PDA

View Full Version : Iron Blaster: Line of Sight



Trains_Get_Robbed
08-06-2012, 08:28
The question in summary would be this: because a Iron Blaster is a chariot, it can only shoot what it can see, and it can only see in it's forward arc. Thus, as it follows the rules of a chariot, in the shooting phase it may not make a pivot on the spot to shoot 360 degrees, am' I correct in assuming this?

We had a discussion amongst my gaming group the other day about this, the Ogre player in my group citing (claiming more or less) the Hellcannon has the ability for a pivot in the shooting phase for 360 degree line of sight, and is a monster. As a result he believes it sets a precedent for the Iron Blaster to have the same.

However, I disagreed stating that the Hellcannon specifically mentions that: "it shoots like a stone thrower and thus is allowed to pivot and fire blindly" and that the quote from the Iron Blaster's description (or what he read to me anyways) did not categorize the Iron Blaster with the same qualifications.

We will be going to a tournament soon, and I' am bringing this up to the T.O's rules group, however I would like to hear your thoughts.

P.S, if this is a really easy fix solved by the WoC and Ogre book, then it's a shame as I have neither and no one in our gaming group plays WoC -keep this in mind before rattling off at how "I need to look in the WoC book broooo."

Fubar
08-06-2012, 10:13
"Fire the cannon of the sky-titans in the same way as a normal cannon"

Therefore follow the rules for firing a cannon, pivoting in the shooting phase is one of those rules.

Mostream
08-06-2012, 14:00
And following the rules of the Cannon it can only pivot towards a target point it can see in its Line of sight.

hamsterwheel
08-06-2012, 15:25
I'm not sure how others play it but my Hellcannons do not pivot in the shooting phase, it's a monster so if I want to pivot it to hit a target then I do so during the movement phase and then I have to wait until my next turn's shooting phase since they FAQed that the hellcannon cannot move and fire. This makes very little difference in game play as you can position them at the beginning of the battle to hit pretty much anything. As far as the ironblaster, it can move and fire so I would expect the player to select his target in the movement phase and position itself accordingly.

Asensur
08-06-2012, 16:25
Can pivot, but after choosing target as all warmachines. You only need Line of Sight.

Same goes with the Catapult shot of the Thundertusk and any model that shoots like a cannon(not the grapeshot)/flamethrower/catapult.

However, if you make a Grapeshot you need to select a target within front arc, as it follows normal rules of Shooting when choosing targets.

So:

1. Choose target
--Catapults(indirect shot): no need of LoS or front arc.
--Cannons/Catapults/Flamethrowers: you need Line of Sight
--Boltthrowers/Cannons(Grapeshots): you need Line of sight and front Arc

2. Rotate (not pivot, it is not the same) model to face target.

3. Shoot.

Montegue
08-06-2012, 16:43
And following the rules of the Cannon it can only pivot towards a target point it can see in its Line of sight.

In the shooting phase, you pivot the cannon towards a target. Then you fire. The target is then in it's LOS, even if it was behind the cannon to begin with.

The bearded one
08-06-2012, 17:54
In the shooting phase, you pivot the cannon towards a target. Then you fire. The target is then in it's LOS, even if it was behind the cannon to begin with.

Right behind the cannon is also in line of sight. There is a difference between arc of sight, and line of sight that is not always noted clearly ;)

If you stand behind a model (without any intervening models or terrain to block sight), you are outside the arc of sight, but still inside line of sight.

Mostream
08-06-2012, 20:31
Line of sight is defined as a models 'eye-view' (BRB page 10 under 'Line of sight').

Cannons measure all distances from the muzzle of the gun (BRB page 109 under 'the war machine') and take their Line of sight from the same chosen point. They can also only pivot after chosing target.

A models forward arc, when it comes to normal shooting, is used to see which targets are legal (BRB page 39 under 'check that the shooter can see the target'). In the case of a cannon it is not a condition to factor in when you choose your target (BRB page 112 under 'Choose target') where it merely states that a cannon only need to nominate a point within its line of sight and maximum range.

So the cannon needs line of sight from its muzzle to the target. Now, Since the section about Line of Sight isn't the best and GW only use 'a models eye-view' there's confusion about how much the cannon actually can draw it's line of sight to, so there I suggest a house rule, talking it over with your casual opponents or tournament organizers when you don't want to use the most important rule all the time. In my gaming group, we allow cannons a 180 degree Line of sight from the muzzle.

I strongly disagree with giving a warmachine a 360 degree Line of Sight that doesn't have rules that with good wording can support it.

Added order of business:

1 - Choose target within Line of Sight
2 - Pivot towards target
3 - Fire

supported by the Big Red Book (page 10, 109 and 112).

Fubar
08-06-2012, 22:10
Line of sight is defined as a models 'eye-view' (BRB page 10 under 'Line of sight').

Cannons measure all distances from the muzzle of the gun (BRB page 109 under 'the war machine') and take their Line of sight from the same chosen point. They can also only pivot after chosing target.

A models forward arc, when it comes to normal shooting, is used to see which targets are legal (BRB page 39 under 'check that the shooter can see the target'). In the case of a cannon it is not a condition to factor in when you choose your target (BRB page 112 under 'Choose target') where it merely states that a cannon only need to nominate a point within its line of sight and maximum range.

So the cannon needs line of sight from its muzzle to the target. Now, Since the section about Line of Sight isn't the best and GW only use 'a models eye-view' there's confusion about how much the cannon actually can draw it's line of sight to, so there I suggest a house rule, talking it over with your casual opponents or tournament organizers when you don't want to use the most important rule all the time. In my gaming group, we allow cannons a 180 degree Line of sight from the muzzle.

I strongly disagree with giving a warmachine a 360 degree Line of Sight that doesn't have rules that with good wording can support it.

Added order of business:

1 - Choose target within Line of Sight
2 - Pivot towards target
3 - Fire

supported by the Big Red Book (page 10, 109 and 112).

I agree with you in principle, but it kinda makes the whole pivoting aspect kinda pointless, what's it meant for? Added realism? Doesn't strike me as something that are would bothered to add in, when cannons are able to pinball around the stegadons skinks for example.

hamsterwheel
08-06-2012, 22:26
Line of sight is defined as a models 'eye-view' (BRB page 10 under 'Line of sight').

Cannons measure all distances from the muzzle of the gun (BRB page 109 under 'the war machine') and take their Line of sight from the same chosen point. They can also only pivot after chosing target.

A models forward arc, when it comes to normal shooting, is used to see which targets are legal (BRB page 39 under 'check that the shooter can see the target'). In the case of a cannon it is not a condition to factor in when you choose your target (BRB page 112 under 'Choose target') where it merely states that a cannon only need to nominate a point within its line of sight and maximum range.

So the cannon needs line of sight from its muzzle to the target. Now, Since the section about Line of Sight isn't the best and GW only use 'a models eye-view' there's confusion about how much the cannon actually can draw it's line of sight to, so there I suggest a house rule, talking it over with your casual opponents or tournament organizers when you don't want to use the most important rule all the time. In my gaming group, we allow cannons a 180 degree Line of sight from the muzzle.

I strongly disagree with giving a warmachine a 360 degree Line of Sight that doesn't have rules that with good wording can support it.

Added order of business:

1 - Choose target within Line of Sight
2 - Pivot towards target
3 - Fire

supported by the Big Red Book (page 10, 109 and 112).

Page 112 of the rule book under Choosing Target(Cannons)
"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."

From the Warhammer FAQ to correct a mistake

Change [...]pivot in the Movement phase[...] to [...]pivot
in the Shooting phase[...] in the last sentence of the first
paragraph.

Which changes the sentence into:
"Remember that war machines are allowed to pivot in the Shooting phase, the better to bring your chosen target into the weapon's line of sight."

Sounds like the pivot occurs before you choose a target.

Mostream
09-06-2012, 05:14
Not since that FaQ only adresses the cannon. Your target must still have been chosen before the pivot is made (BRB page 109)

I think that the pivot can be effectively used as a free move ro keep track of your target. If it didn't exist a fast unit could easily move out of the cannons Line of sight.

Montegue
10-06-2012, 18:50
Not since that FaQ only adresses the cannon. Your target must still have been chosen before the pivot is made (BRB page 109)

I think that the pivot can be effectively used as a free move ro keep track of your target. If it didn't exist a fast unit could easily move out of the cannons Line of sight.

That's crap. It does not say when I pivot. So I pivot at the beginning of the phase. Now you are in my arch. Now you can be shot. By your logic no unit could ever swift reform to shoot something behind them.

Texhnolyze
10-06-2012, 19:04
That's crap. It does not say when I pivot. So I pivot at the beginning of the phase. Now you are in my arch. Now you can be shot. By your logic no unit could ever swift reform to shoot something behind them.

It tells you to pivot to better bring your "chosen" target into LoS :D So you have already picked a target ^^

And no, swift reform is done in the movement phase, not in the shooting phase, so they can swiftreform all they want because it's done before choosing a target ^^

Montegue
10-06-2012, 19:07
Still crap. Its a single model and can pivot without penalty during movement anyway.

Biggley
10-06-2012, 21:22
what about if the Iron Blaster - as its such a massive model it can 'see' over hills and shoot the stuff behind the hill - when the IB is infront of the hill - how do you guys deal with this? I mean if its a hill - i should not be able to see what is behind the hill if i am in front of the hill ??

Mostream
10-06-2012, 22:59
That's crap. It does not say when I pivot. So I pivot at the beginning of the phase. Now you are in my arch. Now you can be shot. By your logic no unit could ever swift reform to shoot something behind them.

Swift reform a cannon? Only units with a musician can do a swift reform and YES the BRB tells you to pivot before you fire at your chosen target. 'chosen' being past tense means you must have picked a legal target before you do the pivoting.

If you want to pivot freely you can do so in the movement phase, but that counts as moving so prevents your piece from firing in the coming shooting phase due to the move or fire special rule. So yes, thats what i'm saying, no free 360 degree arch of fire.

@ Biggley
The IB can shoot at what it has line of sight to. So it depends on how the hill is modelled. If your opponent or yourself cant see any enemies behind the hill, but you can see a spot on the hill then you/he can shoot at that point. It's not nice, but RAW it's possible.

Montegue
11-06-2012, 04:38
Swift reform a cannon? Only units with a musician can do a swift reform and YES the BRB tells you to pivot before you fire at your chosen target. 'chosen' being past tense means you must have picked a legal target before you do the pivoting.

If you want to pivot freely you can do so in the movement phase, but that counts as moving so prevents your piece from firing in the coming shooting phase due to the move or fire special rule. So yes, thats what i'm saying, no free 360 degree arch of fire.

@ Biggley
The IB can shoot at what it has line of sight to. So it depends on how the hill is modelled. If your opponent or yourself cant see any enemies behind the hill, but you can see a spot on the hill then you/he can shoot at that point. It's not nice, but RAW it's possible.

I would definitely walk away from the table if someone insisted on such utter BS. It's absolutely clear that a cannon turns towards it's intended target and then fires. It's not like the cannon is an idiot, or run by idiots. There's a a threat, they point their gun at it, they fire. Are you honestly trying to tell me that the Cannon just gets stupid when the crazed group of chaos marauders suddenly disappears behind an undefined line of sight?

Cannons have no defined front, flank, or rear. I don't know about you, but I prefer to win games with tactics, not rules lawyering.

Mostream
11-06-2012, 05:29
I would definitely walk away from the table if someone insisted on such utter BS. It's absolutely clear that a cannon turns towards it's intended target and then fires. It's not like the cannon is an idiot, or run by idiots. There's a a threat, they point their gun at it, they fire. Are you honestly trying to tell me that the Cannon just gets stupid when the crazed group of chaos marauders suddenly disappears behind an undefined line of sight?

Cannons have no defined front, flank, or rear. I don't know about you, but I prefer to win games with tactics, not rules lawyering.

It's well up to you how you behave when someone comes with a different point of view mate so no arguement there. Allow me to merely state that this is a game, and it has certain mechanics in its rules that do not perfectly correspond with what would be logical behaviour to us in real life situations. Sometimes though we have to accept that the rules are not how we want them to be and just adapt.

In this case, it is a mechanic of the rules that makes the cannon have the limit of only being able to choose targets that lie within its line of sight and that the pivot comes after the choosing of the target, not before.

You are incorrect that the cannon doesn't have any defined flanks or rear. The cannon doesn't have a base, but for all intents and purposes, except for combat (BRB page 110), has forward, flank and rear arcs (BRB page 5).

Mercules
11-06-2012, 14:23
Montstream, you understand that LoS does not mean "Forward Arc", correct? Cannons have 360Deg LoS and so can pivot to face whatever direction they want before firing per their rules.

Feefait
11-06-2012, 14:38
Is the IB move or fire? Because we have been playing them as allowed to move. Originally our oK player was attempting free wheels and turns as it is "a single model" but we got him to concede he at least needs to pay for his wheels. that being said each round he is just pointing it in whatever direction he wants and firing. with that and the magic accuracy the thing has been decimating us. I may have to get a quick read of the book.

Mercules
11-06-2012, 15:53
He doesn't every have to pay for a Wheel as it is a Single Model and doesn't Wheel except during a Charge where you don't count the Wheel distance. It is a single model and pivots just like ALL single Chariots do. It can move and fire, it specifically states this in the Ironblaster rules. What are you taking that he is "decimating" with it? The same things you wouldn't take in an all comers list because of other cannons in other armies?

Mostream
11-06-2012, 15:55
Montstream, you understand that LoS does not mean "Forward Arc", correct? Cannons have 360Deg LoS and so can pivot to face whatever direction they want before firing per their rules.

Yes forward arc is separate from Line of sight.

Let me counter with: what gives a cannon a 360 degree line of sight? Please present rules with references to pages when doing so.

@ Feefait

I dont have the OK book nor do Have I played any OK, so I am not familiar with the rules, so the below arguement is based on the BRB, it's FaQ and the OK FaQ. Anyone with better knowledge feel free to chip in!

All warmachines have slow to fire and move or fire rule unless otherwise stated in the warmachines own rules ( BRB page 109 under 'shooting with warmachines, first sentence). The ogre kingdoms FaQ also says that the cannon, scraplauncha and the sphere has the slow to fire rule and indirectly that they are warmachines since the ironcurse icon can be used for protection against their danage (Ogre kingdom FaQ). Although the FaQ question doesn't ask for move or fire, It only makes sense when applying the WM rules that the sky cannon also has move or fire. Which means that, unless the skycannons rules say differently, it is not allowed to move in the movement phase and then fire. This includes pivoting, which is only a free move for a warmachine in the shooting phase (BRB FaQ ) after having used line of sight to choose a target (BRB page 109).

@ Mercules

Move and fire it is.

Mercules
11-06-2012, 16:13
Every model has 360 Degree LoS.

Pg. 10

Line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy - they must be able to see their foe through, under or over the battlefield terrain, and other models (friendly or enemy).

For one model to have line of sight to another you must be able to trace an unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the body (i.e. the head, torso, arms or legs) of the target.

Pg. 109

Line of Sight is always taken from the chosen firing point (i.e. its muzzle or crossbar, ini the same way as for range)...

As long as there is an unblocked line from the muzzle to the target the cannon has LoS to it. They have effectively, 360 degree LoS. unless your muzzle points downward instead of up and somehow blocks itself with the body of the cannon.

Feefait
11-06-2012, 16:22
I don't have the book either but if it states in there that it is move and fire (a la Stegadon Great bow) then I don't see why it cannot move to face in whatever direction it wants, provided it has the points allowance. I know chariots always used to be able to pivot freely, but I thought that was removed. i did not know the IB had the chariot rule anyway. We play characters as having free movement, but monsters have always had to pay. I guess I will have to find my rulebook and brush up. I have a lot of hangovers from previous editions cluttering my rules. :) the main issue we had was the player picking the monster up and placing him down facing any direction some 6-8" away without really measuring.

@Mercules Up until the IB the only cannon we ever had in our group was my WLC, which i rarely use. So we are just learning to deal with them, and the amazing accuracy of this beast. In our last 4-5 games it has done some severe damage. it took out a HE dragon (2 IB), an A-rock 2 IB), a basilisk in that order.
In my last time facing it we rolled Blood and Glory. I had my Great Bray Shaman scouting with Lore of Death, thinking I could get out of LoS and nuke it. He pivoted 360 and killed him dead. i lose turn 1. It was a major risk and I wanted to try it, but I thought i could keep out of sight, which apparently you cannot. We reset the game and i again scouted my Shaman. I hid 1 turn behind a building, but just couldn't keep out of sight forever with how fast it was and basically free flowing, high movement.

It's not that the IB cannot be dealt with, we just need to figure it out. until then we are back to (like everyone else) being reticent to bring monsters or lords on monsters that are not Hydras or HPA's.

Mostream
11-06-2012, 17:38
@ Mercules

Well, that is an interesting take on the line of sight rule and I fully understand your line of arguement when you put it like that.

However, I interpret the line of sight from a models eyes to be done from their current, and static position. I dont read into those rules that the model can swing its head around to have a look, nor can I see in the text that a model can see through its own head to its flanks or rear. An unblocked line of sight means that nothing can be in between. A models own parts, head, or sides of the muzzle are definately something that are blocking line of sight.

Chicago Slim
11-06-2012, 18:12
Mostream, the OK rules for Ironblasters over-ride a considerable amount of BRB stuff.

For example, the Ironblaster is not a war machine (it's a chariot), and so it DOES have a front, flanks and rear. It also explicitly CAN move and shoot. Neither of these are true of "normal" cannons, nor of any other unit with the War Machine type...

That said, the Ironblaster is fired "exactly like a cannon," so there's no reason to assume that it wouldn't pivot in the shooting phase (per the errata) to face the direction that it is firing. This may have ramifications for its facing if it is charged, or wishes to declare a charge, in the ensuing turn.


Mercules, I'm considering arguing that LOS is not 360 degrees, unless a model has eyes in the back of his head (Chaos Warriors, maybe?)... We may be able to assume that the firer is able to pivot his head, to look to the sides and behind himself, or we might agree that a 180 degree blanket rule is a reasonable short-hand, but the actual rule is that you need to be able to draw an unbroken line from the eyes of the model to the target (or, in this case, from the front of the barrel of the Sky Cannon)... On that logic, I would argue that even an Ironblaster won't be able to pivot to its rear in the Shooting phase (though it certainly could during Remaining Moves), because the Ironblaster itself blocks its own line of sight. About the only time I can imagine it making a difference is if you're choosing which target to fire at, based on the results of the Magic Phase and/or earlier actions in the Shooting Phase, or perhaps if you're targeted by a spell that causes you to move directly forward (though I can't think of any such spell that's normally available to Ogres...)


As for wheeling and pivoting: When moving in the Remaining Moves sub phase, single models have the option of pivoting around the center point of the model, as often as they wish, at no movement cost. Whether or not a single model chooses to so pivot, it may also/instead wheel (pivoting around one corner of its base), paying the normal movement cost for doing so (there's nothing in the rules on pivoting Single Models that prevents them from wheeling-- it's just not something that comes up very often; that said, it can be useful for cornering around units or terrain). Ironblasters are single models, and so this rule applies to them.

Montegue
11-06-2012, 18:21
Mostream - it's not merely a "different" point of view. You're intentionally trying to chimp the rules to gain an unintended advantage. It's not even holding up to scrutiny. Individual models can pivot without movement cost. A cannon is an individual model. Therefore, it can pivot without movement cost. It can then fire, because it hasn't actually moved. If you have to begin an argument with the term "technically", you're probably being a dip about the rules.

Mercules
11-06-2012, 20:23
@ Mercules

Well, that is an interesting take on the line of sight rule and I fully understand your line of arguement when you put it like that.

However, I interpret the line of sight from a models eyes to be done from their current, and static position. I dont read into those rules that the model can swing its head around to have a look, nor can I see in the text that a model can see through its own head to its flanks or rear. An unblocked line of sight means that nothing can be in between. A models own parts, head, or sides of the muzzle are definately something that are blocking line of sight.

Are you stating that this model:

142816


Can't cast any spells with LoS? Or Charge? As it doesn't have eyes to draw from.

Or that this one can't charge down a hill not able to draw LoS downward?
142815

Maybe you want to tell me I can't declare a charge with this model...
142817

Good luck with that. Your interpretation of True Line of Sight doesn't work very well in the real world. As well we are to get down to eye level on the table and view what the model can see. Well, that doesn't work very well for some models as they clearly do not "see" or have eyes.

LiddellHart
11-06-2012, 20:30
The picture of the gorger made me laugh out loud, getting me frowns from my soccer watching friends.
Great stuff this.
I felt the need to argue this same discussion a few months ago, but I think I'll just sit this one out.

+1 to anything Mercules has said (in this thread :D).

Lord Inquisitor
11-06-2012, 21:03
Put simply, the rules for firing war machines from non-war-machine units are not well defined. As we can see, the rules for LOS and arc are not well defined in the rulebook.

This is a thorny issue and not an easy one to resolve. First I'll address pivoting, then LOS.

The critical line is this one, bottom of p109:

SHOOTING WITH WAR MACHINES
"Line of sight is always taken from the chosen firing point (i.e. muzle or crossbar, in the same way as for its range) - before you fire the war machine, pivot it to face your chosen target (this doesn't count as moving)."

Strictly speaking, while it's under the heading of "shooting", it says before you fire the war machine, you pivot.

Now, the argument is often made that this doesn't apply as Ironblasters aren't "war machines" but that argument holds no water, clearly the rules are written from the perspective of being a war machine and the cannon rules will not function unless you assume the Ironblaster counts as a war machine for shooting purposes.

The argument is therefore that you CANNOT pivot when firing because the Cannon of the Sky Titans is "fire[d] ... in the same way as a normal cannon", therefore pivoting happens before firing so you can't pivot.

I don't subscribe to this argument, I find it overly literal reading of the rules. Never mind the fact that this fine-scale reading of the rules allows a Scraplauncher to pivot before firing (because the scraplauncher catapult "is" a stone thrower, while the CotST rule says to "fire" it), the pivot is under the heading of "shooting with war machines" and seems to be an integral part of the shooting process. Furthermore, hellcannon set the precedent that they can pivot - it also "fires as a stone thrower".

Overall, the most consistent and logical interpretation is that you pivot any unit that fires as a war machine before firing.

Now, as for LOS and arc. Assuming you pivot and fire any war machine weapon that's not an issue. The only potential issue is with Steam Tanks that are explicitly forbidden from moving unless they spend steam points but I think even in this case a pivot would be suitable (as it specifically doesn't count as moving).

However, for the sake of the argument, LOS is just not well defined. I disagree that it should be 360-degrees. This does not seem intended! Likewise using the model's actual "eyes" is problematic for numerous reasons, as Merc has shown with some entertaining examples. There is very little guidance on this. Either using the forward arc or a 180 degree arc from the front of the model's base (which is a reasonable rule of thumb for the maximum arc you can trace LOS from the eyes of a normal human) seem reasonable limitations on LOS. Regarding war machines, this is not an issue if you assume any war machine weapon can (and indeed must) pivot before firing to face direction of firing, which is another good reason for the above ruling.

TL;DR version: Pivot any unit that fires as a war machine before firing the war machine weapon towards the direction of the shot. Anything else and you're going to be up to your eyeballs in further rules problems.

Mostream
11-06-2012, 21:23
@ montegue

If you want to play your way do it, i wont bother you. But please stop the rules-lawyering bihtcing. This might be the internet but you still should behave like i'm having a discussion with you face to face. Show some respect when an arguement is made or no-one is going to pay you any heed since you just come off as an angry boy.

@ Mercules

My interpretation works fine in the group i'm playing in, and I'm not stating any of the examples you are bringing up. You seem to be putting in a little bit too much emotions. Are you upset I do not agree with your interpreations? Why? This here is a chance to explore how the rules are intended. I'm not telling you how to play your game, merely how I see that the written rules should be read as

@ All

My point has been made, and You chose yourselves which arguements seem more plausible. good luck and have fun

Mercules
11-06-2012, 21:46
@ Mercules

My interpretation works fine in the group i'm playing in, and I'm not stating any of the examples you are bringing up. You seem to be putting in a little bit too much emotions. Are you upset I do not agree with your interpreations? Why? This here is a chance to explore how the rules are intended. I'm not telling you how to play your game, merely how I see that the written rules should be read as

I can assure you any emotion you are reading into my post is a Freudian Projection. I am have a calm and reasonable light hearted discussion and simply pointing out the flaws in the idea that LoS is strictly drawn from the direction the model's eyes are pointing by using official GW models to illustrate that. You are stating exactly those examples by your strict adherence to a rule that is not written as you are applying it.

Shall we repeat those words?

However, I interpret the line of sight from a models eyes to be done from their current, and static position. I dont read into those rules that the model can swing its head around to have a look, nor can I see in the text that a model can see through its own head to its flanks or rear. An unblocked line of sight means that nothing can be in between. A models own parts, head, or sides of the muzzle are definately something that are blocking line of sight.

Please explain how using your interpretation of what the book states my blindfolded Gorger can declare a charge as a charge requires LoS. Remember, these are official GW models and representative of how they will be used on the table top.

As Lord Inquisitor points out the LoS rules are not very concisely written and open to a lot of interpretation. Your strict one is negated by the existence of official GW models that look to be impossible to use given that interpretation as the rules were written to be used by said models.

Chicago Slim
11-06-2012, 23:24
For the record, I absolutely agree that the LOS rules, as written, are flawed, imperfect, unrealistic, of questionable tenor, and thoroughly imperfect, and I appreciate the visual aids you provided in expanding upon the few examples I had already provided.

In the world in which we live, unbounded perfection cannot exist, and so all rules are imperfect. The Line of Sight rules in 8th edition Warhammer will not, I expect, be noted by historians as being a particularly notable example of imperfection. There are, as I and others have offered, a number of means of dealing with that imperfection, not the least of which is to recognize that, in the particular case of Ironblasters, the LOS rules actually work quite well as written (since the shooting rules tell us the point from which to begin Line of Sight). Of course, if your opponent is trying to win by manipulating the rules (rather than by out-playing you), well, I hope that you're able to find more reasonable and fun opponents to play with.

Cheers, all-- I think we've just about run this one dry...

Montegue
12-06-2012, 00:28
@mostream - don't make the mistake of assuming that I would be responding differently in person. Your position is laughable and would get you roundly mocked in my local group. Victory via highly creative and foolish on its face rules lingering isn't actually winning.

Mostream
12-06-2012, 10:02
@ mercules

To adress your questions about blindfolds, etc: "eyes" does not need to be eyes of course, a models true line of sight should be imagined using the facing rule (brb page 5) as a guide to determine where a models original point from where it checks Line of sight is when its tricky to determine it. I understand you are making a point about that a models line of sight can be drawn all around the model with this, but I still haven't got enough evidence to support that the rules should be read like that. Unless you have any actual further wellphrased rules to support this arguement; lets agree that we disagree.

Thanks for the online psychoanalysis! And that i usually have to pay for!:chrome:

@ Montegue

Im hoping you would because here you come across as slightly unsymphatetic and rather arrogant when you don't even merit my arguement (although i'v been quoting rules and given valid and reasonable arguements for my case) with basic recognition. Instead of arguing the case, you chose to sabotage the threads discussion by attacking me personally calling me a "dip" about rules, rules-lawyer and my position on this issue laughable.

And even if the cannon can pivot without any movement cost you should read the last sentence in the first part of the rule. It clearly state that a lone model that pivots on the spot counts as moving for the purposes of shooting and so on (BRB page 27 under 'lone models and movement').

Mercules
12-06-2012, 12:36
To adress your questions about blindfolds, etc: "eyes" does not need to be eyes of course, a models true line of sight should be imagined using the facing rule (brb page 5) as a guide to determine where a models original point from where it checks Line of sight is when its tricky to determine it.


However, I interpret the line of sight from a models eyes to be done from their current, and static position.

Incongruous? Facing is separate from LoS this is clear from the fact that in the book some actions require LoS and some require LoS and Facing to use. Shall we read "eyes" as "primary sensory appendage" and work from there? If so you will see that LoS turns into what should be roughly 360 Degrees at "eye level" for the model. You can see over or around certain things, but the primary function of LoS is not to draw an arc of vision, but to determine if something is between your model and it's target. What everyone else is talking about is "arc of vision" and LoS is not the same.

Asensur
12-06-2012, 13:00
Warmachines and other units that shoot like warmachines have a lot of "lazy written" rules.

For example, does warmachines have front/rear/flank arcs?

Let's see

Page 5 UNIT FACING
"A model's forward (or 'front'), flank and rear arcs extend out from its corners at 45 angles, forming four 90 cuadrants, as shown here"

There is no mention of bases anywhere, so even a model (warmachine or not) without base (many forgeworld models f.e.) will have facing.

However, many people says that warmachines does not have front/flank/rear arcs. This is not exactly true, as the only mention about it is specified for just one purpose.

Page 110, WARMACHINES IN CLOSE COMBAT

"A war machine does not have any flanks or a rear for the purposes of combat results"

At first, this shouldn't be a problem. However, when we read f.e. the Little Waaagh! signature spell we can see that flank and rear arcs are important for other thing than combat results. Repeat hits and wounds could be important when you only have 6 gobbos to fight. so, do we allow it or not?


And this is just the first of many issues.


As everybody can see, warmachines need a lot of clarification at the FAQs, where the only issue is that if a bolt throwers needs 2 models for being able to shoot (weird and unnecesary question).

Mostream
12-06-2012, 14:17
Incongruous? Facing is separate from LoS this is clear from the fact that in the book some actions require LoS and some require LoS and Facing to use. Shall we read "eyes" as "primary sensory appendage" and work from there? If so you will see that LoS turns into what should be roughly 360 Degrees at "eye level" for the model. You can see over or around certain things, but the primary function of LoS is not to draw an arc of vision, but to determine if something is between your model and it's target. What everyone else is talking about is "arc of vision" and LoS is not the same.

I'd be poor company if I couldn't change opinion when faced with a good arguement now wouldn't I?

The first quote is taken out of context where I am actually agreeing to your point that blindfolds and whatnot that prevents Line of sight would make RAW silly and obviously non-RAI. In the second quote, which also is out of context, i'm trying to elaborate on how I don't believe that the models are allowed to look around for a 360 degree Line of sight.

And in answering your post about primary sensory appendage, which is a good illustration and i'm all +1 for that. I'm still in disagreement that this would give a model a 360 degree LoS.
Arc of vision is not defined in the rules, and I would use that phrase to count anyhting that is in line of sight from the point of a models "primary sensory appendage", which in my opinion is limited by the models facing and "true line of sight".

Lord Inquisitors post +1 btw. Well written!

GiraffeCrab
12-06-2012, 15:46
Umm, is it a chariot or a war machine or unique unit type?? (i havent read the OK book) . Cause i see people going on and on about it being a chariot that has a cannon it can shoot. So if a chariot can make free pivots cause its a chariot and the war machine can pivot to face and shoot (all of this in the shooting phase) but cannot move and shoot then why not just do all the pivoting and turning to face and stuff in the movement phase then fire. I think its a bit odd that if it is both a cannon and a chariot that it can move its full in the movement phase along with all the manuverability a single chariot is allowed and the then pivot in the shooting phase before it blasts things. As im seeing it from what you guys have been saying is that it should be able to move then anything in its forward arc can be shot at. It seems a bit odd to me that i could move it as a chariot around a building and then pivot it in the shooting phase 180 (because it fires like a cannon) to see the unit that I want to shoot. If it is a cannon on a chariot then maybe cannon rules take priority but if its a chariot with a cannon on it then surly it would be a chariot with a sweet cannon.

It seems that both unit types have the ability to face and shoot but its more a question of does that take place in the shooting phase (as with a cannon) or in the movement phase as it would be with a chariot? Also if it says fires in the same way as a cannon does that mean it selects targets in the same manner as a cannon, or that the shot follows the rules for a cannon??

Im not greatly versed in the rules so if i'm speaking rubbish feel free to point it out.

Asensur
12-06-2012, 15:59
It seems that both unit types have the ability to face and shoot but its more a question of does that take place in the shooting phase (as with a cannon) or in the movement phase as it would be with a chariot? Also if it says fires in the same way as a cannon does that mean it selects targets in the same manner as a cannon, or that the shot follows the rules for a cannon??

Im not greatly versed in the rules so if i'm speaking rubbish feel free to point it out.

You can rotate, pivot, etc freely with the iron blaster as it is a lone model during the movement phase. Also, as you can move and shoot so there is no penalty.

However, if by chance you are not pointing your target at the start of the shooting phase, as you shoot as a cannon these are the steps to go:

1. Choose a target inside Line of Sight (you need to be able to draw a line between the muzzle of cannon and your target, also LOS use to be 360). You don't need the target inside your front arc.

2. Rotate your chariot (again, it is not the same as pivot) to face your target.

3. Shoot.

RanaldLoec
12-06-2012, 18:01
It's well up to you how you behave when someone comes with a different point of view mate so no arguement there. Allow me to merely state that this is a game, and it has certain mechanics in its rules that do not perfectly correspond with what would be logical behaviour to us in real life situations. Sometimes though we have to accept that the rules are not how we want them to be and just adapt.

In this case, it is a mechanic of the rules that makes the cannon have the limit of only being able to choose targets that lie within its line of sight and that the pivot comes after the choosing of the target, not before.

You are incorrect that the cannon doesn't have any defined flanks or rear. The cannon doesn't have a base, but for all intents and purposes, except for combat (BRB page 110), has forward, flank and rear arcs (BRB page 5).

Oh the irony of your signature.

woodster17
12-06-2012, 18:24
Oh the irony of your signature.

That thought had crossed my mind... Tbh I never get too annoyed with people reading too much in to the rules. It's their prerogative to take the rules as RAW. However, in this case, i'm very much inclined to agree with Montegue and co. I do have the OK books and play the IB and nobody has ever had a problem with pivoting and shooting at all. If they did, well, i'd probably ignore them.

Lord Inquisitor
12-06-2012, 18:40
1. Choose a target inside Line of Sight (you need to be able to draw a line between the muzzle of cannon and your target, also LOS use to be 360). You don't need the target inside your front arc.

2. Rotate your chariot (again, it is not the same as pivot) to face your target.
I understand how you made this conclusion but it's pretty abundantly clear from the war machine rules that the intent is pivot first THEN draw line of sight.

For example, from the Cannon rules:

"Remember that war machines are allowed to pivot in the Shooting phase, the better to bring your chosen target into the weapon's line of sight."

The shooting with war machines rules are vague indeed, but when it says "before you fire the war machine, pivot it to face your chosen target" this means simply the target you wish to shoot at, not a formal target picked out of line of sight (after all, war machines may not select a target enemy at all).

Texhnolyze
12-06-2012, 19:06
I understand how you made this conclusion but it's pretty abundantly clear from the war machine rules that the intent is pivot first THEN draw line of sight.

For example, from the Cannon rules:

"Remember that war machines are allowed to pivot in the Shooting phase, the better to bring your chosen target into the weapon's line of sight."

The shooting with war machines rules are vague indeed, but when it says "before you fire the war machine, pivot it to face your chosen target" this means simply the target you wish to shoot at, not a formal target picked out of line of sight (after all, war machines may not select a target enemy at all).

Just a small Q.

The IB rules state that it is a chariot. The weapon is fired like a cannon. Ok so far so good.

But if you read the rules for how you fire the cannon. It says "remember that Warmachines can pivote to better bring their chosen target into LoS", it does not say cannon anywhere in there. So is the IB a warmachine or a chariot in the shooting phase?

What about the Ogre monster that fires like a stonethrower? Doesn't it have the same problem? or the hellcannon ? or the beastman monster? Can they all pivot around in the shooting phase, even though they are not warmachines...
It can even be used to correct your position vs that flank or rear charge that you forgot about in the movement phase, is this correct?

Asensur
12-06-2012, 19:20
I understand how you made this conclusion but it's pretty abundantly clear from the war machine rules that the intent is pivot first THEN draw line of sight.

For example, from the Cannon rules:

"Remember that war machines are allowed to pivot in the Shooting phase, the better to bring your chosen target into the weapon's line of sight."

The shooting with war machines rules are vague indeed, but when it says "before you fire the war machine, pivot it to face your chosen target" this means simply the target you wish to shoot at, not a formal target picked out of line of sight (after all, war machines may not select a target enemy at all).

This seems like a dead end road. I can't either confirm or deny your point of view, as there are good reasonings between both parties.


Where are those damn FAQs when you REALLY need them?

Lord Inquisitor
12-06-2012, 19:40
Just a small Q.

The IB rules state that it is a chariot. The weapon is fired like a cannon. Ok so far so good.

But if you read the rules for how you fire the cannon. It says "remember that Warmachines can pivote to better bring their chosen target into LoS", it does not say cannon anywhere in there. So is the IB a warmachine or a chariot in the shooting phase?

I addressed this quickly in my first post in this thread, but there are several issues. Firstly, it is clear that there are war machine weapons, and there is Unit Type War Machine. The rules refer to both as "war machines" which is not terribly helpful. In some cases the rules reference "war machine weapons" clearly, in other cases rules clearly only apply to the Unit Type War Machine, but others are not so clear. For true war machines (which the rules are written for) the distinction is not important.

However, I argue that you MUST treat the Ironblaster as a War Machine when shooting or the rules do not make sense. For example:

"Nominate a point within the war machine's line of sight and that is not outside the cannon's maximum range."

If the Ironblaster is not a war machine, how do we resolve this rule? It says within the war machine's line of sight, but it is not a war machine! [Jack Black voice] Can't decide: Brain aneurism! [/Jack Black voice]

Obviously the resolution is very simple: you treat the Ironblaster as a war machine for the purposes of firing.


What about the Ogre monster that fires like a stonethrower? Doesn't it have the same problem? or the hellcannon ? or the beastman monster? Can they all pivot around in the shooting phase, even though they are not warmachines...
It can even be used to correct your position vs that flank or rear charge that you forgot about in the movement phase, is this correct?
The Scraplauncher is similar (although that one says it "is" a stonethrower, slight difference in wording for the RAW argument). The hellcannon fires as a stone thrower, it has a FAQ that confirms it can pivot before firing.

Basically, yes, the hellcannon sets the precedent and all of these should be able to pivot before firing. Yes, this can have benefits of a second pivot in the shooting phase and there are potentially uses that can be advantageous for the Ironblaster - but more typically it is a pain in the neck, since certain targets can mean exposing your flank or rear if you pivot to face that you wouldn't need to do if you could just fire anywhere in the front arc (or LOS!). Being forced to face your target dead on as opposed to just getting them in foward arc is more often than not a real pain for hybrid war machines and far outweighs any potential benefit from a second pivot. The nice thing about the pivot is really that if your primary target is taken out by other shooting, you can pivot to shoot something different.

Texhnolyze
12-06-2012, 20:04
The Scraplauncher is similar (although that one says it "is" a stonethrower, slight difference in wording for the RAW argument).

I didn't meen the scraplauncher, but the thundertusk :D (had to check the GW site ^^)

Well anyway, I got what you ment. Thanks

Lord Inquisitor
12-06-2012, 20:21
Ah yes the thunder tusk too. Although that one has it's own can of worms since it has both BS shooting and war machine shooting.

Chicago Slim
13-06-2012, 02:12
And even if the cannon can pivot without any movement cost you should read the last sentence in the first part of the rule. It clearly state that a lone model that pivots on the spot counts as moving for the purposes of shooting and so on (BRB page 27 under 'lone models and movement').

And, again, I note that this is irrelevant to the particular case of the Ironblaster (which CAN move and shoot, but not march and shoot). It *does* actually help to read the rules for the specific case you're arguing, some times... :)



Tbh I never get too annoyed with people reading too much in to the rules. It's their prerogative to take the rules as RAW.

That said, the Warhammer rules aren't really worth the sort of Talmudic level of scholarship and interrogatory prodding that we sometimes give them, on this forum... Sed Ludes Solem Est.

LiddellHart
13-06-2012, 08:23
Amen

(Wftwg)

Montegue
13-06-2012, 20:15
Sed Ludes Solem Est.

Now, where have I heard *that* before...

Mostream
13-06-2012, 21:31
I'm a bit off topic in my answers because in most of this thread I'm arguing my takes on the line of sight rules with Mercules and when i'm talking about cannons, and not specifically mentioning the IB , i'm not talking about it. In my post nr 22 I'm agreeing to Mercules take on the IB since he's actually read the Its rules, while I hadn't, and then I leave the IB be.

The drift off topic came with the introduction of the LoS discussion, and I shold have been more prudent in not drifting.

The signature is there for peeps that aren't on the same page as me and the ROFLMAOs about it just makes it worth coming back here. :D

But it seems I need to clarify that i'm here for a discussion, not steamrolling other peoples opinions, and next time, If I dont mention the IB, and my posts seem to have drifted off topic, ask me about it, and an answer you shall have. Elevating us all from the darkness of misunderstandings!

@ Lord inquisitor

awesome insights. I wish I could be as thorough as you when analysing Roolz and putting together arguements. (compliment is not a troll, honestly)!

GodlessM
14-06-2012, 01:31
The line given in the OP isn't in my WoC book, so I'm inclined to think that the IB cannot pivot and shoot either. Of course unlike the Hellcannon it can just pivot in the movement phase instead since it can move and shoot.