PDA

View Full Version : Character Targeting Question



EvC
26-06-2006, 01:10
This came up recently, I just want to make sure I made the right decision though ;)

So here's the situation:
http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/5003/char8ml.jpg

Necromancer on foot out two or three inches in front of some zombies; there's a unit of spirit hosts about ten inches away in a wood.

Dwarvern artillery is sitting on the other side of the table- can it target the Necromancer? The rules say you can only target an independent character if it's the closest target, but does this really apply here? The artillery can fire at, but cannot hurt the spirit hosts, and they're more than 5" from the Necromancer, so do they affect whether he can be targetted or not?

ZomboCom
26-06-2006, 01:14
It depends on what type of artillery it is!

A cannon may indeed fire at the necromancer - cannons ignore the 5" proximity rule and may fire at anything in line of sight.

Most other artillery does obey the 5" rule, and as such would not be able to fire at the necromancer since the spirit hosts are the closest available target. Although they cannot be hurt by the shooting there is nothing in the rules to say that they can be ignored for targetting purposes. Since there is a closer target and the necromancer is within 5" of a unit, it would be safe.

alextroy
26-06-2006, 01:19
While the rule is badly written, I think the intent is that a character can be targeted if he is closest of the 5 models-of-similar-size units which he is within 5" of.

EvC
26-06-2006, 01:24
Oh, well it was an organ gun, so the targeting Q still applies.

So, got a couple of conflicting answers here... poorly worded, yes. I took the "intent" of the rule, but that could easily be wrong.

alextroy
26-06-2006, 01:47
No insult to ZomboCom intended, but following his interpretation yields the ridiculous result that you can't target the necromancer in your example, but you could if the unit of zombies was not within 5" of the necromancer.

ZomboCom
26-06-2006, 01:57
No insult to ZomboCom intended, but following his interpretation yields the ridiculous result that you can't target the necromancer in your example, but you could if the unit of zombies was not within 5" of the necromancer.

That's absolutely correct.

I didn't write the rule, and I didn't say it made much sense, but I am right as the rules are written.

Gorbad Ironclaw
26-06-2006, 03:41
No insult to ZomboCom intended, but following his interpretation yields the ridiculous result that you can't target the necromancer in your example, but you could if the unit of zombies was not within 5" of the necromancer.


Thats how the rules currently work, yes.
If he is within 5" of a unit that can shield him, and he isn't the closet target, you can't shoot him. Doesn't matter where in relation to the unit he is, just that he is near it, and isn't the closet target.

It's IMO quite clear, no 'intent' or interpretation needed.

Ganymede
26-06-2006, 04:12
But gaming convention is just as important as the rulebook when playing Warhammer. Would we tell him that the necromancer is untargetable when every tournament organizer in North America would say otherwise?

T10
26-06-2006, 06:20
The Necromancer can be targeted by shooting. Though he is within 5" of a unit of appropriate size, he is closer to the shooters than they are. The spirit hosts are of no consequence.

-T10

Nell2ThaIzzay
26-06-2006, 08:23
The Necromancer can be targeted by shooting. Though he is within 5" of a unit of appropriate size, he is closer to the shooters than they are. The spirit hosts are of no consequence.

-T10

That is how I would interpret the "spirit" of the rule.

Gorbad Ironclaw
26-06-2006, 08:52
The Necromancer can be targeted by shooting. Though he is within 5" of a unit of appropriate size, he is closer to the shooters than they are. The spirit hosts are of no consequence.

-T10

Of course they are of consequence. He isn't the closest legal target, the spirit hosts are, so he can't be shoot at.

You can house rule it differently, but by the rules you can't shoot him. I'm well aware that it's not very intuitive, but that is how the rule is written currently. Of course, in a few months is a moot point.

McMullet
26-06-2006, 11:04
The Necromancer can be targeted by shooting. Though he is within 5" of a unit of appropriate size, he is closer to the shooters than they are. The spirit hosts are of no consequence.

-T10
No, a character has to be the closest target to be targeted when within 5". It's perfectly clear. There is only one closest target in this case, and it's the spirit host and not the necromancer.

A bit of a silly rule, perhaps, and it's going to be ditched for the new edition, but that's how it works.

WLBjork
26-06-2006, 11:29
Yes. pretty wierd, but provided the Spirit Host are close enough to the edge of the wood to be seen then they are the closest target under the rules.

Zilverug
26-06-2006, 16:02
The Necromancer can be targeted by shooting. Though he is within 5" of a unit of appropriate size, he is closer to the shooters than they are. The spirit hosts are of no consequence.

This is how we interpreted the rule: which unit is closest is decided between the necromancer and the zombies. These are the only units mentioned in the rule.

We never thought about interpreting "closest" as "globally closest". After all, the artillery in the example can still shoot at the zombie unit; the presence of the spirit host doesn't change that.

DeathlessDraich
26-06-2006, 17:12
Pg 97
"A character model which is more than 5" from a friendly unit can be shot at without any restrictions......
A character model within 5" of a friendly unit of 5 or more models can only be picked out as a target if he is the closest target"

T10 is absolutely right, the Spirit Hosts are inconsequential.

Zombo is right about the cannon obviating this restriction:

Pg 122: "To fire a cannon it must ... point in the direction of the target which must be within LOS but otherwise is not limited by targeting restrictions."
The same for a Stone thrower

Hence the inclusion of 'Look out sir'.

PLUS ( if the dwarves were archers and not warmachines)

pg61 - Diagram of Dividing shots - Both the Necromancer and the Zombies can be shot at by dividing shots.

Again the Spirit Hosts have no effect.

Gorbad Ironclaw
26-06-2006, 17:34
This is how we interpreted the rule: which unit is closest is decided between the necromancer and the zombies. These are the only units mentioned in the rule.

We never thought about interpreting "closest" as "globally closest". After all, the artillery in the example can still shoot at the zombie unit; the presence of the spirit host doesn't change that.

Closest legal target are closest legal target. No matter if it's in that direction or not.

And the argument that you can shoot the zombies isn't relevant, as there are no such targeting rule for units as there is for characters.

McMullet
26-06-2006, 20:31
Pg 97
"A character model which is more than 5" from a friendly unit can be shot at without any restrictions......
A character model within 5" of a friendly unit of 5 or more models can only be picked out as a target if he is the closest target"

T10 is absolutely right, the Spirit Hosts are inconsequential.
The Necromancer is "A character model within 5" of a friendly unit of 5 or more models".

The Necromancer is not "the closest target", because the Spirit Host is closer.

Ganymede
26-06-2006, 21:54
You guys are messing the point. Instead of confronting T10's arguement, you are simply putting things in bold.

For ease of discussion, I will spell it out.


Pg 97
"A character model which is more than 5" from a friendly unit can be shot at without any restrictions......
A character model within 5" of a friendly unit of 5 or more models can only be picked out as a target if he is the closest target"

T10 is arguing that "closest target" is a phrase that is contextually tied to the earlier part of the rule. In other words, there are only two hypothetical units that this rule deals with; it is not dealing with every unit on the table top.

The rule only mentions two things: the single model and the unit that is within five inches of the single model. It is well within reason to take "closest model" as being confined to these two choices, as those two choices are the only things that the rule deals with.

Of course, the rule would read a lot clearer if they used the word "closer" instead of "closest", but GW has proven time and time again that grammar is not their strong suit.

T10
26-06-2006, 23:03
Closest legal target are closest legal target. No matter if it's in that direction or not.

The rule deals with the character's proximity to friendly troops. I do not expect the designers saw the need to explicitly take into account other units that would not serve to protect the character.

Counting the remote Spirit Hosts unit as the "closest" unit seems quite unreasonable as it depends on the presence of the Zombie unit to fulfill the "within 5 inches" rule. If the Zombie rule had been absent the Necromancer would be more than 5 inches from the closest friendly unit and thus an eligible target - the Spirit Hosts having no effect. Replace the Zombies and the Spirit Hosts are suddenly back in the equation.

That makes no sense.

However, if mincing words is the game of the day, I would like to point out that you inserted the word "legal" into the phrase. It doesn't matter much, but bear with me:

Disregard the Spirit Hosts entirely. Since the character is within 5 inches of the Zombie unit, he is not a legal target. If he can only be picked out as a target if he is the closest legal target, then he can in fact never be picked out at all while within 5 inches. Again, this makes no sense.

Of course the rules do not make the specify "legal" as a target requirement. It is inferred in the same way that a unit outside of line of sight or in close combat is assumed not to protect nearby characters.

I infer (I dare say: correctly) that the term "closest target" is to be taken in the context of the shooters, the character and those units that are within 5 inches of the character.

-T10

ZomboCom
26-06-2006, 23:06
The wording of the rule is very clear.

"if he is the closest target"

Closest target. There is only one correct interpretation of that.

'Closest' is a superlative. It means "the one which is the least far away".

By using the superlative 'closest' as opposed to the comparative 'closer', GW leave only one possibility. There is no case for misinterpretation.

The rules, as written, give the necromancer protection, and anyone trying to argue otherwise is willfully rewriting the rules in their head.

The word used is 'closest', not 'closer', no matter how much you'd like to to be.

ZomboCom
26-06-2006, 23:27
For anyone who still doubts, check out this from the official errata/q&a:



Q.
If a character is further away than a friendly unit in combat, can they be targeted with shooting?

A.
A character can be picked out if they are the closest 'target'. Target means a unit that the shooting models are allowed to shoot at, and so would not normally include units in combat, and certainly don't include units that are out of line of sight. Of course this can make things difficult for Skaven, but that's what happens when you give a rat a machine-gun...

EvC
26-06-2006, 23:45
I don't think that Q & A covers this rule. it takes the stuff we're talking about as a given.

I've re-read the rules and have come to my own conclusion. The rules state, "A character model within 5" of a friendly unit of five or more models can only be picked out as a target if he is the closest target [of the two]", bold added by me, and although unsaid, given the use of the term, "a friendly unit", singular, we can infer the rule from here. This means that where it says closest, it refers ONLY to whether it is closest out of the character and the nearby unit- other units not within 5" are not part of the rule description, and thus are not considered. So the Necromancer can be targeted.

Now I know adding three extra words to a line is very shady, but the wording of the rule only makes sense in the first place when you're considering the situation in that particular context.

Also in this case, as a side-issue I should point out the part that mentions "five or more models". The Spirit Host was only two models in my situation, so it should be discounted, unless you go with ZomboCom's sensible interpretation. But this would mean that, in my diagram, if the Necromancer were within 5" of the Spirit Host, he could be targeted, but since he isn't, he can't! That really makes even less sense...

ZomboCom
27-06-2006, 00:44
I don't think that Q & A covers this rule. it takes the stuff we're talking about as a given.


No, it doesn't cover the exact situation, but it does give a clear version of what 'target' means, which is useful in interpretation.



I've re-read the rules and have come to my own conclusion. The rules state, "A character model within 5" of a friendly unit of five or more models can only be picked out as a target if he is the closest target [of the two]", bold added by me, and although unsaid, given the use of the term, "a friendly unit", singular, we can infer the rule from here. This means that where it says closest, it refers ONLY to whether it is closest out of the character and the nearby unit- other units not within 5" are not part of the rule description, and thus are not considered. So the Necromancer can be targeted.


Nonsense. You're just adding words to the rules that simply aren't there, just to justify your argument. Nowhere in the rules does it say "of the two".

There is absolutely no validity in that argument. You can't just rewrite the wording of the rules how you see fit.

How, exactly, do you infer from "a friendly unit", that GW has missed out the 3 words you have added? I can see no logic in your argument at all.



Now I know adding three extra words to a line is very shady, but the wording of the rule only makes sense in the first place when you're considering the situation in that particular context.


The wolding of the rule makes complete sense as it is written on the page, and my explanation is based entirely on the rules as written.



Also in this case, as a side-issue I should point out the part that mentions "five or more models". The Spirit Host was only two models in my situation, so it should be discounted, unless you go with ZomboCom's sensible interpretation. But this would mean that, in my diagram, if the Necromancer were within 5" of the Spirit Host, he could be targeted, but since he isn't, he can't! That really makes even less sense...

I never, ever, ever said that the rule makes sense. It doesn't. That doesn't mean I'm not right.

There are two basic questions that tell you if the character can be targetted.

1) Is the character within 5" of a unit of 5 or more models?

If no, then it can be targetted.
If yes, then go to question 2...

2) Is the character the closest target (as defined in the errata I posted)?

If no, then it cannot be targetted.
If yes, then it can be targetted.

In the situation posted, question 1 is answered as yes, since it's within 5" of the zombies. Question 2 is answered as no, since the spirit host is the closest target. Therefore the necromancer is safe from targetting.

To summarise my argument - There is nothing whatsoever in the rules to suggest that "the closest target" is limited to the character and the unit it is within 5" of.

"The closest target" is a very clear, concise phrase, with only one possible correct interpretation. This becomes even more obvious when you read the errata, which gives a more detailed explanation for this phrase:

"A character can be picked out if they are the closest 'target'. Target means a unit that the shooting models are allowed to shoot at, and so would not normally include units in combat, and certainly don't include units that are out of line of sight."


If 'Target' means a unit that can legally be shot at, and closest means... well, closest, then 'Closest Target' means "The closest unit that the shooting models are allowed to shoot at".

Nowhere in the main rules or the errata does it say that this closest unit has to be one of the units within 5" of the character.

ANY legally targetable unit closer than the character who is within 5" of a unit makes the character safe from targetting. There is no rule that this cloest unit must be the one within 5" of the character.

Ganymede
27-06-2006, 01:30
I will say this.

Anyone who claims that it can't reasonably be inferred that the targeting rules are referring to only the character model and the unit within 5" is being obtuse on a legendary level. Even the most obstinate must admit that the issue is far from concise, and that claiming that one side is one-hundred-percent right is blatant posturing, and damn-near ammoral.

ZomboCom
27-06-2006, 01:38
I will say this.

Anyone who claims that it can't reasonably be inferred that the targeting rules are referring to only the character model and the unit within 5" is being obtuse on a legendary level. Even the most obstinate must admit that the issue is far from concise, and that claiming that one side is one-hundred-percent right is blatant posturing, and damn-near ammoral.

That is exactly what I'm saying. The rules as written are very clear, and there is only one correct reading of them. Wishful thinking will not change the wording.

Ganymede
27-06-2006, 01:43
"A character model within 5" of a friendly unit of five or more models can only be picked out as a target if he is the closest target [of the two]...

or


"A character model within 5" of a friendly unit of five or more models can only be picked out as a target if he is the closest target [of all targets on the whole table]...

In either case, someone is adding in sumthin a little extra.

T10
27-06-2006, 07:05
If 'Target' means a unit that can legally be shot at, and closest means... well, closest, then 'Closest Target' means "The closest unit that the shooting models are allowed to shoot at".


Why do you assume that the shooters are the ones the "closest target" has to be closest to? :) Taken in the global scope it can refer to the shortest distance between any two units on the table.

Certainly it seems that you are accepting the limitations of the context in in one moment but selectively disregarding them in the next.

-T10

Milgram
27-06-2006, 07:10
yeah, but as there stands no word about 'of the two' it is obvious that the whole table is ment. I could bring up many examples for that.

but the real question is: are the spirithosts to be countet as a 'legal' target? the artillery cannot wound them. so there would be no point for them, to even recognise them as a target.

also, it seems to me as if the spirithosts are in a small forrest. if they are 2 inch away from the border, they can't be seen anyways...

McMullet
27-06-2006, 08:18
I think this is another we can chalk down on the "inconclusive" board.

I reckon 7th edition will be out before we can all agree. :p

Part of the problem with theis rules questions is that, the first time you read them book, you add on of the caveats [of the two] or [on the entire board] subconciously, something you have to do for many rules. Then you play the game like that. You play like that for a few years. Then, when it comes down to an argument like this, whatever is the way you subconciously interpreted the rule is how you see it, and just seems right.

ZomboCom
27-06-2006, 13:42
To those who claim that they believe that GW accidently left out "of the two".

I will accept your theory on one condition. You must accept that GW accidently left out a sentance saying:

"On a 2+ (rerollable), players called ZomboCom win the game automatically."

I think my point is clear enough? You can't just presume that words have been left out accidently.

Of the two interpretations given, one is based on the rules as they are written, and one is based on the assumption that GW might have accidently left some words out.

mageith
27-06-2006, 13:52
Of the two interpretations given, one is based on the rules as they are written, and one is based on the assumption that GW might have accidently left some words out.
Oh words were definitely left out. GW doesn't go out of its way to write nutsy rules, they just do.

OTOH, your interpretation is the law in my area because, in this case, players have decided to follow the exact wording not the 'obvious' intent.

Sometimes players follow the 'obvious' intent and not the exact wordings of a rule. I have difficulty in determining how that decision is made in the metagame. I suppose it has to do with just how obvious the intent is.

Mage Ith

McMullet
27-06-2006, 13:57
ZomboCom, I think you misunderstand the [of the two] thing. It is not put forward as something that was forgotten, but rather is posited as being implied - that is, it was the intent of the rule but the writers felt that it was already clear that this was so, so they didn't bother to clarify it.

No one is clutching at ridiculous straws here. I can certainly see the common sense behind this argument, though personally I agree with your interpretation. As I said above, if you have always played the rule one way, it seems obvious to you. The proponents of the alternative interpretation used a bit of intuition when reading the rules, wrongly in my opinion, but I see where they're coming from. Any rules you read require some common sense and interpretation to be usable.

The argument, therefore, is that [of the two] is implied in the wording of the rule. I think it is not.

mageith
27-06-2006, 14:14
But gaming convention is just as important as the rulebook when playing Warhammer. Would we tell him that the necromancer is untargetable when every tournament organizer in North America would say otherwise?
Is this true!!

Probably a consensus conventional interpretation of a rule is MORE important than the the actual rulebook. Its just keeping abreast of them that is difficult. There aren't really that many. I guess I lost touch that this was one of them. I got burned by it twice when it first came out. I'm glad to hear reasonableness is winning out.

Ganymede
27-06-2006, 15:54
Only in North America though, and as far as I am aware, only in the Indy Circut.

EvC
27-06-2006, 17:44
I'm glad other people see the crux of my argument, even if they don't always agree with it. However it is a difficult and complex argument that is hard it put into words, so I can see why some don't see the point.

"How, exactly, do you infer from "a friendly unit", that GW has missed out the 3 words you have added? I can see no logic in your argument at all."

Because the word "a" is singular. It tells us that the context of the sentence refers to the character and the ONE unit within 5"- therefore all other units in consideration are extraneous to the adjective "closest".

"A character model within 5" of a friendly unit of five or more models can only be picked out as a target if he is the closest target" - it's not talking about all units on the table, it's talking about the character model and the friendly unit. Closest is interchangeable with closer here. As Ganymede so brilliantly points out, for this particular rule you HAVE to make an assumption on whether it's talking about everyone or just the two units in question. I have to go with the interpretation that makes sense to me, and for every situation. If you take my interpretation "of the two", then there are no wacky situations that I can think of that result, but there are countless that arise from assuming that it means "on the table". I accept that the interpretation of "on the table" makes the most sense when immediately looking at the rules, but dig a big deeper... it's got to be "of the two".

Imagine you and I are standing side by side looking over the gaming table on the Dwarf side, with only the undead set up in the positions from the diagram. I say, "You see that Necromancer and the zombies next to him? Decide which is closest model and pick it up". Which would you pick up- the Necromancer, or another model that I wasn't even talking about?

But if you can find any interpretation where "On a 2+ ZomboCom instantly wins", then I'll listen :)

Crazy Harborc
27-06-2006, 18:53
Amongst my circle of regular (and "GW store only" opponents as well) we have been using the "intent" of the rule(s) attitude. At this time, almost all of the guys/gals I see across tables are not doing wargaming as a "blood sport". Not even when they play WHFB or 40K.;)

grg3d
27-06-2006, 20:23
From one who gets the rules wrong all the time....

You gotta be kidding....about the sprit host as the closest unit so you can't shoot the Necro who is 5" away from a zombie unit and is in front of them (from the example given)

Really guys when did you have to shoot the closest unit in Warhammer..?

Let me get this right then….

So if the Necro was IN the unit of zombies...you could line up on the Necro and shoot at him then...right but of corse you would get a "look out sir" role...

So if he was in back of the zombie unit you could still line up on the unit so the bounce could possibly hit the Necro....right

OR if he was behind the Sprit host on the other side of the woods and you shot at the sprit hoist in a convenient lined up way throw the woods you could still hit the Necro with a lucky bounce.. Right

Sorry……I can’t imagine the sprit host would stop you from shooting at the Necro as he is farther away than 5” from the sprit hoist

You can see the sprit host, you can see the zombie unit, and you can see the Necro as he is in front of the zombie unit…right

I Can’t wait for the Rule Lawyers to nitpick the 7th edition wording or grammar apart so the insane can happen all over again…

“ BECAUSE IT SAYS SO IN THE RULES”
“ BECAUSE IT DOSEN’T SAY SO IN THE RULES”

By the way has common sense really left the building..?

McMullet
27-06-2006, 21:33
The problem with pure common sense interpretations is that a lot of the rules have no bearing whatsoever on common sense. You'd end up playing a game that had no relation to Warhammer. Warhammer rules are a simplification of reality that works in the context of dice and little plastic dudes.

In this case, I'm beginning to think the common sense interpretation is the correct one after all. But it isn't always, and in cases like this one I have, in the past, simply read the rulebook and interpreted it literally.

The point of this thread is to establish whether the (IMHO vaguely) implied common sense interpretation or the more literal interpretation is correct.

WillFightForFood
27-06-2006, 23:15
Everyone keeps mentioning that one sentence, it's important to read the previous and next sentences for intent.
"Characters who are prone to jumping up and down right in front of the enemy are just asking to get killed, so it serves them right if they get shot"
"This restriction enables characters to move around behind the battlelines without attracting unrealistic and unreasonable amount of missile fire."

The stated intent of the rule is to enable people to walk around to the rear of a nearby unit without getting pelted with arrows and to penalize those walking about in front without any shielding.

In one way, the intent seems to contradict the notion that target should be interpreted as the closest of all avilable. Under this interpretation, if two units were 32" and 34" away, but 8" from eachother, and the one at 34" had a character touching its front face but not in the unit, that said character would not be a legal target. That makes little sense. The appearance of another unit, a tiny bit closer, but still the "closest" would not suddenly render the character invisible.

The stated intent could also be used to justify the other argument, however. Consider the same scenario of a unit 34" inches away with a character on its front face, 1" away, but instead there are 4 Units 20" away between the archers and the character and only a narrow sliver of LOS to the character. In that scenario it is probably unreasonable to target the character because he really is hiding behind the lines.

Unfortunately, interpreting the rule in a literal fashion truly opens the game up to some abusive tactics. The rule is meant to protect someone hiding behind the lines, whose LOS would be limited by obstruction. A literal interpretation removes that restriction, allowing an individual to trot 4 and 11/12 inches in front of a unit with impunity to gain unobstructed LOS to the battlefield so long as there is a unit somewhere a tiny bit closer. For that reason it is a poorly worded and explained rule.


GW has to strike a compromise between character safety and reasonable targetting parameters while coming up with a fairly succinct rule. Trying to differentiate between the possibilities I mentioned above in rules would be impossible (how to draw a line between being reasonably hidden and not reasonably hidden) so the rule has to be broad. If that ends up with a potentially problematic situation so be it. The rules are by no means binding, so in a house environment it may be preferable to add (of the two) if that works for your groups and prevents abuse.

grg3d
27-06-2006, 23:32
Home from work now and have the BRB and the Annual 2002 in front of me and guess what even if their within 5" and not the closest you can use any guess range weapon to shoot them " Stone Throwers & Cannons"as long as you can see them
we have been talking about the rules on page 97 of the BRB... look on page 100 then go to the annual 2002 on page 19 by Gav Thorpe he gives 3 reasons why you can use Stone Throwers & Cannons to shoot at them...
Do I get a cookie..?
So did they have any more updated rules for shooting at characters..?
if so please post them

EvC
27-06-2006, 23:53
The stated intent could also be used to justify the other argument, however. Consider the same scenario of a unit 34" inches away with a character on its front face, 1" away, but instead there are 4 Units 20" away between the archers and the character and only a narrow sliver of LOS to the character. In that scenario it is probably unreasonable to target the character because he really is hiding behind the lines.

Thank you, that's a good analysis overall, but in this scenario, if you consider it in that context it would probably be unreasonable to target the hero even without the presence of the lone unit by the character, sniping in that manner; as such I'd say that neither situation should be characterised as being unreasonable: if the player wants a character at the front of a unit but not targetable, the character has to join the unit, which is the key difference between having a character joined up to a unit or not.

But the rest of your post backs up what I'm thinking; I know a lot of people think that using fluff or "real life" reasoning to back up a rules viewpoint is silly, but if the rules are unclear, and the rules passage itself appeals to a player's common sense and the use of a line or two for setting the scene, it should be considered.

Gorbad Ironclaw
28-06-2006, 06:26
Home from work now and have the BRB and the Annual 2002 in front of me and guess what even if their within 5" and not the closest you can use any guess range weapon to shoot them


That have always been the case. Guess range weapons don't follow the normal targeting restrictions. You can even target them at characters in unit and maybe get lucky(and before anyone complain, it's the stated intention of the rules, and have been so for at least a decade!)

DeathlessDraich
29-06-2006, 16:36
) Rules are always subject to interpretation. The 7th Edition won't change this and judging by GW standards, it will still contain loopholes, poorly worded statements and meaningless phrases like "can't do anything".

2) As Mageith said, we have to find the balance between the literal interpretation and the 'intent'. I'm not comfortable with the word intent which implies mind reading. It is the spirit of the law or the essence of the rules taken as a whole that is important.

3) I think forums like this are an integral part to rules development. It's a pity GW does not pay sufficient heed to these discussions which I personally have found to be invaluable.

Back to the original question of shooting characters. I re-read the rules and the Q&A carefully.

a) It starts, like all the rules, with a preamble of the situation in a battle and then the rules to represent it.

"...a lone individual would be likely to escape notice of the enemy on the battlefield, being strewn as it is from stragglers. The rules to represent this ..."

b) "A character within 5" ... This restriction enables characters to move around behind the battlelines without attracting ... missile fire"

I think this shows that the character is sheltered from shooting by a unit less than 5" away. There is confirmation of this in the next section:

"Note that if a character is riding a horse then it can be singled out as a target if all friendly units within 5" are infantry."

c) The unit/s closer than 5" play an active part in preventing the character from being targeted. Units further away cannot do that. In the case of the mounted character, the infantry no longer plays a part in sheltering the character and the "closest" unit is not mentioned because it obviously has no bearing on the character's status as a target.

d) I'm sure that "closest" was really meant to be "closer" and simply and oversight, considering the rules as a whole.

There are other instances in the rules where an important word has been misleading. This is yet another instance.

Originally, after reading this I was sure that in essence, the rules supported
T10, Ganymede and Mageith's interpretation.

The Q&A, once again has been written without due consideration to the rules as written. The word "Closest" crops up again!
In this case, the question was whether units in combat within 5" could shelter the character. Again in writing the Answer the GW rep did not re-read the entire rules properly because there is a part which implied a character would be sheltered from shooting by a unit less than 5" in combat

"character move around behind the battlelines without attracting ... missile fire"

Instead the Answer simply emphasised the defintion of Target - similar to viable target in the magic missile restrictions.


Final question:

Will a fleeing unit still afford the same shelter from shooting if it is 5" from a character?

Would you still interpret the rules literally in this case Zombo?

I personally feel the answer is not clearcut.

McMullet
29-06-2006, 17:01
Will a fleeing unit still afford the same shelter from shooting if it is 5" from a character?
I would say yes, but I don't have the BRB here to double check the wording to see if fleeing is relevant.

The word "sheltering" as you use it implies active protection, but I see it more as a passive protection afforded by the presence of the unit - a distraction, if you will.

EvC
30-06-2006, 02:21
I wouldn't say that a fleeing unit would provide any quantitatively difference to the rules here; what's more telling is that if the character was behind a unit of four models, it would not be protected; but then add another unit of five models behind BOTH the character and the unit, then the character suddenly is protected, if you take the rules in the way I don't agree with.

grg3d
30-06-2006, 15:56
Hi everyone, the original posters question was” Can I shoot the Necromancer with my Dwarf Organ Gun?”
As it’s a guess range weapon the answer is…. YES (page 100 (BRB) & Annual 2002 pg 19)
The Rules on page 97(BRB) deals with all other shooting (Bows, Handguns, Crossbows Bolt Throwers and Magic Missiles)

So how did it go from.. “Can I shoot the Necromancer with my Dwarf Organ Gun?”

To the rules about all other shooting in the game and how bad/unclear GW writes the rules..? :angel:

Atrahasis
30-06-2006, 17:05
Hi everyone, the original posters question was” Can I shoot the Necromancer with my Dwarf Organ Gun?”
As it’s a guess range weapon the answer is…. YES (page 100 (BRB) & Annual 2002 pg 19)

The Dwarf Organ Gun is NOT a guess-range weapon.

grg3d
30-06-2006, 18:03
:wtf: takes foot out of mouth,well I must be the most out of touch person ever ....when did they change that(Dwarf Organ Gun):eek:
It used to be(what old people say) that it was like a mimi cannon,with several barrels(5 if I remember correctly) that you used to guess range for each barrel fired then roll the artillery dice(which added to the guess range where it landed(start of bounce) then you rolled again to see how far the bounce went (kill range)
SO what..:confused: .. it works like a hellfire volley gun now..?

Gorbad Ironclaw
30-06-2006, 20:23
It works much like a Hellblaster, yes.

And it was changed in the last army book. Haven't worked like a cannon since 5th edition.

Brock Sampson
05-07-2006, 13:30
If the rule is to be taken so literally, then theoretically if a character is exactly 5 inches away from two friendly units, then he can be targeted freely. As the RULE clearly states --- unit (singular). BUT -- since the game is made by mortals, and since mortals tend to make mistakes in their wording, then I would take the ruling as he can be targeted freely, and the Spirit Hosts are of no consequence. In fact, you could probably call GW, and get clarification. I think that you should play it how you want, and if you are at a tourney, then let the judges arbitrate...

mageith
05-07-2006, 13:49
I think that you should play it how you want, and if you are at a tourney, then let the judges arbitrate...
Doesn't calling judges over tend to lower one's sportsmanship score?

T10
05-07-2006, 13:52
I don't think the sportsmanship score is of prime concern when taking the "I play it my way" approach. :rolleyes:

-T10

Brock Sampson
05-07-2006, 14:01
I wouldn't score someone poorly if they asked for arbitration on a rule call. I would presume that they just wanted a third opinion. On the other hand. If two people are arguing about a rule, then calling a judge over isn't going to further damaged what is potentially already a sportsmanship issue. You could circumvent the whole thing, and just call them...

Let me repharse --- you and your opponent should play it how the two of you decide to play it.

EvC
05-07-2006, 14:37
Ahehehehehehehe. The reason I asked this question? Because I was the judge! And and I didn't score anyone down for this or any other question; I did tell the Dwarf player he could shoot at the wizard (Actually a Dark Elf Sorceress in a team game, but changed to a Necomancer to simplify the example) for the common sense reasons given in this thread.

I did feel a bit guilty that the Dark Elf player lost his general as a result, and he was clearly using the tactic that you can move heroes freely as long as there's a closer unit anywhere on the battlefield, but the player took it very well...

Brock Sampson
05-07-2006, 14:52
LOL.

There is a bit of humor in a cannon shot taking the head of a Dark Elf. IMO - you made the right call. The only time it's a downer is when someone deploys, and moves with a different idea (be it right or wrong) of the rule(s) in mind. Specifically - that one. What kind of tourney was it?

EvC
05-07-2006, 14:55
Organ gun ;)

eldrak
11-07-2006, 14:39
So we have one character to one side of an artillery piece 18" away and within 5" of an unit that is completely hidden behind a house and another character 17" to the direct opposite side of the artillery piece, so the rules say that the character to the right is the only one targettable as the unseen unit protects the other? weird indeed...

http://www.chestud.chalmers.se/~kf01sios/pix/targeting.jpg


The rules doesn't mention that the unit within 5" has to be within line of sight from the shooter or targetable. If there's some errata on this change the unit in my example to a unit of skirmishers in a wood with 1 model visible or so...

This would also be weird if there was only one unit and a character left with the unit out of sight and closer with the character running around in the open without being targettable even tho he's the only visible model on the board

Atrahasis
11-07-2006, 15:07
Yes, the rules do say that the unit that protects has to be a legal target, which means that the unit must be in LOS of he shooter to protect the character.

eldrak
11-07-2006, 22:07
I can't find this in my book, is it in an errata or another section?


A character model within 5" from a friendly unit of five or more models can only be picked out as a target if he is the closest target

Nowhere does it mention the unit being needed to be targetable, but with common sense...

T10
11-07-2006, 22:26
As I have already pointed out, attributing the term "legal" to target actually results in the character #never# being a legal target while within 5" of an appropriate unit. :)

To sum it up:

A cahracter on foot stands in front of an enemy unit of archers. 3" behind him is a 10-man unit of friendly skirmishers.

The character starts out as a legal target.
There is a unit within 5", so the character is not a legal target.
He's the closest target, has to be the closest legal target, which he isn't since there is a unit with 5".

Weird, huh? It's almost as if the...rules... do-on't... maa-ke... se-ee-nnnss-

Nell2ThaIzzay
12-07-2006, 00:21
As I have already pointed out, attributing the term "legal" to target actually results in the character #never# being a legal target while within 5" of an appropriate unit. :)

To sum it up:

A cahracter on foot stands in front of an enemy unit of archers. 3" behind him is a 10-man unit of friendly skirmishers.

The character starts out as a legal target.
There is a unit within 5", so the character is not a legal target.
He's the closest target, has to be the closest legal target, which he isn't since there is a unit with 5".

Weird, huh? It's almost as if the...rules... do-on't... maa-ke... se-ee-nnnss-

Thanks for making my head explode :)

Anyways, this actually came up in a game I played last night. Basically, the layout was like this:

Z S
| N|
_G |

Z = Zombies
S = Skeletons
| = How far down the Regiment went
N = Necromancer
G = Gray Seer
_ = Nothing, just trying to better format the example :\

The Zombie regiment was actually a bit closer in to the Gray Seer... I mentioned this thread to my friend (I controlled the Necro), and thinking that the concencous on this thread was that the Necro couldn't be targetted, we went with that.

Although I do think I agree that the "spirit of the rule" is to be that it's the closer of the 2 units.

And even though it was a friendly game that didn't mean much, I do feel kind of bad that I didn't, at the very least, offer a dice off to my opponent to see how we were gonna play :(

I was just like "This is what I read on WarSeer!" and he's like "Oh, okay, then I'll blast the Zombies"

Gorbad Ironclaw
12-07-2006, 15:07
Nowhere does it mention the unit being needed to be targetable, but with common sense...

If you can't shoot at them, they can't really be a target, can they?

Crazy Harborc
12-07-2006, 18:50
Roll a die, odd or even, one time only, non-binding for future occurances...OR offer to buy the next round.

IF the closest unit (to the character) can't be targeted.........how can the character gain the protection of being within 5 inches? IMHO, that unit is likely NOT in the arc of sight. Is not the purpose of being able to become concealed/obscured(as far as being seen by a unit within 5")....well the unit has to be in sight too, to do it.

gortexgunnerson
13-07-2006, 19:08
The Zombie regiment was actually a bit closer in to the Gray Seer... I mentioned this thread to my friend (I controlled the Necro), and thinking that the concencous on this thread was that the Necro couldn't be targetted, we went with that.

I was actually thinking the concensis was that the necro could be targetted (greater number of posters), I think the arguement that he can't is mainly from a few people with a lot of posts.

I am of the belief the spirit host is discounted due to the closest rule being in reference to the units described in the previous sentence.

In the original answer I would feel justified in pivoting the organ gun so it couldn't see the spirit host and then shoot the necro as the closest legal target. (As a war machine may be pivoted freely to face any direction (war machine rules) and line of sight is taken from the front of the model P59 BrB.

I believe this satisfied the letter of the rules for this situation, but potential restricts the slightly less sporting shotting between 2 closer units as in the archers example given earlier (In this situation whether I would or wouldn't target the wizard would be decided on the size of the gap, as I think the common sence arguement that allows you to ignore the spirit host should be reinstated that a model that is closer along the approximate fire path of the weapon will provide protection)

Overall I find the best way to deal with this situation is generally to inform your oppenent of intention, e.g. If I'm attempting to hide a model I tell my oppenet and the position is adjusted so that we both agree that the model cannot be targetted. Similarly if my oppenent places a character in a situation where they intend them to be slightly further back then a unit but by some reason they are actually closer I inform them (in their movement phase) of my intention to target the model in my next shooting phase allowing them to adjust the model back if that was the original intention.

As nothing will spoil a good game like an arguement over a fraction of an inch or important rules call, characters especially bring the worst of this out as the rule decision can often decide the battle. I have found in my years of playing the majority of arguements come over the life or death of characters

EvC
13-07-2006, 19:27
I completely agree with you gortexgunnerson. The last game I ever had in a GW store was when I placed a Necromancer in a wood, and because the wood was full of trees I told my opponent that rather than trying balancing it on one edge or the tree roots, I'd put it as far in as it could go, which was about 1.8", and then we'd say it was 2" for the purposes of targeting, i.e. he could not see outside the wood, nor be seen. I asked if he was okay with this, he nodded and we got on with it, and I forgoed using the Necromancer's magic missile that turn. So his next turn came around and my ass of an opponent charged him with his triad of assassins. I protested, saying we'd agreed he was 2" into the wood and that he couldn't be seen in there, and my opponent just said that doesn't matter, it's where he's actually placed. He smarmily said we could ask the staffers their opinion, but he had been playing there for ages, and I had been there about three times, so I knew I wouldn't win that argument. So his triad charged in, killed my general, my army crumbled, and that was that.

That's the kind of playing I really don't understand- how someone can actually derive enjoyment from a victory like that is just beyond me. I've not played a game in-store since.

Nell2ThaIzzay
13-07-2006, 20:44
I completely agree with you gortexgunnerson. The last game I ever had in a GW store was when I placed a Necromancer in a wood, and because the wood was full of trees I told my opponent that rather than trying balancing it on one edge or the tree roots, I'd put it as far in as it could go, which was about 1.8", and then we'd say it was 2" for the purposes of targeting, i.e. he could not see outside the wood, nor be seen. I asked if he was okay with this, he nodded and we got on with it, and I forgoed using the Necromancer's magic missile that turn. So his next turn came around and my ass of an opponent charged him with his triad of assassins. I protested, saying we'd agreed he was 2" into the wood and that he couldn't be seen in there, and my opponent just said that doesn't matter, it's where he's actually placed. He smarmily said we could ask the staffers their opinion, but he had been playing there for ages, and I had been there about three times, so I knew I wouldn't win that argument. So his triad charged in, killed my general, my army crumbled, and that was that.

That's the kind of playing I really don't understand- how someone can actually derive enjoyment from a victory like that is just beyond me. I've not played a game in-store since.

That's really ****ed up. If the 2 of you agreed upon something, then it should be upheld.

I only "protest" when my understanding of the rules is one thing, and the opponent's is another. And then I discuss it with them, and normally, I just don't care. Yes, I want to win. It's a game, afterall. But I'd rather just have a good time playing the game. And I don't get that if I have knowledge that I gained an upper hand because a rule went my way when it shouldn't have, or an opponent didn't get a particular advantage of their's that they should have.

Sometimes it's hard... such as one instance where I was playing a buddy of mine from GW, and I declared a charge on one of his units. Placement on the table wise, I was within range. But he said that he specifically moved his unit 9" away (my charge range being 8") so that I couldn't charge him. But he didn't tell me until I declared charges. Since I was on a hill, he said my guys must have slid down a bit or something. In that instance, the best I could give him was a roll off, because there was no declaration of his intention when he made the move. He won the roll off, and that was that.

In my own Necro targetting situation, I had thought that the concencous was to allow the Necro to be targetted. I didn't agree with it, but because I thought the rule was to the literal sense, that's what I brought up with my friend. He agreed, and my Necro wasn't targetted. However, next time I talk to him, I'm going to mention to him that I was wrong on the particular matter, and I'm going to go with my understood intent of the rule.

Crazy Harborc
14-07-2006, 00:29
EvC.....40 years of wargaming experience has led me to believe that wargaming has it share of super competitive people who will do anything to win. The fun of the game isn't what really brings them back to play again. WINNING another one is their big turn on.

It's possible that some of them view themselves as losers in the real world and do anything to win at gaming to make up for it. Just a theory okay:)

Brock Samson
14-07-2006, 13:49
So his next turn came around and my ass of an opponent charged him with his triad of assassins. I protested, saying we'd agreed he was 2" into the wood and that he couldn't be seen in there, and my opponent just said that doesn't matter, it's where he's actually placed. He smarmily said we could ask the staffers their opinion, but he had been playing there for ages, and I had been there about three times, so I knew I wouldn't win that argument. So his triad charged in, killed my general, my army crumbled, and that was that.

That would have been my last game there. It also would have been my last game for about 5 to 10... That's of course if the authorities could have caught Brock Samson.

(In my best Brock voice)
I imagine leaping over the table and crashing my head into the punks face, Zadane (or however you spell it) style. Then dragging him outside and tossing him into a dumpster. After which I swagger back inside, and take his general, and put him in my room as a trophy. I would light up a cigar each night in memory of the event, and just gaze at the model for hours. During this whole event I imagine the song, "Luck Star" by Madonna playing in my head.

... you can be my lucky star ...