third, it wouldn't even MATTER because according to you I can target the back of my friend's beer bottle, and have it bounce onto the table and kill people. That's a joke, but you've said any point, so I'd target the air, thus meaning the guys in front, even if they're like 11 feet tall, make no difference.


They hardly become cruise missiles, you need to be able to see what you want to hit.

Not according to you. If you haven't already, please read the reasoned arguments I made in my last post. I'm pretty sure you'll find that they make sense, and should satisfy you, if you actually read what I'm writing.

Cheers

Haravikk
02-09-2010, 16:12
No, you have not. Not by any stirring of the imagination. I have proven to you twice (if you in fact read my posts) that by your logic of targeting a point in the air, you can make impossible cannon shots that break your own rule about a stegadon being safe behind a building, for example. Secondly, Doink I believe, crushed without a doubt your idea that "Choose a model, or the ground" means "Choose a model, or the ground, or any other point you wish". That ceases to be interpretation and just becomes plain misunderstanding.
Don't accuse me of not reading anything you wrote if you've clearly not done the same. Take one good look at your rulebook, a cannon targets a "point", this point does not need to be a model, and can be the ground. This is an incredibly vague combination, and basic logic and reading should allow you to see this if you look. Don't get me wrong, I fully expect that it's intended to be closed, but I also fully expect that line of sight isn't intended to allow cannons to be blocked by anything silly like infantry a short distance in front of a large target.

Here's the breakdown:
- A point is any location within an area of space. This space isn't defined but let's just assume its within the constraints of the table-top (though if someone wants to shoot a cannonball off the table I won't stop them).
- Saying that this point does not need to be a model confirms that you can target some point other than a model.
- Saying that the point can be on the ground just means that your chosen point can be on the ground, it doesn't say that it has to be if you're not targeting a model.
- The statements about models and the ground don't restrict the set of all points within the bounds of the table-top, therefore you can choose a more unusual point, such on top of a building, or even in the air, as it's still a point.

The example earlier was:
"You must choose a meal, it does not need to be a burger, it can be a salad"
The course of this sentence adds no additional constraints to "you must choose a meal", which means that all meals are still valid.
This is incredibly pedantic, but it's a clear reading of it, it's basic logic, if you read it and come up with anything different then it's because you're making assumptions, not me.


Nobody even mentioned using skink screens as a tactic as far as I know.
You not only didn't read my posts, but you didn't even read the first post of the topic? Great!


Odd, because your entire argument to this point supports the idea of being able to do that. I just target a point in the air a few inches in front of the stegadon, behind the building or not.
And so I need to explain it again! My mention of shooting into the air is to highlight the absurdity of screening a Stegadon from all cannon-fire with a handful of skinks, and as a way to point out that I could still hit if I wanted to be as pedantic as someone screening in this way would have to be. This is not the way I play cannons, this is not the way I expect anyone to play their cannons, I have said as much three times at least.

Rules as written; a cannon can shoot at a model or point on the battlefield that it can see, but you can't aim between yourself and a large target if infantry blocks the adjusted point.
Rules as (believed) intended; a cannon can shoot at a target it can see, and aim a few inches short of it to account for inaccuracy of the shot.
Rules as written (super pedant mode); a cannon can aim at anything considered a point (even in the air) and draw an imaginary bounce line, anything under it is hit due to the way the rules are worded and resolved in a 2D fashion.

Warboss Doink
02-09-2010, 16:35
Here's the breakdown:
- A point is any location within an area of space. This space isn't defined but let's just assume its within the constraints of the table-top (though if someone wants to shoot a cannonball off the table I won't stop them).
- Saying that this point does not need to be a model confirms that you can target some point other than a model.
- Saying that the point can be on the ground just means that your chosen point can be on the ground, it doesn't say that it has to be if you're not targeting a model.
- The statements about models and the ground don't restrict the set of all points within the bounds of the table-top, therefore you can choose a more unusual point, such on top of a building, or even in the air, as it's still a point.


If you can see the point. You are allowed to designate it as your target point.

- If you are high enough to look down and see the top of a building or can draw a line to a slanting surface, you may place it there.
- If you are high enough to look on top of a unit of infantry, you can place your point anywhere on that unit or even behind it, if you can get a downwards angle from your model to the ground behind that model.
- What you cannot do, is place the point on a spot to which you do not have TLOS. A point in mid air is not allowed, because this would make any point on the table in TLOS of a cannon. You could even shoot a model that is completely behind a building, because you can see the air above it.

Grey Hunter 88
02-09-2010, 16:36
Oh dear.

I'm not sure which school of logic you prescribe to, but you filling in the blanks of a closed statement with your imagination is not "logic", it's actually fallacy.

"Choose any point, it doesn't have to be a model, it can be the ground."

I do not care what dialect you speak, school of thought you prescribe to, or army you play. That means you can target a point on the ground, or a model. You are using the Oxford definition of point, as a means to an end in a closed set of rules.

If I use a spell near the end of the board that hits all models, and my friend's iPod model xx767a6 is nearby, does it take 4 hits? It hits all models within 12" after-all? You're being ludicrous. I am confident that there are dozens of non-English speakers on this forum who would read your argument and interpretation and realize that you are wrong.

The original poster was NOT talking about using them as a tactic to block cannons. He did quote another poster from a different thread who implied this, but as far as I know, this thread is about the rules, not the tactic. I'm pretty sure the OP would agree that I understood his point pretty well.

Now I know your talk about 2d templates and what-not is your reaction to the utter inequality of players being able to screen your cannons, and stop them from killing whatever you feel like pointing at. However, by the rules as they are written, you have not even begun to convince me that you know what you are talking about.

You have not addressed a single one of my counter-arguments. You did not defend or refute me being able to shoot over my own troops, through walls, over cliffs etc. You did not comment on the pros and cons of either system. I'm just getting flak or talk about being "fair" and using "logic". Well that's fine, for what it's worth.

We will never play against each other, so as long as everyone you plays understands cannons the way you do, all is well. I have quoted the rulebook, I've given examples and I've discussed the pros and cons of both sides. Any further discussion about "logic" and "reading the rulebook" is moot, and serves nothing.

If you want to comment on my particular examples or arguments, by all means. Otherwise, you're coming across to me as a bit of a reactionary.

Arnizipal
03-09-2010, 10:49
Let's keep this thread friendly and on-topic shall we?

Arnizipal,

++ The Warseer Moderation Team ++

Weemo
03-09-2010, 22:33
stop being a waac gamer dragoon, just play the game as intended not as written in your rules gospel

Dragoon999
04-09-2010, 19:55
stop being a waac gamer dragoon, just play the game as intended not as written in your rules gospel

I am playing as the games intended, it just seems some people are not used to being able to target what their (model) can see instead of themselves. Which is the way guess weapons worked in the old editions. This is a LOS game now and some fantasy only players have never used LOS.

Makrar
04-09-2010, 19:59
I am playing as the games intended, it just seems some people are not used to being able to target what their (model) can see instead of themselves. Which is the way guess weapons worked in the old editions.


Been playing with needing LOS of the point and templates with my WLC and Plagueclaws, Cant see how i can really do otherwise, Liking or not liking a rule has sadly nothing to do with it when its 100% clear.

I find this way to be more fun, makes positioning of the cannons a challenge and sometimes its worth it to move them to get into a better position for the rest of the game. Its a really nice rule change imo, hated sniper cannons of 6th/7th

Iridian
04-09-2010, 21:12
Haravekk, If we're arguing about being able to choose a point in the air, we can argue that you dont see air, so you cannot target it either.
You only see the points which form some kind of a surface; surfaces are only formed by ground, terrain features and models.

The logic you try to apply, "we used to play like this in 7th edition, and the new rule has two ambiguous interpretations, one Absurd (can target air) and one Strange (target only surfaces, but funny screening tactics can be used), if you try to choose the Strange, I enforce the Absurd, and because that's stupid, I claim we use 7th edition rules" plain does not follow.
If we want to play by the rules, we simply must choose between the Absurd and the Strange interpretations, otherwise it's called house ruling or tournament comps (which are fine of course as they're known in advance and equal for all).

Frankly in my opinion: the Strange, in its simplicity, balance, and in the tactical choices and variety it offers, is much more sane interpretation than the Absurd and should be preferred. Just like Grey nicely elaborated above. If I were to guess, this would be what the rules designer intended as well. I'm an empire player myself and I want clear, balanced rules. Prince Cannons and King Mortars are not balanced. This interpretation addresses the Prince Cannon issue somewhat, and I hope future army books with new mortar price tags will solve King Mortar issue.


Btw, another 'strange' consequence involves hills: if the cannon is on a ground, he can't target hilltops as they're often flat for convenience. Thus anyone who's more than 10" away from the front edge of a hill becomes increasingly protected against cannon fire. Once again, different consequences, but not game breaking: Hills would actually end up giving protection against even large targets, but the requirement that they're well over 10" away from the hill front means they have to be far away from any action. Especially as no guaranteed protection is given until after 20"... Conversely, if someone is right behind a hill, this will give him no protection as I can just target 10" in front of him in front of the hill and the shot will bounce. Different, but not strictly imbalanced.

RichBlake
05-09-2010, 02:34
Simple question:

Do you think the games rules are designed to let you put skinks in front of a steg to stop a cannon crew "aiming" at the ground? You do you think that the cannon crew are supposed to be able to judge trajectory for themselves as you dont EVER fire a cannon in a straight line?

Because in a friendly game suggesting your skinks stop me shooting a cannon at your huge giant four legged lizard covered in skinks or holy icons is so ludacrous I'd tell you to stop suggesting that or I'd quit, and I think others would too. In a tournament I can guarantee what any half decent ref would say "Yes you can shoot at the giant lizard with the cannon, no those tiny tiny lizard do NOT block LoS".

Iridian
05-09-2010, 08:17
Simple question:

Do you think the games rules are designed to let you put skinks in front of a steg to stop a cannon crew "aiming" at the ground? You do you think that the cannon crew are supposed to be able to judge trajectory for themselves as you dont EVER fire a cannon in a straight line?

Because in a friendly game suggesting your skinks stop me shooting a cannon at your huge giant four legged lizard covered in skinks or holy icons is so ludacrous I'd tell you to stop suggesting that or I'd quit, and I think others would too. In a tournament I can guarantee what any half decent ref would say "Yes you can shoot at the giant lizard with the cannon, no those tiny tiny lizard do NOT block LoS".

Fluff-wise, sure. Gameplay wise, this wouldn't be so bad. The skink skirmishers wouldn't in practice block the los, because as skirmishers there are gaps between their files, would need to be more than 10" in front of the steg, and it's not like they dont obey the God Mortar either.

It's not me who's suggesting that, it's the RBRB which is. Sure, you can house-rule or tournament comp any way you wish, and that's fine. But you dont even seem to be giving this interpretation a decent chance, but are dogmatically locked in the 7th way of thinking. Step out and look at it as an abstract game and not a reality simulation.

King Cannons with Omnivision are not fun, and I'm an empire player saying this.

Gazak Blacktoof
05-09-2010, 09:38
King Cannons with Omnivision are not fun, and I'm an empire player saying this.

I agree, at least RAW provides some ability to use terrain and troops to screen from cannons. You can actually still hit a steg even when screened, by shooting at the screening troops and hoping for a long extended flight and bounce, or shooting at the steg and hoping for a short extended flight. That doesn't seem out of order and the revelations of this thread don't make cannons useless.

Loopstah
05-09-2010, 10:12
Simple question:

Do you think the games rules are designed to let you put skinks in front of a steg to stop a cannon crew "aiming" at the ground? You do you think that the cannon crew are supposed to be able to judge trajectory for themselves as you dont EVER fire a cannon in a straight line?

Because in a friendly game suggesting your skinks stop me shooting a cannon at your huge giant four legged lizard covered in skinks or holy icons is so ludacrous I'd tell you to stop suggesting that or I'd quit, and I think others would too. In a tournament I can guarantee what any half decent ref would say "Yes you can shoot at the giant lizard with the cannon, no those tiny tiny lizard do NOT block LoS".

Point a) Fluff isn't rules, what the cannon crew can do has no bearing on how the weapon works in the game.

Point b) The Skink and Stegadon example is a stupid one anyway as skinks are skirmshers and are small models anyway and thus are unlikely to block LOS to anything.


However if someone tried shooting through a ranked up unit of Spearmen to a spot behind them they couldn't see, to hit my Dragon Princes, then I'd realise they were just a WAAC rule bender and probably not play them again.

You can either play the game using the TLOS rules as they are now or you can houserule them to not really be TLOS, or even use the rules from 7th.

The rules as they stand say you can't shoot at something you can't see, simple.

Grey Hunter 88
05-09-2010, 17:23
Because in a friendly game suggesting your skinks stop me shooting a cannon at your huge giant four legged lizard covered in skinks or holy icons is so ludacrous I'd tell you to stop suggesting that or I'd quit, and I think others would too. In a tournament I can guarantee what any half decent ref would say "Yes you can shoot at the giant lizard with the cannon, no those tiny tiny lizard do NOT block LoS".

Others have taken up the cause rather gallantly, which is nice to see.

Just for my own two cents though, I'd be much less inclined to play against someone who essentially told me to pack up any monsters/lords that I brought along and stuff them back into my bag.

Having used my dwarf cannons (with this "cheap screening rule") several games against Lizardmen, I can safely say that not obliterating his lovingly crafted monsters by the second turn is MUCH more conducive to a friendly game.

Rooze
05-09-2010, 19:07
As a tourney organizer I'd like to put in my two cents.

In a tournament I can guarantee what any half decent ref would say "Yes you can shoot at the giant lizard with the cannon, no those tiny tiny lizard do NOT block LoS. I wouldn't be too sure of that. As I am starting to think on the oncoming first tourney in 8th, I am milling on the RAW-side of this discussion: If you cannot draw TLOS to the ground, you cannot target that said ground. HOWEVER, although in a big tourney a judge HAS TO abide by the Rules as Written, it does not mean that using this screening tactic is sportsmanship like behaviour. As we ALWAYS use a pointsystem that takes into account sportsmanship, I would probably advise the opposing player to credit the cheezer less points for this action.

Secondly, I would like to undo all this bickering on the wording of choosing 'a point'. On page 9 of the BRB, considering Scattering: "Sometimes a rule will cal for an object (a template,...)to be placed on the battlefield and scattered. When this happens, follow this procedure: Place the object on the battlefield, as instructed by the rule. ..."
Does this not inadvertedly imply that the point chosen cannot be 'in the air'? Or: if it can, then after choosing your target air, the template is FIRST descended to ground level afore it scatters, and thus can still be blocked by interposing terrain, preventing the earlier mentioned 'bending' of shots.

Iridian
06-09-2010, 06:23
As a tourney organizer I'd like to put in my two cents.
I wouldn't be too sure of that. As I am starting to think on the oncoming first tourney in 8th, I am milling on the RAW-side of this discussion: If you cannot draw TLOS to the ground, you cannot target that said ground. HOWEVER, although in a big tourney a judge HAS TO abide by the Rules as Written, it does not mean that using this screening tactic is sportsmanship like behaviour. As we ALWAYS use a pointsystem that takes into account sportsmanship, I would probably advise the opposing player to credit the cheezer less points for this action.

Secondly, I would like to undo all this bickering on the wording of choosing 'a point'. On page 9 of the BRB, considering Scattering: "Sometimes a rule will cal for an object (a template,...)to be placed on the battlefield and scattered. When this happens, follow this procedure: Place the object on the battlefield, as instructed by the rule. ..."
Does this not inadvertedly imply that the point chosen cannot be 'in the air'? Or: if it can, then after choosing your target air, the template is FIRST descended to ground level afore it scatters, and thus can still be blocked by interposing terrain, preventing the earlier mentioned 'bending' of shots.

Even if it doesn't imply that rule-wise, it gives a strong hint on the designer intent nevertheless. Good catch. Too bad I dont think it can be extended to the cannons: I dont think the designers really went this far in their analysis.

Dragoon999
06-09-2010, 15:18
The Skink and Stegadon example is a stupid one anyway as skinks are skirmshers and are small models anyway and thus are unlikely to block LOS to anything.

However if someone tried shooting through a ranked up unit of Spearmen to a spot behind them they couldn't see, to hit my Dragon Princes, then I'd realise they were just a WAAC rule bender and probably not play them again.

You can either play the game using the TLOS rules as they are now or you can houserule them to not really be TLOS, or even use the rules from 7th.

The rules as they stand say you can't shoot at something you can't see, simple.

1st of all let me remind everyone that in my original post I never mentioned skinks. I quoted a discussion elsewhere and felt it needed its own thread because they were out in left field. In my original post I specifically mentioned RANKED units and the fact that if you planned on using skirmishers to screen, you better place them very well........that was a kind way of saying 90% of the time skirmishers are not going to do the job.

I have said this before, I am a dwarf and lizarmen player.

One key thing.....and one main reason I started this thread was when 8th came out I was hearing some troubling things, the most disturbing one was this. Oh Ill just put my siege weapons behind all of my troops since I can see over them. This is fine by me but even though you can see my troops you obviously cannot see the ground in front of them because your staring at the backs of your own guys heads!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone wants to bash the skinks and FYI, skinks do come ranked up now. I'll give you (as I already mentioned) the skirmishers are near impossible to deny LOS to the ground behind them, but 5 ranks of them are a different story. Also I don't know how many of you have actually compared skinks to other troops(they really are not that small...skinny yes) stand one up to an empire troop or a dwarf...they are the same size. Ranked up they can block LOS to the ground behind them the same as any other troop.

To those of you that believe screening is cheezy......well if you know anyone in the history of war that has not used this tactic, then you have not read anything about war. Screening is necessary to get troops into position, either to give your opponent a distraction or to occupy his troops until you get into position. Since this is a war game I believe tactics(hopefully)still exist. I don't want to see any of you using skirmishers or another weak troop type to hit a unit in the flank to tie it up until your big hitter gets there or use them to redirect charges or any other SCREENING TACTIC thats needed in a war game.:rolleyes: