PDA

View Full Version : Cannon and LoS



Lord Solar Plexus
25-02-2011, 21:03
Okay, here's what happened in one game:

A cannon sits in the top left corner with a hill in front of it that it (of course) cannot see through.

In the opposite DZ there's a tower in the very centre. It is higher than the hill so the cannon can see it. A Helblaster sits in front of the tower on a straight line between it and said cannon. Cannon targets the tower (or rather, a spot in front of it), bounces and hits the Helblaster.

Q1: Can the cannon shoot at the tower? The BRB says that you have to chose a point that you can see and it seems this can be a model or a point on the ground. What about the tower's wall? It's not on the ground, so can it be chosen in the first place? Is it a model? If yes, would not the first bounce likely take the cannon ball over (depending on the tower's dimension of course)?

Q2: Can the cannon conceivably kill the Helblaster that it cannot see by chosing a point in front of it that it cannot see because the tower is higher? Sounds a bit fishy if you ask me... :confused:

Sloppyjayman
25-02-2011, 21:18
Unfortunately, yes it can kill the Hell-blaster. There are a bunch of rules in Fantasy that allow for an abuse of the rules. Our gaming club does allow this to happen.

Lex
25-02-2011, 21:38
Let me parse your own post for your answer


...The BRB says that you have to chose a point that you can see...

...by chosing a point in front of it that it cannot see...

I think where you confuse yourself is by saying I want to aim for the point 4" from the tower and you assume your target is the tower. This is incorrect, your target is 4" in front of the tower. If you can't see that point then you can't target it. In the example you gave, he couldn't hit the Hellstorm in front of the tower. The start point is the tower then you add the artillery die for the first point of the bounce, etc.

Greyfire
25-02-2011, 21:40
You've got two different scenarios there, right?

The first is: Cannon - Helblaster (hidden due to height of cannon on hill) - Tower (visible since it's tall). I can't see how the cannon could select anything but the tower itself. All the spots in front of it should be hidden the same as the Helblaster. If it wasn't hidden then most likely the Helblaster would be visible, too. This one sounds like a laser pointer would be needed to make it easy to see.

The second is Cannon - Tower (visible) - Helblaster (hidden behind tower). You can select the tower as your aiming point. It's possible that the cannonball would land on the far side of the tower. It's also possible that it would land in the tower and get stuck (can't bounce through a building AFAIK).

It's a bit lame, IMO, but then so is sniping a character out of a unit. But it's the rules.

Lord Solar Plexus
25-02-2011, 22:26
Thanks for the replies.

The "target" was the tower, as it was clearly the only thing visible to that cannon. Neither the Helblaster nor the spot 6 or something inches in front of the tower (the actual target) were visible - unless a cannon can target thin air, which I gather it cannot.

I wouldn't have a problem with the second bounce more or less inadvertently hitting something the cannon cannot see. That happens relatively often.

Greyfire
25-02-2011, 23:07
Neither the Helblaster nor the spot 6 or something inches in front of the tower (the actual target) were visible - unless a cannon can target thin air, which I gather it cannot.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they can't make a shot like that, unless they can make the marker float in thin air. If they can do that, I'd allow it. :)

Synnister
26-02-2011, 00:06
You have to see the ground 6" in front of the tower to shoot a cannon ball at the spot 6" in front of the tower. Slap your opponent and tell him to quit being cheesy.

H33D
26-02-2011, 02:25
Rules for cannons: "Nominate a point within the war machine's Line of Sight... Your target does not have to be an enemy model; it can be a point on the ground if you wish."

You can shoot whatever you want as long as you can see it.

People that argue that you have to see the ground in between the cannon and your target are just doing so because they do not get war machines and want every advantage they can get. Such a ridiculous argument.

In fact, after you pick a target point the rule goes on to say "it's best to bear in mind that, unless something goes wrong, the cannonball will always overshoot by between 2" and 10", so you'd be well served to aim a few inches short of the enemy you wish to hit." This is enemy is your target that you need Line of Sight to. You don't need Line of Sight to the both your enemy and where you are placing your shot.

Synnister
26-02-2011, 03:15
Rules for cannons: "Nominate a point within the war machine's Line of Sight... Your target does not have to be an enemy model; it can be a point on the ground if you wish."

You can shoot whatever you want as long as you can see it.

People that argue that you have to see the ground in between the cannon and your target are just doing so because they do not get war machines and want every advantage they can get. Such a ridiculous argument.

In fact, after you pick a target point the rule goes on to say "it's best to bear in mind that, unless something goes wrong, the cannonball will always overshoot by between 2" and 10", so you'd be well served to aim a few inches short of the enemy you wish to hit." This is enemy is your target that you need Line of Sight to. You don't need Line of Sight to the both your enemy and where you are placing your shot.

Huh?!? I don't understand your post. If you want the cannon shot to hit the ground 2" inches in front of the target unit then the target is the spot in front of the unit and not the unit itself. The rule you quoted at the top is what tells us that. You can target the ground but you must have LOS to that spot.

Greyfire
26-02-2011, 03:25
People that argue that you have to see the ground in between the cannon and your target are just doing so because they do not get war machines and want every advantage they can get. Such a ridiculous argument.
:confused: My three cannon and two steamtanks would love to just pick a spot to aim at, kind of like old times. The rules won't let me. I have to see where I shoot my cannons.

The cannon doesn't need to see all of the ground between it and the target. It just needs to see the initial spot it aims at. If it can't see the spot it's aimed at it can't shoot. Cannons don't shoot at units/things. They aim at spots and hope for the best (at least in this edition). When you place the marker for where you are aiming it's pretty easy to see if it's a legal shot. Can you see the marker? AFAIK, that's all there is to it.

If I'm wrong, please let me know. With the increased accuracy of the mortars any improvement in the cannon accuracy would be likewise welcomed.

hamsterwheel
26-02-2011, 04:21
Although this isn't relevant to the original question. I have another question about Cannons shooting.

I have a player in my gaming group that typically brings 3 cannons to every match. He likes to shield his cannons with infantry, preventing charges against the WMs, but of course he still pivots his cannons and shoots through his own units, using LOS between models, between legs and so forth.

The rules for firing a cannon says to do this:

"Using your tape measure, extend a 'shot' line from the cannon's barrel all the way to your target point."

If my opponent cannot fit his tape measure between his models or even more extreme, between his model's legs, can he still make the shot?

Greyfire
26-02-2011, 05:18
Wow - I haven't seen anyone try a cannon shoot twixt the legs, off the rock, nothing but net in the local scene. That sounds like what he's doing though.

As written, I guess it's legal but it just feels wrong. Please someone help point out where cannons can't shoot like that. Maybe something in a FAQ somewhere?

H33D
26-02-2011, 07:18
The rules for cannons say that you must be able to see your target, and that you can attempt to place your shot a few inches shy of your target to make up for the fact that your first roll will always push the shot farther.

Why would you need to see your target and a variable area just before it? Adjusting how powerful your shot is doesn't change your target I dont' care what anyone says.

Lord Solar Plexus
26-02-2011, 08:40
Rules for cannons: "Nominate a point within the war machine's Line of Sight... Your target does not have to be an enemy model; it can be a point on the ground if you wish."

You can shoot whatever you want as long as you can see it.


That emphasis is completely misplaced. We have established that you cannot see everything and that you cannot target the air. It's a model or the ground.



People that argue that you have to see the ground in between the cannon and your target are just doing so because they do not get war machines and want every advantage they can get. Such a ridiculous argument.


You have a big mouth and you seemingly like to jump to hilarious conclusions. I play Empire and I'm saying that you have to see the target point. The statement about placing the marker a few inches in front does not allow you to shoot indirectly or to place it anywhere you cannot see.

talking_dog
26-02-2011, 08:42
Well it seems reasonable that the gunners would put less powder in to the cannon in order to land it and let the bounce do the damage, however in this situation I would say that without putting all the powder in (so placing the marker on the Tower) the Cannon wouldn't get the Ball over the hill.

Lord Solar Plexus
26-02-2011, 08:46
Nothing in the rules says anything about powder I'm afraid.


I dont' care what anyone says.

That luckily goes both ways. Now troll your boat gently down the usenet.

H33D
26-02-2011, 20:59
That emphasis is completely misplaced. We have established that you cannot see everything and that you cannot target the air. It's a model or the ground.



You have a big mouth and you seemingly like to jump to hilarious conclusions. I play Empire and I'm saying that you have to see the target point. The statement about placing the marker a few inches in front does not allow you to shoot indirectly or to place it anywhere you cannot see.

I go hunting often in Alaska where I live. Sometimes i veer my sights up when I'm making a long shot, or to either side if it is also windy.

Does this mean my target is no longer the caribou/moose/bear whatever because my sights are no longer on it? Because I am moving my sights to make up for a variable, my target is now something else? Please explain that logic.

And I never said you could target the 'air'. I said you have to see your target (which is either a unit or the ground obviously) but can cut the shot short to make up for the artillery distance.

If you don't see the logic here you can keep your opinion to yourself and play your own way. I'm sorry my 'big mouth' offended you but I'm glad I added some hilarity to your life. You seem like you need it.

T10
26-02-2011, 21:42
Ok, so the player with the cannon claims the right to shoot at the tower. It seems fair - the target is in line of sight and range! However, in order to do so he needs to break a few rules. But in breaking those rules he gains the opportunity to eliminating a target he could not otherwise have hit. Is that fair?

The compromise should be obvious: Work out the shot as normal, but ignore all other targets except for the tower.

-T10

sulla
26-02-2011, 23:13
Ok, so the player with the cannon claims the right to shoot at the tower. It seems fair - the target is in line of sight and range! However, in order to do so he needs to break a few rules. But in breaking those rules he gains the opportunity to eliminating a target he could not otherwise have hit. Is that fair?

The compromise should be obvious: Work out the shot as normal, but ignore all other targets except for the tower.

-T10Heh... I often used to offer my opponent the opportunity to hit the target without rolling any dice in 7th when I suspected they were hoping for an overshoot. Strangely, they never took it up.

T10
26-02-2011, 23:17
I wonder what they were up to. Something clever, no doubt.

-T10

Damocles8
27-02-2011, 04:59
I go hunting often in Alaska where I live. Sometimes i veer my sights up when I'm making a long shot, or to either side if it is also windy.

Does this mean my target is no longer the caribou/moose/bear whatever because my sights are no longer on it? Because I am moving my sights to make up for a variable, my target is now something else? Please explain that logic.

And I never said you could target the 'air'. I said you have to see your target (which is either a unit or the ground obviously) but can cut the shot short to make up for the artillery distance.

If you don't see the logic here you can keep your opinion to yourself and play your own way. I'm sorry my 'big mouth' offended you but I'm glad I added some hilarity to your life. You seem like you need it.

Are you shooting a cannonball at the caribou? Didn't think so. Re-read the rules and come back, if it says you don't need to see where you're aiming the cannon ball then don't worry about it....but I think you're dead wrong.

H33D
27-02-2011, 06:02
Yeah the rulebook says your target needs to be in line of sight, and it says you can place your shot short of your target because it will travel farther. It is the same thing in real life and its called compensating for a variable. Same thing with wind, distance, coriolis effect, etc. A cannonball can be affected just as much as a bullet. No I do not shoot cannon balls at animals. I'm glad you weren't thinking that or I would have been worried.

If you need to see the spot in front of your target (for whatever weird reason you guys have) then you can't shoot over ANYTHING with a cannon. What a ridiculous notion. Just like your odd notion of shooting cannonballs at animals. And they are both hilarious!

AMWOOD co
27-02-2011, 06:47
Sharp tongue aside, I agree with the principal of H33D's posts. I consistantly remind opponents that the optimal distance for a cannonball to be placed short of a single model target is 10". If you can see the target, go ahead and shoot at it with 10" short, even if there is a unit in the way (unless its your unit and you might hit it, then it's an illegal shot). To do otherwise seems, to be blunt, stupid.

FestHest
27-02-2011, 09:11
To use your term, H33D, you are aiming at a tree, but aiming a bit short so you can hit the deer you can't see. I don't think this is the way you go hunting.

pippin_nl
27-02-2011, 12:09
Sharp tongue aside, I agree with the principal of H33D's posts. I consistantly remind opponents that the optimal distance for a cannonball to be placed short of a single model target is 10". If you can see the target, go ahead and shoot at it with 10" short, even if there is a unit in the way (unless its your unit and you might hit it, then it's an illegal shot). To do otherwise seems, to be blunt, stupid.

Best is actually 10" short of the furthest point of the target. So in case of an ideally placed dragon 10" minus 10 cm.

I must say I agree with H33D, the target is not the point on the table but your intended victims and those should be visible. Otherwise monsters behind units can never be targeted as there is no point on the table visible in front of the monster.

Damocles8
27-02-2011, 15:31
Yeah the rulebook says your target needs to be in line of sight, and it says you can place your shot short of your target because it will travel farther. It is the same thing in real life and its called compensating for a variable. Same thing with wind, distance, coriolis effect, etc. A cannonball can be affected just as much as a bullet. No I do not shoot cannon balls at animals. I'm glad you weren't thinking that or I would have been worried.

If you need to see the spot in front of your target (for whatever weird reason you guys have) then you can't shoot over ANYTHING with a cannon. What a ridiculous notion. Just like your odd notion of shooting cannonballs at animals. And they are both hilarious!

Except for the fact that the rulebook says, " 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....

When choosing your target point, it's best to bear in mind that, unless something goes wrong, the cannonball will always overshoot by between 2" and 10", so you'd be well served to aim a few inches short of the enemy you wish to hit."

Note how they didn't say "Target you wish to hit," they said "Enemy." The target needs to still be in Line of Sight.

pippin_nl
27-02-2011, 16:21
Except for the fact that the rulebook says, " Nominate a point within the war machine's lin 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.....

This can be any point in space according to the rules, could be on the ground but does not have to be; in practice this solves the problem of being able to see your intended enemy and not seeing a point on the ground just before it.



When choosing your target point, it's best to bear in mind that, unless something goes wrong, the cannonball will always overshoot by between 2" and 10", so you'd be well served to aim a few inches short of the enemy you wish to hit."

Note how they didn't say "Target you wish to hit," they said "Enemy." The target needs to still be in Line of Sight.

Apparantly, but it may be any point in space thus solving targetting problems.

I do find it very gamey to refuse someone to aim at a monster quite visible to the cannon (crew), just because there may or may not be a loophole in the rules. Just my 50 cents.

shelfunit.
27-02-2011, 17:09
This can be any point in space according to the rules, could be on the ground but does not have to be; in practice this solves the problem of being able to see your intended enemy and not seeing a point on the ground just before it.

Apparantly, but it may be any point in space thus solving targetting problems.

I do find it very gamey to refuse someone to aim at a monster quite visible to the cannon (crew), just because there may or may not be a loophole in the rules. Just my 50 cents.

Not sure where you think "any point in space" comes from?

The rules state:

"Your target doesn't have to be a model, it can be a point on the ground if you wish."

So your target can be either:
a) A model
or
b) A point on the ground.

In order to hit either of them you need line of sight.

It also states a little further on in the cannon firing rules:


"When you have chosen a target, place a small coin or counter in the correct position as a reminder of where the shot is intended to land"

Now two things arise form this quote:

1) You can't place a "coin or counter" in "space"

and

2) Again, you have to be able to see this point/target.

Damocles8
27-02-2011, 17:26
thanks for the backup, shelf

TonyFlow
27-02-2011, 18:18
Rules for cannons: "Nominate a point within the war machine's Line of Sight... Your target does not have to be an enemy model; it can be a point on the ground if you wish."

You can shoot whatever you want as long as you can see it.

People that argue that you have to see the ground in between the cannon and your target are just doing so because they do not get war machines and want every advantage they can get. Such a ridiculous argument.

In fact, after you pick a target point the rule goes on to say "it's best to bear in mind that, unless something goes wrong, the cannonball will always overshoot by between 2" and 10", so you'd be well served to aim a few inches short of the enemy you wish to hit." This is enemy is your target that you need Line of Sight to. You don't need Line of Sight to the both your enemy and where you are placing your shot.

The rule says it quite cleary here. I have tried to make it a bit easier with colours (they always help). Obviously, your TARGET is the POINT where the cannonball is AIMED to land (which will overshoot with 2"-10"), and you NEED LOS to the Target. In the rules it doesn't say anything about needing LOS to the enemy you wish to hit. I think you got it the other way around, H33D. It has little to do with real life ballistics, but they are the rules.

So in the example from the OP, he would be able to choose a point on the tower that he could see and the work out the shot from there. He will be able to hit stuff behind the tower, but not in front of it.

pippin_nl
27-02-2011, 19:06
Not sure where you think "any point in space" comes from?

Now two things arise form this quote:

1) You can't place a "coin or counter" in "space"

and

2) Again, you have to be able to see this point/target.

I could place a coin on a 40 mm flying base, or is there also something in the text that prohibits that?

shelfunit.
27-02-2011, 20:18
I could place a coin on a 40 mm flying base, or is there also something in the text that prohibits that?

Yes. It is not a point on the ground.

EDIT: It's not like I don't use cannons - Dwarfs are my main army. Trying to loophole the cannon rules is rather sad as they are quite powerful enough without doing so.

pippin_nl
27-02-2011, 20:49
Yes. It is not a point on the ground.

EDIT: It's not like I don't use cannons - Dwarfs are my main army. Trying to loophole the cannon rules is rather sad as they are quite powerful enough without doing so.

"Your target doesn't have to be a model, it can be a point on the ground if you wish."

this is not the same as:

"Your target doesn't have to be a model, but it must be a point on the ground."

Actually I find that if someone tries to say I can not shoot at a target because I can not see the ground in front of it, is trying to loophole as you say. It is a ridiculous argument, trying to misuse RAW.

Cannons are meant as a counter to monsters, chariots and stuff like it and yes they are very effective against those.

shelfunit.
27-02-2011, 21:02
"Your target doesn't have to be a model, it can be a point on the ground if you wish."

this is not the same as:

"Your target doesn't have to be a model, but it must be a point on the ground."

Actually it is. And I would like you to explain how you reach the conclusion that it is not...


Actually I find that if someone tries to say I can not shoot at a target because I can not see the ground in front of it, is trying to loophole as you say. It is a ridiculous argument, trying to misuse RAW.


No-one is saying you can't fire at at a target if you can't see the ground infront of it, the rules clearly (and only) state that whether the target is a model, or the ground you have to be able to see it. You seem to be confusing the "target" of the cannon ball for what you actually want to hit with it.

GodlessM
27-02-2011, 21:10
First and foremost here, the Cannon cannot shoot the tower in the first place unless there is an enemy unit inside it. However if there is an it bounces to hit the Helblaster then it is sadly legal, though I wouldn't do it myself as it is obviously a case of undershooting.

pippin_nl
27-02-2011, 21:39
Originally Posted by pippin_nl
"Your target doesn't have to be a model, it can be a point on the ground if you wish."

this is not the same as:

"Your target doesn't have to be a model, but it must be a point on the ground."
Actually it is. And I would like you to explain how you reach the conclusion that it is not...

Your target does not have to be a model = anything
It can be a point on the ground if you wish = anything (as it can be, but not that it must be!)

I agree the rules could have been clearer, but they are not.

shelfunit.
27-02-2011, 21:54
Your target does not have to be a model = anything
It can be a point on the ground if you wish = anything (as it can be, but not that it must be!)

I agree the rules could have been clearer, but they are not.

The rules are clear - your interpritation of them is frankly ridiculous.

"Your target doesn't have to be a model, it can be a point on the ground if you wish."

You have added full stops where there are none, and cropped a complete sentence to make it say what you wish.

H33D
27-02-2011, 22:01
Also, you must understand that the reason I disagree with the strange reasoning of needing line of sight to the ground is this:

You can not shoot over ANYTHING with a cannon unless said cannon is several inches or even feet off of the ground using this method.

This method requires that there is no terrain and there are no units in between the cannon and the target it is trying to hit. Suddenly because you are purposefully cutting the shot short so as to hit the target, you do not have line of sight to the spot on the ground that you AREN'T trying to hit. Because you cannot see this spot that you know you aren't even going to hit, you cannot shoot the cannon.

Oddly, the only time you might be able to cut short is if the placement of your aim just happens to lie on a large model that you CAN see. Because that makes sense *sarcasm*

RAW can be twisted to agree with the above logic. I have already put in my two cents. Some people (quite obnoxiously might I add) have argued the opposite, and that's fine. No one is forcing anyone to play a certain way and there is no need to start name calling (ie 'big mouth' comments) or to utilize any other method of arguing commonly used by little kids.

To be fair, utilizing RAW you can also twist it so that a stone thrower would never need to indirect fire because you only need to see the template, and you only need to hold the template above the model. You could then hold the template a few feet off of the table and never fire indirectly.

There are some rules that are RAW in a weird sort of way that people with common sense will never utilize. If not at least because their common sense won't let them maybe because they would look like a ***** and be laughed away from the gaming table.

Some people might not find these methods moronic. They probably have no war machines in their army. Or they lost a battle and blame it on the enemy cannon, quite possibly what happened to the OP. Either way just play it the way you think it should be played. Don't come on to warseer, ask how it should be done, and then immediately say the first person to argue with your point of view has a big mouth. That is what trolls do so please stop.

shelfunit.
27-02-2011, 22:22
Also, you must understand that the reason I disagree with the strange reasoning of needing line of sight to the ground is this:

You can not shoot over ANYTHING with a cannon unless said cannon is several inches or even feet off of the ground using this method.

Ummm, you can't shoot over anything, unless you can draw line of sight to either the model or peice of ground you are firing at. This is why people put cannons on hills and between units, not behind them...


This method requires that there is no terrain and there are no units in between the cannon and the target it is requiring to hit.

It's like you've just read the "how to position your artillary" handbook...


Suddenly because you are purposefully cutting the shot short so as to hit the target, you do not have line of sight to the spot on the ground that you AREN'T trying to hit. Because you cannot see this spot that you know you aren't even going to hit, you cannot shoot the cannon.

Well, you ARE trying to hit that peice of ground several inches before the gribbly you want to kill, that peice of ground IS your target, again you are confusing the "target" of your initial cannon shot, with the thing you want to kill (unless they are one and the same)


Oddly, the only time you might be able to cut short is if the placement of your aim just happens to lie on a large model that you CAN see. Because that makes sense *sarcasm*

RAW can be twisted to agree with the above logic. I have already put in my two cents. Some people (quite obnoxiously might I add) have argued the opposite, and that's fine. No one is forcing anyone to play a certain way and there is no need to start name calling (ie 'big mouth' comments) or to utilize any other method of arguing commonly used by little kids.

To be fair, utilizing RAW you can also twist it so that a stone thrower would never need to indirect fire because you only need to see the template, and you only need to hold the template above the model. You could then hold the template a few feet off of the table and never fire indirectly.

There are some rules that are RAW in a weird sort of way that people with common sense will never utilize. If not at least because their common sense won't let them maybe because they would look like a ***** and be laughed away from the gaming table.

Rather sad you have to refer to not only a different warmachine, but a different rule to try and back up a strange and rambling attack on RAW. Saying this proves your point about RAW being stupid, and thus somehow validating your disregard for it in whichever situations you don't like, is a non-argument.


Some people might not find these methods moronic. They probably have no war machines in their army. Or they lost a battle and blame it on the enemy cannon, quite possibly what happened to the OP. Either way just play it the way you think it should be played. Don't come on to warseer, ask how it should be done, and then immediately say the first person to argue with your point of view has a big mouth. That is what trolls do so please stop.

I am not stating my opinion of how the rule works, I am stating exactly how the rule does work. The methods you state are in no way moronic, just incorrect in their relation to the rules - feel free to houserule it if you don't like it. Please do not accuse me of trolling when I am just pointing out your errors in reading/applying the rules in a rules forum.

H33D
27-02-2011, 22:40
Ummm, you can't shoot over anything, unless you can draw line of sight to either the model or peice of ground you are firing at. This is why people put cannons on hills and between units, not behind them...

So you have a hill modeled 12"+ high so you can use your cannons? We use GW hills and they are barely an inch high. Not near enough to be able to shoot over anything that isn't paper thin.




It's like you've just read the "how to position your artillary" handbook...

I actually try not to deploy my war machines in the open, but behind my own units, usually on a hill or something. Clever, BTW.




Well, you ARE trying to hit that peice of ground several inches before the gribbly you want to kill, that peice of ground IS your target, again you are confusing the "target" of your initial cannon shot, with the thing you want to kill (unless they are one and the same)

When the rule for cannons initially tells you to dictate a target, that target must have line of sight. You can then place your aim short, but the book nowhere states this is a new target nor that you need line of sight. It does give you the exception for shooting at other units by stating that you can have this new spot on the ground or on a model. This is how I interpret it and I have a hard time trying to get this other method out of the rules.




Rather sad you have to refer to not only a different warmachine, but a different rule to try and back up a strange and rambling attack on RAW. Saying this proves your point about RAW being stupid, and thus somehow validating your disregard for it in whichever situations you don't like, is a non-argument.

I was merely explaining that some armies can nerf cannons by twisting the rules and claiming RAW (because you can derive each method from RAW) but other armies can also cheese out their stone throwers by twisting and claiming RAW just the same. It is these sort of things that should be avoided, IMHO.




I am not stating my opinion of how the rule works, I am stating exactly how the rule does work. The methods you state are in no way moronic, just incorrect in their relation to the rules - feel free to houserule it if you don't like it. Please do not accuse me of trolling when I am just pointing out your errors in reading/applying the rules in a rules forum.

Cool, I too am explaining how the rule does work. And by the way I wasn't accusing you of trolling, I apologize if that is what you thought. Your previous argument made some logical sense and is why I said everyone should just play the way they feel is right. The OP was the one who posted the question in the first place and then immediately told me I had a big mouth when I responded with how I felt a cannon shot should be made. That is a troll.

Neth
28-02-2011, 02:15
I had this same question a few months back and here is a link to my thread. Some of the same people commented then, that are now. This might help
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=281617

Damocles8
28-02-2011, 03:57
I don't think it'll help, some people tend to think that 1 + 1 = 3.....

shelfunit.
28-02-2011, 06:53
So you have a hill modeled 12"+ high so you can use your cannons? We use GW hills and they are barely an inch high. Not near enough to be able to shoot over anything that isn't paper thin.

No. The hills we use are about 1.5" high. With the cannon barrel being an additional .5" a total of 2" is able to shoot over 90% of the models GW snd other manufacturers produce. Even on hills an inch high, the cannon's barrel is an additional .5" above this, normal 28mm scale models are just that about 28mm (or about 1") high. I don't see what your issue is here.



I actually try not to deploy my war machines in the open, but behind my own units, usually on a hill or something. Clever, BTW.

Umm, that's what I said you should do...:confused: Due to TLoS the only warmachines worth placing behind your own units are boltthrowers (if you can take the to hit modifier) or organ guns (stonethrowers are ok, but only because you can generally draw LoS from their crossbar over most models).


When the rule for cannons initially tells you to dictate a target, that target must have line of sight. You can then place your aim short, but the book nowhere states this is a new target nor that you need line of sight. It does give you the exception for shooting at other units by stating that you can have this new spot on the ground or on a model. This is how I interpret it and I have a hard time trying to get this other method out of the rules.

No where does the rule book say this. It reminds you that the cannonball will bounce, and thus you should aim short, but in no way does this change the fact that you must have LoS to your target. It specifies that you may choose a "point on the ground" as your target specifically because you need to shoot short of your intended victim because of the bounce.



I was merely explaining that some armies can nerf cannons by twisting the rules and claiming RAW (because you can derive each method from RAW) but other armies can also cheese out their stone throwers by twisting and claiming RAW just the same. It is these sort of things that should be avoided, IMHO.

Anyone can "nerf" a peice of artillary by hiding from them.
I think this is a hangover from 7th edition, where you guessed the range and the initial point the cannonball touches down did not require line of sight. Nowadays, everything requires LoS (apart form some specifically stated exceptions - of which cannons are not one).




Cool, I too am explaining how the rule does work.

I cannot agree here (although that was obvious :p )


And by the way I wasn't accusing you of trolling, I apologize if that is what you thought. Your previous argument made some logical sense and is why I said everyone should just play the way they feel is right. The OP was the one who posted the question in the first place and then immediately told me I had a big mouth when I responded with how I felt a cannon shot should be made. That is a troll.

In this case I not only retract the brusque tone of my previous message, but appologise to you for anything that may, therefore, have offended you - not my intention.

Munin
28-02-2011, 11:25
I think the using of the word "ridiculous" is mentioned too much in this thread by both sides for it to be used at all. Apparently it cant be that one sided if both sides arguments are as good. Imo no matter the interpretation of this rule it seems as cheesy loopholing, whether a few skinks tries to block a stegadong or aiming at a bell tower trying to hit a model on the ground.

Badly written rules.

FestHest
28-02-2011, 11:45
Badly written rules.

Now, Thats a sentence thats mentioned quite often in the rules section of this forum. :)

As to the topic, I can see the resoning from both sides, and Im not sure how the RAW should be read.
Im not certain you should be able to see the point wherefrom u roll the first dice, the one that gives a misfire or some extra boost. On the other hand you should be able to see the point where the cannonball lands and bounches from, after all this ought to be the point the crew was aiming for. But this is something thats a variable so I would rule you should be able to see the first point, because its before any dice roll.

In my group we are quite laxed with the TLOS and don't really use it much..
I play regularry against an Empire army, and it has never been an issue, Iv actually never thought of it, that the point before the unit he was aiming at could be out of the cannon's (True) line of sight..

As for the loopholing, it seems to me it goes both ways in this dispute.

PS. I really liked to read the post from shelfunit. and H33D, seems like theres still gentlemen how can make a serious argument. Keep the high standard! Maybe some will learn of it :)

Lord Solar Plexus
28-02-2011, 12:16
First and foremost here, the Cannon cannot shoot the tower in the first place unless there is an enemy unit inside it.


The scenario was Raze and destroy, which allows you to shoot at the tower and there was a unit inside.



However if there is an it bounces to hit the Helblaster then it is sadly legal, though I wouldn't do it myself as it is obviously a case of undershooting.


The imaginary line the cannon ball travelled was cannon - hill - (invisible) spot on the ground / visible spot in the air - (invisible) hellblaster - (visible) tower.



Your target does not have to be a model = anything
It can be a point on the ground if you wish = anything (as it can be, but not that it must be!)


Your logic I'm afraid is faulty. Neither of those subclauses equals "anything". It's either/or. (Only) If you don't want your target to be a model, you can instead target a spot on the ground. These are the only two legitimate targets you can chose to put the marker and both have to be in LoS.

Being able to target anything you like is neither mentioned nor implied.



Im not certain you should be able to see the point wherefrom u roll the first dice, the one that gives a misfire or some extra boost.


Well, where does it say that you do not need LoS to that point?

hamsterwheel
28-02-2011, 16:29
If you don't want your target to be a model, you can instead target a spot on the ground. These are the only two legitimate targets you can chose to put the marker and both have to be in LoS.


Solar is correct. The other interpretations in this thread are badly misunderstood readings or blatant attempts at rewording the RAW.

Surgency
28-02-2011, 17:26
Solar is correct. The other interpretations in this thread are badly misunderstood readings or blatant attempts at rewording the RAW.

Well, I guess thats the definitive answer. Who really needs to back up their arguments with quotes and references? I guess when you're right, you're right

shelfunit.
28-02-2011, 17:50
Well, I guess thats the definitive answer. Who really needs to back up their arguments with quotes and references? I guess when you're right, you're right

All the "quotes and references" have been layed out in previous posts.

hamsterwheel
28-02-2011, 18:35
Well, I guess thats the definitive answer. Who really needs to back up their arguments with quotes and references? I guess when you're right, you're right

Well, when this thread first began I chuckled because I didn't think anyone could interpret the RAW in such a manner as to hit a target that is outside of LOS. I figured those involved would just read the Cannon Section labeled "Choose Target".

Well, those involved did read that section and a few of them still think they can hit targets out of LOS. Normally I'd be perfectly content with them thinking they can play whichever way they want to play, it's not like they're gaming with me. However, warseer is used as a Public resource by many gamers. They often use it to cite how a situation might be ruled on if it ever came up in a game.

And now we have players that weren't even involved in the original arguments saying that the wording is ambiguous and that it's obviously a poorly written RAW issue and I'm here to say it's not.

Not every issue has a clear definitive answer and in some instances it is poorly written RAW but I think that term is being used too broadly now. I'm all for pointing out instances where GW failed to explain a rule in enough detail, but frankly I also can't stand it when there is more than enough information to accurately ascertain how they wanted something to be played, just to have another player say "It's poorly written RAW, it's too ambiguous, I'm going to play it my way".

Well here it is, all the fine points. I'll bold and color the important parts.

CHOOSE TARGET
Nominate a point within the warchines'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. Remember that war machines are allowed to pivot in the Movement phase, the better to bring your chosen target into the weapon's line of sight.

When choosing your target point, it's best to bear in mind that, unless something goes wrong, the cannonball will always overshoot between 2" and 10", so you'd be well served to aim a few inches short of the enemy you wish to hit.

Note that you are not allowed to make a cannon shot in such a way that it has a chance of hitting a friendly unit or enemy unit that is engaged in close combat.

When you have chosen your target, place a small coin or counter in the correct position as a reminder of where the shot is intended to land.

FIRE!
Using your tape measure, extend a 'shot' line from the cannon's barrel all the way to your target point.

A point and target point are interchangeable throughout this entire section. The target is a model or target point on the ground. It then goes on to say that you as the player would have a better chance of hitting a specific model if you place the target point 2" to 10" in front of the model you intend on hitting.

Souppilgrim
01-03-2011, 08:15
It doesn't say that your only options are models and spots on the ground. It says models can be targets, and then goes on to elaborate with an example of how even spots on the ground can be selected.

Imagine a shallow tower. If you can only pick the front edge of the tower as your target you are going to miss. Thus the rules are being stretched to find a loophole to keep the cannon user from actually shooting at a legit target.

You pick a target (the tower), then you pick a spot X inches from the tower in the air for measuring purposes. Your target never changes, it's still the tower.

Now if you want to argue that the guys below (that cant be seen) are not hit because the shot is high up in the air...go ahead and do that. But the guy can still pick a spot short of his target.

It makes sense from a RAI standpoint as well, that the crewmen are using less powder.

shelfunit.
01-03-2011, 09:36
It doesn't say that your only options are models and spots on the ground. It says models can be targets, and then goes on to elaborate with an example of how even spots on the ground can be selected.

Yes it does tell you your only options are models or points on the ground. Please quote the passage where it says otherwise.


Imagine a shallow tower. If you can only pick the front edge of the tower as your target you are going to miss. Thus the rules are being stretched to find a loophole to keep the cannon user from actually shooting at a legit target.

Why would you pick the front edge of the tower to shoot? Pick a spot on the ground a few inches before it - in LoS of the tower as per the rules - as fire at that - the bounce will take care of the rest.


You pick a target (the tower), then you pick a spot X inches from the tower in the air for measuring purposes. Your target never changes, it's still the tower.

If the target is your tower, then that is where you place the counter which determines wherethe cannonball first bouncces from as per the rules. Please, again, quote the passage that says "pick a point in the air, you don't have to have LoS to do so". If your target never changes then neither can the point at which you aim - which if it is the tower, is the tower itself, not a random point a few inches away.



Now if you want to argue that the guys below (that cant be seen) are not hit because the shot is high up in the air...go ahead and do that. But the guy can still pick a spot short of his target.

It makes sense from a RAI standpoint as well, that the crewmen are using less powder.

I am not arguing that you can't hit models that the cannon can not see, just that the point that the cannonball first bounces must be in LoS, anything else the cannonball hits on it's journey is collatoral damage.
Also your "RAI" is covered in the rules as I andothers have stated previously - you pick a point in LoS of the cannon closer to the cannon = "less powder used".

Lord Solar Plexus
01-03-2011, 10:34
It doesn't say that your only options are models and spots on the ground.


It says *precisely* that. It's there in black and white. You cannot quote any other possibility.



Imagine a shallow tower. If you can only pick the front edge of the tower as your target you are going to miss.

Then shoot at something else or deploy differently to start with. Your cannon just doesn't have that angle of elevation if you need a fluff reason.

Drakemaster
01-03-2011, 11:41
To me the rules seem perfectly clear, even if they may not work the way people want them to (or think they should). The key rule is, handily, right at the beginning of the section on choosing a target:

Nominate a point within the war machine's line of sight and that is not outside the cannon's maximum range.
Surely that is the key passage as to where you can place your target point. The parts after this are clarifications - that
A. Your target point doesn't have to be a model, but can be a point on the ground
B. Your target point should be a few inches short of what you actually want the cannon ball to hit, seeing as cannonballs almost always overshoot
C. You can't choose a target point that would mean you have a chance of hitting your own units

These are clarifications - none of them change the fact that the target point must be in range and in LOS.

H33D
01-03-2011, 19:23
Well, I guess thats the definitive answer. Who really needs to back up their arguments with quotes and references? I guess when you're right, you're right

It is none of those, not even an opinion lacking references. It is merely a completely worthless post. A troll even.

At least the other posters have been citing their sources, such as shelfunit and solar plexus.

hamsterwheel
01-03-2011, 19:28
It is none of those, not even an opinion lacking references. It is merely a completely worthless post. A troll even.

At least the other posters have been citing their sources, such as shelfunit and solar plexus.

Try looking 2 posts down.

TonyFlow
02-03-2011, 12:25
It is simple really. Some people confuse the word TARGET with what they want their cannon to hit. The TARGET is simply the point from where the cannonball bounces. The rules then advices players to place their TARGET 2-10" in front of what they want to hit because of the artillery dice being added to it. As alredy pointed out, the TARGET needs to be within LOS and range of the cannon. Whether it is logical is another discussion, but those are the rules. TARGET =/= enemy unit/model you wish to kill.

This does, unfortunately, mean that it is quite possible to shoot at stuff you cannot see, as long as the TARGET is within LOS (units behind hills etc).

cptcosmic
02-03-2011, 13:17
This does, unfortunately, mean that it is quite possible to shoot at stuff you cannot see, as long as the TARGET is within LOS (units behind hills etc).
are you sure about that? I dont use cannons and am not very familiar with them (and I dont have the book at hand), cause myself and all my friends play armies without them, i prefer throwers and mortars :)

but doesnt the bounce moves forward? (and not up/down in space). uphill it would bounce into the hill and downhill it would bounce into the air. I cannot remember that the RB ever stated that the cannonball can magically bounce around hills and change its altitude like you wish :rolleyes: the bounce is straight forward.

and even if my first assumption is wrong and you can just ignore the altitude on the table, you still have to be able to draw a line to the point where the cannon hits & bounces to, which means that the bounce will go through parts of the hill which means it hits indestructible environment and is stopped. if this is not the case, then the hill is not build correctly ;)

you can ofcourse enlighten me if I am not correct.

hamsterwheel
02-03-2011, 14:33
are you sure about that? I dont use cannons and am not very familiar with them (and I dont have the book at hand), cause myself and all my friends play armies without them

but doesnt the bounce moves forward? (and not up/down in space). uphill it would bounce into the hill and downhill it would bounce into the air. I cannot remember that the RB ever stated that the cannonball can magically bounce around hills and change its altitude like you wish :rolleyes: the bounce is straight forward.

and even if my first assumption is wrong and you can just ignore the altitude on the table, you still have to be able to draw a line to the point where the cannon hits & bounces to, which means that the bounce will go through parts of the hill which means it hits indestructible environment and is stopped. if this is not the case, then the hill is not build correctly ;)

you can ofcourse enlighten me if I am not correct.

The cannon ball would only stop if the cannon's trajectory would take it into inpassable terrain that would block the path of the cannon shot. So hills and other common terrain would not stop the cannon ball. The example the rulebook gives is a sheer cliff.

Greyfire
02-03-2011, 14:51
The cannon ball would only stop if the cannon's trajectory would take it into impassable terrain that would block the path of the cannon shot. So hills and other common terrain would not stop the cannon ball. The example the rulebook gives is a sheer cliff.
I don't think GW has ever looked the word trajectory up in the dictionary. :)

But you did make me realized I missed that change. Only impassible terrain stops a cannon now. So cannon balls bounce through trees and rivers and hills. An Anvil of Vaul is just a hill so it won't stop the bounce. But it'll be stopped by a lava field or mystical monument like the charnel pit. I don't think RAW is a good guideline to follow here.

Maybe I missed it, too, but I thought cannonballs could bounce through buildings. Since buildings are considered impassible it doesn't seem like that's possible. The building itself will be hit but the ball can't bounce out of impassible terrain so it never leaves the buildings. Can anyone shoot a whole in that rule? Am I missing something?

TMATK
02-03-2011, 15:11
That's not a rule change, only impassable terrain could stop a cannonball in 7th. The change is that obstacles can stop them now, at least once.

cptcosmic
02-03-2011, 18:11
I do not think you got what I mean. According to the rulebook you:
1. first nominate the spot where you are shooting at and place a marker there
2. draw a imaginary 'shot' line with your measuring tape to that marker
3. throw the dice to see how much you overshoot
4. extend the 'shot' line, this is the spot that the cannon would hit
5. next throw a dice to see if it bounces of the ground.
6. extend the distance by that amount to see where it stops on the ground

the point is, even a 10 year old knows what a LINE is and you seem to lack geometric awareness. trajectory does not exist in this game. As already mentioned the cannonball does not magically fly around the hill nor does the line magically have some curves in it; the shot line, is a line that you draw by youself from the point of origin (the cannon obviously) with your measure tape straight to the point where it would hit. if you place the marker on the hill because you want the bounce to hit the unit behind it, it simply wont work because the following would happen:
-you overshoot too much and the bounce would be in the air. the rulebook states that it bounces of the ground, not of the air, thus it is not possible, as there is no ground to bounce off at that spot.
-you dont overshoot too much, which would mean that you have to extend the bounce straight into the hill. can you extend your line with your tape into the hill and beyond? I guess not. not possible.

in short: it is not possible to shoot units behind hills with a cannon in warhammer fantasy. if you do, then you are a cheater.

H33D
02-03-2011, 18:38
Wow more rules abuse. I feel like I need to spend the day consoling my rulebook to make it feel wanted and loved. If this is a world where I can't shoot a unit I can see with my cannon because an inconsequential spot between us is out of my line of sight or because GOD NO there is a hill in between us even though I can see my target then this isn't a world I want to live in. Maybe I'll pick up 40K NO NO IM SORRY RULEBOOK I STILL LOVE YOU...

...but seriously people, why???

shelfunit.
02-03-2011, 18:41
Wow more rules abuse. I feel like I need to spend the day consoling my rulebook to make it feel wanted and loved. If this is a world where I can't shoot a unit I can see with my cannon because an inconsequential spot between us is out of my line of sight or because GOD NO there is a hill in between us even though I can see my target then this isn't a world I want to live in. Maybe I'll pick up 40K NO NO IM SORRY RULEBOOK I STILL LOVE YOU...

...but seriously people, why???

Because it' the rules - where do you see any abuse?. Feel free to house rule anything you don't like.

EDIT: Feel free to head off to 40K if you like - however, they have a similar view of people mis-using rules that are clearly and unambiguously written too.

hamsterwheel
02-03-2011, 18:55
I do not think you got what I mean. According to the rulebook you:
1. first nominate the spot where you are shooting at and place a marker there
2. draw a imaginary 'shot' line with your measuring tape to that marker
3. throw the dice to see how much you overshoot
4. extend the 'shot' line, this is the spot that the cannon would hit
5. next throw a dice to see if it bounces of the ground.
6. extend the distance by that amount to see where it stops on the ground

the point is, even a 10 year old knows what a LINE is and you seem to lack geometric awareness. trajectory does not exist in this game. As already mentioned the cannonball does not magically fly around the hill nor does the line magically have some curves in it; the shot line, is a line that you draw by youself from the point of origin (the cannon obviously) with your measure tape straight to the point where it would hit. if you place the marker on the hill because you want the bounce to hit the unit behind it, it simply wont work because the following would happen:
-you overshoot too much and the bounce would be in the air. the rulebook states that it bounces of the ground, not of the air, thus it is not possible, as there is no ground to bounce off at that spot.
-you dont overshoot too much, which would mean that you have to extend the bounce straight into the hill. can you extend your line with your tape into the hill and beyond? I guess not. not possible.

in short: it is not possible to shoot units behind hills with a cannon in warhammer fantasy. if you do, then you are a cheater.

You were correct all of the way until the point where you describe the line stopping at hills or hitting air and not going anywhere. The rulebook clearly denotes what stops the bounce.

Page 112 of the rulebook
"Assuming you don't roll a missfire, then the cannonball bounces the distance rolled straight forward - extend your tape measure a distance equal to the roll of the dice. If the cannonball bounces into impassable terrain that would, in reality, stand in the way of the shot, such as a sheer cliff, it stops immediately."

Page 116 of the rulebook
"Impassable terrain covers those areas of the board that our warriors physically cannot enter as a matter of course, or to which they cannot seek entry without an immediate and probably messy death. Impassable terrain therefore covers such things as lava fields, deep lakes, or chasms. Units cannot voluntarily enter, move or cross through impassable terrain - they must go around. Remember that units can flee through impassable terrain, although they will have to take Dangerous Terrain tests if they do so.

Page 118 of the rulebook
Hills and Movement
"Unless otherwise stated, hills are treated as open ground."

I think you're attempting to apply the laws of physics to a fantasy based game that has it's own ruleset. People should be playing by the ruleset and not by how they think it should be played because that's not how cannon's work.

FestHest
02-03-2011, 19:21
A thing to remember, hills in warhammer is representations of hills in the "normal" world. You will rarely see a hill shaped like those from GW.
I like to think of hills as a slowly elevated point on the battlefield.

And now something from the BRB Faq:

Q: How should a template be held or placed above a unit or the
battlefield? (p9)
A: It should be as close to the battlefield or unit as possible,
trying to gain an advantage by doing otherwise simply isn’t in
the spirit of the game!

As cannons are template weapons, aiming at thin air above the battlefield is not in the spirit of the game.

And may this thread die soon....

H33D
02-03-2011, 19:45
Because it' the rules - where do you see any abuse?. Feel free to house rule anything you don't like...

So you agree that cannons can't shoot past hills for any reason whatsoever? Harsh, but to each his own.



...And may this thread die soon....

yes please, before someone decides RAW you can't shoot cannons at all *sarcasm*

but seriously. Not being able to shoot past hills for any reason?

shelfunit.
02-03-2011, 19:54
So you agree that cannons can't shoot past hills for any reason whatsoever? Harsh, but to each his own.

What are you talking about? The rules say the canonball may overshoot/bounce over hills. Sorry if I forgot to differetiate between the first incorrect example you gave and the second.



yes please, before someone decides RAW you can't shoot cannons at all *sarcasm*

but seriously. Not being able to shoot past hills for any reason?

This is begining to verge on trolling. If you have any rules driven backup for any of the things you have posted in this thread please summarise. If you choose to use quotes from the BRB, please quote the whole sentence without clipping

H33D
02-03-2011, 20:16
cptcosmic just argued:

"in short: it is not possible to shoot units behind hills with a cannon in warhammer fantasy. if you do, then you are a cheater."

Now under the FIRE! rules, the book says on page 112: "Using your tape measure, extend a 'shot' 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 (see diagram below)." I don't see anything saying that if your additional distance travels through a hill that your shot stops, or that you have to keep the same 'trajectory' of the initial shot (therefore not only pushing the hill but going through the table as well mind you).

The book then says under the BOUNCE rules after saying you roll the artillery dice: "Assuming you don't roll a misfire, then the cannonball bounces the distance rolled straight forward - extend your tape measure a distance equal to the roll of the dice." Same thing here. Nothing says your bounce is going to stop if it hits a hill. The same logic yet again states that if you follow a strict trajectory it would not even go to/through the hill but stop as it would be going through the table.

I guess I'm sorry if commenting on the validity of this makes me a troll. Clearly a cannon that can see behind the hill can shoot past the hill. And if you aim short of the hill and either of your two rolls takes you into or beyond that hill, the shot would travel that far.

Obviously if you can see the spot to which you are aiming, you can stretch a tape measure from the barrel of the cannon to that point.

Apparently since a hill stops a tape measure (because otherwise you would push that hill with the tape) then it would also stop a cannonball. (at least I think this is his arguement). But then following this logic the table itself would immediately stop all cannonball shots.

and then there's his blanket statement saying you can't shoot past hills for any reason in fantasy.

This is my last post in this topic. I am tired of being harassed each time I post. Although i admit I am usually questioning others' posts on the topic when I post, each time I post I am either called a troll or said to have a big mouth and then said poster(s) almost always refuse to provide a counter-argument to my post and instead just say 'you're a troll!', or 'big mouth!', or 'you are incorrect' or have 'incorrect examples' (although shelfunit and others provided references earlier). And even when I comment on something I feel is obviously wrong, people say I'm a troll because I didn't cite references... So if someone says 'all models cost 1 pt each in Warhammer Fantasy' and someone replies with a mere 'that is absolutely wrong', the second person here is a troll for not citing a direct quote or reference. ...um, ok?

I really don't think arguing against these points constitutes me being a troll or having a big mouth, and I still think the latter point of not shooting past hills for any reason is very questionable. At least the first point about needing line of sight to an inconsequential spot on the ground had some rather solid logic and RAW behind it.

I just hope this whole thread closes or better yet is deleted. Even when people have good points to bring out the fact that they act so juvenile masks anything anyone else wants to pay attention to. You can't even comment on a post without someone jumping out shouting 'TROLL!!!'

Some of you might attempt to point out I was one of them but you can hardly blame me for any sarcastic comments or bold statements considering my first post was immediately met with a 'big mouth' comment. Considering that I feel I have been rather mature.

Souppilgrim
02-03-2011, 22:42
It says *precisely* that. It's there in black and white. You cannot quote any other possibility.
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 doesn't say anything about limiting what is and isn't a target. It just has to be in LOS and not outside of maximum range.


I'm not saying that the cannon can hit the unit in the ground behind the hill. That is another debate that I'm not talking about at all. I'm simply saying that the cannon can shoot at a unit in the top of the tower, and the cannon player can nominate several inches short in order to actually be able to hit the tower. These things are not prevented in any way by the rule book. They are a casualty of people making an argument against hitting the unit on the ground.

hamsterwheel
02-03-2011, 23:10
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 doesn't say anything about limiting what is and isn't a target. It just has to be in LOS and not outside of maximum range.


I'm not saying that the cannon can hit the unit in the ground behind the hill. That is another debate that I'm not talking about at all. I'm simply saying that the cannon can shoot at a unit in the top of the tower, and the cannon player can nominate several inches short in order to actually be able to hit the tower. These things are not prevented in any way by the rule book. They are a casualty of people making an argument against hitting the unit on the ground.

Are we talking about the original scenario or just a tower on open ground? If I recall the original scenario involved a tower with a hill in front of it blocking LOS to the ground in front of the tower.

If it's the original scenario, the tower can be targetted since the tower is terrain, but it would be somewhat pointless since it's impassable terrain so the cannonball would not go beyond the tower. This however changes if there is a unit inside the tower since buildings have their own rules about template weapons damaging units inside of garrisoned buildings.

If the cannon does not have LOS to the area in front of the tower then that area cannot be targetted. It's that simple.

I think there may be some confusion because most players wouldn't think of a building as being terrain, but if you can shoot a cannon into the side of a mountain then you can shoot a cannon into the side of a building. As far as the rules are concerned, terrain is the ground, whether it be vertical or horizontal.

Now a more interesting question would be whether the cannon shot can actually bounce if it you're aiming at impassable terrain that would block the shot.

wilsongrahams
02-03-2011, 23:42
Whilst I normally apply common sense to a game where something is in doubt, hamsterwheel has it right. The rules do not state anywhere that the ball bounces on the same line as the initial shot, and merely that you extend the tape measure. Reading more into this is an error.

The argument brought forward that a line extends in a straight line is also incorrect as a line is able to bend up and weave as much as it wants to in this 2D perspective, and straight would only apply in a 3d world. The rules do not allow for a full 3d game. Where different levels occur, they follow true LoS but a flyer unit cannot stop it's movement 12" in the air, and similar restrictions apply when using cannon.

Where a cannon states that the point may be on the ground if you so wish - this is just an example. Nothing in a game of warhammer is on the ground. You have a games table, and terrain, and units. There is no ground. You can clearly target any point you can see and it doesn't have to be a unit or model. You may therefore place your target point atop a tower of stacked dice and have it in thin air, as nothing stops you from doing this. It does not gain any penalty or bonus from being aimed in the air, except that as soon as you determine where it bounces, it falls vertically down to the ground and bounces from that point. Your aiming point must be in LoS as stated in the very first 10 words of 'Choose Target' on page 112 of little book, but the landing point does not - the landing point being an extension of your shot. You can apply your imagination here to interpret this as a ballistic arc or such, but in fact it's just a set of rules to be followed, and as long as you do not break them, common sense does not directly apply.

Damocles8
03-03-2011, 01:40
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


You forgot to mention you MAY target a point on the ground.

Souppilgrim
03-03-2011, 07:46
You forgot to mention you MAY target a point on the ground.
And? I also forgot to mention what I had for breakfast, but it doesn't have anything to do with what I'm not allowed to target.

shelfunit.
03-03-2011, 08:15
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 doesn't say anything about limiting what is and isn't a target. It just has to be in LOS and not outside of maximum range.

Again the mysterious practise (on this forum) of clipping a rule in order to make it say what you like :rolleyes:


"Your target doesn't have to be a model, it can be a point on the ground if you wish."

This is the sentence you attempted to quote in full. It clearly states if you choose not to target a model, you can target a point on the ground. These are the limits of the target. A model, or a point on the ground. Nothing else. You can disprove me by finding the rule that clearly states the other options for targeting.



I'm not saying that the cannon can hit the unit in the ground behind the hill. That is another debate that I'm not talking about at all. I'm simply saying that the cannon can shoot at a unit in the top of the tower, and the cannon player can nominate several inches short in order to actually be able to hit the tower. These things are not prevented in any way by the rule book. They are a casualty of people making an argument against hitting the unit on the ground.

Now here I agree, you can nominate the unit in the tower as a target as the unit is in the tower, and you have LoS to the tower, ergo you have LoS to the unit.
Where you falter in your description of the shot is the part about shooting several inches short of the tower.
In your example you only have LoS to the tower, not the point (or nominated target, if you prefer) on the ground which you want the cannonball to bounce from.
No where in the rules does it say pick your target and shoot short. What it does say is remembering that the cannonball will bounce, pick your target point with this in mind.

Drakemaster
03-03-2011, 14:49
It clearly runs against the spirit of the rules to claim your target point can be in mid-air - even if there's no iron-clad rule against it.

The cannon rules state the target should be a point on the ground or a model, the description mentions placing a coin or marker at the target point (somewhat hard to do if the target point is in mid-air), and there's the section in the rulebook FAQ regarding template attacks:

Q: How should a template be held or placed above a unit or the battlefield? (p9)
A: It should be as close to the battlefield or unit as possible, trying to gain an advantage by doing otherwise simply isnít in the spirit of the game!
Yes, its not foolproof - I'm sure you can argue that the cannon shot, despite being a template attack, doesn't actually follow the rules for templates until you determine the point the ball hits the ground. Still, the intent of the rule seems pretty clear to me.

cptcosmic
03-03-2011, 14:51
I dont think you understand what I mean that is why I will make an awesome paint graphic soon :p


GW's definition of a line follows a 2D gameboard, so it is a line viewed from above only.

Also, the rulebook does state that the projectile must stop and hit the ground, as the target point may be anywhere but the bounce must occur on the ground (obviously). The conclusion of that is that the ball must drop to ground level though there is no arc, it simply goes to the ground.
please tell me where do you find the definition of those mystical "line" of GW. 2d gameboard with TLOS? haha good one.

and if you are at it, you can also tell me where the Rulebook states that the shot drops altitude and always hits the ground *rolleyes*

shelfunit.
03-03-2011, 15:20
Also, the rulebook does state that the projectile must stop and hit the ground, as the target point may be anywhere

I have never once stated that a bounce occurs in the air, only that a target point could be in the air.

I suggest you check what you are reading and seriously adjust your attitude.

I sincerley hope you follow your own advice and read up on these rules - I keep asking you to provide evidence of your claims about being able to target "thin air" and yet you only reply with clipped sentences that do not contain the whole of the targeting rules.



It clearly runs against the spirit of the rules to claim your target point can be in mid-air - even if there's no iron-clad rule against it.

There is an iron clad rule. You must pick a target, that "target does not have to be a model, it can be a point on the ground if you wish."

You pick either:

a) A model.
or
b) A point on the ground.