Alaztech, I looked for a loophole like this, but couldn't find one. Under the rules for normal shooting it's pretty clear that you choose a target within or partially within your forward arc, that's also in line of sight. Then the war machine rule triggers to pivot after that. Then blast away.
I play Dark Elves, all I get is bolt throwers (which are over costed and lost a wound in 8th), so no big sweat to me. But something I'll certainly make sure to point out to dwarf and Empire opponents!
That may work for bolt throwers ('may' being the operative word, I'll get to that later), but for Stone Throwers and Cannons, they don't use the regular shooting rules at all. As such, the reference to Front Arc is not used and is definately not repeated. We thus get to the long debated issue of 'How large is Line of Sight'. Search it if you want to see the technical issues.Originally Posted by Capt._Jaelinek
However, the rules for warmachines state that the pivot is before the shot... it doesn't specify anything beyond that. If I want to pivot my bolt thrower before I declare my target, but after I declare I intend to shoot with it, what rule is to stop me? I may intend for a certain target, but I haven't told you what it is yet, just that I'm firing this bolt thrower (or Stone Thrower, or Cannon, or... you get the idea). You'll know my target when it's being pointed at by my deadly contraption (being a Greenskin player, deadly to who...?).
"That's one man's opinion." Sign off quote from local retired radio announcer Rick Smith
iWAAAGH! Yup, we've got an Orc for dat.
Page 38 of the BRB states that whilst warmachines have their own rules they are governed by many of the same rules that apply to Bow and arrow so you are not correct in your above statement.
Furthermore page 109 of the BRB states that you pivot the warmachine before you fire at your chosen target. So, with logic already displayed in this thread and supported by the facing, LOS, shooting and warmachine rules:
1 - choose unit to fire
2 - check what targets are within the frontal arc and LOS of firing unit.
3 - nominate a legal target you want to shoot at.
4 - pivot your warmachine towards your target
5 - fire at your chosen target and resolve damage
Never argue with a fool, he will only bring you down to his level, and then beat you out of experience.
I think it is rather amusing that pretty much everybody says that cannons are way to accurate and here we find that they shouldn't have 360 degree firing arcs. We find within the rules a way to limit some of the craziness that cannons/warmachines have concerning targeting/ killing things and some people still continue to defend them saying let's keep them crazy accurate and target anything that moves on the battlefield anywhere......Yeahhhh righttttt. I happen to agree with Mostream and others and looking over the rules can't see it any other way.
Okay, which rules? Where does it state either here or in the Warmachine section that my warmachines are limited to my front arc? The only one that this arguement would work for is the Bolt Thrower (references back to normal targetting and to hit rules). Fact of the matter is that anything that does damage references back to here for the To Wound chart and the rules for saves.
This one's going to boil down to a game of semantics (ie. word play) if we try to resolve it here. You may note that the section is separated by a dash, this means that it is a separate clause of the sentence but is related to it, namely it is related to the bit about Line of Sight. My conclusion would be to pivot before Line of Sight is checked (to verify you have Line of Sight when properly facing your foe and to determine your penalties is any). Besides, what happens if after step 4, your target now becomes illegal?
"Sir! We can't see him now that we've turned the barrel!"
"What do you mean?! We know he's right over there! Fire!"
"At what?!"
"...By Sigmar!"
"That's one man's opinion." Sign off quote from local retired radio announcer Rick Smith
iWAAAGH! Yup, we've got an Orc for dat.
I sense great trolling
Never argue with a fool, he will only bring you down to his level, and then beat you out of experience.
I disagree with you, put up a defeater for your p38 reference (ie. it's too vague), and then you accuse me of trolling?
Look, I've got a massive list of unresolved or poorly resolved issues on my FAQ Wishlist thread, and I'll probably be adding this to it when I next get around to working on that, but I don't think I'll be caving on this issue any time soon. Still, if you can state something more than that some of the rules from shooting are used for warmachines (which is true), then I'm open to hearing it. I may not agree, but I'll listen, and if I don't agree I'll state why.
"That's one man's opinion." Sign off quote from local retired radio announcer Rick Smith
iWAAAGH! Yup, we've got an Orc for dat.
A moment of weakness, i.e. 15 cl of uiscea beatha, and then hitting the forum.
If you read the entire thread You would have noticed that we've been through the part with WM, Facing and the rules that support the whole arguement with WM and that they don't get 360 LOS for targetting purposes.
I cannot after reading, evaluating, re-reading, re-evaluating for the life of me allow any WM to just get away with pulling a 360 LOS shot anymore. Because there is nothing in the rules that support this. It did in 6th edition when i started, ( didnt play for 7th), but it doesn't now. Theres Is however support that it only has 90 LOS for targetting purposes, so that's how i'm going to play it.
You can choose to play the rules, ignore parts and make up your own if you want, that's the great thing with the hobby. Do it the way that you prefer, for at the end of the day. Its your enjoyment of it that matters, not poorly written rules that doesn't fit the way you imagine how your troops work.
But be prepared that you might run into some games where your opponent isn't so forgiving with the giant leap from " it doesnt have a base and it doesnt have flanks or rear for close combat purposes" to " it has no arcs and therefore 360 LOS so lets blast away"
FaQ Looks sound btw, good initiative in compilation.
Never argue with a fool, he will only bring you down to his level, and then beat you out of experience.
I'm personally of the opinion that one should be held responsible for ones drunken actions. Kindly, don't do it again.
I have read the whole thread, word for word. You've merely dismissed the arguement out of hand based on a faulty understanding of the Line of Sight rules. The Line of Sight rules are not limited to Front Arc (Line of Sight is described only on p10). It is the targetting rules for Shooting that use Front Arc, but, as I pointed out earlier, those are not used by most Warmachines, only the Line of Sight rules are. So, facing has nothing to do with the issue (with the only possible exception being the Bolt Thrower as I stated above).
Well, I'm sorry to say but a ninety degree Line of Sight is not in line with the rules. Nowhere in the Rulebook does it state that a model's Line of Sight is limited to their front arc. Certain targetting issues may be, but cannons, stone throwers and fire throwers don't use that rule since they have their own.
My point, however, has more to do with the pivoting issue. Why couldn't the target declaration and the pivot be effectively concurrent? That is, the target is declared as I'm pivotting the warmachine. Doing this ensures that a target will not be declared such that Line of Sight will be lost during the pivot. Certain machines (eg Ogre Cannon), have the point that Line of Sight is drawn from a rather long ways forward and so the machine will pivot a fair deal to bring it in line with the target. It is possible that a building, wall, or other obstruction will thus make it an illegal target. You have not dealt with this issue.
Thank you.
"That's one man's opinion." Sign off quote from local retired radio announcer Rick Smith
iWAAAGH! Yup, we've got an Orc for dat.
As am I, and I will do it again as I please although I am aware it might infringe on my logic and rationality.
I understand the LOS and shooting rules to a very good level, and if the precise use of them hasn't been adhered to it is not because i do not understand, but merely because I do not wish to be overly anal, something I am learning is a requirement at times.
to be clear: I am not dismissing the cannons ability to see 360 LOS, I am dismissing the cannons ability to shoot at a target that is fully outside of its 90 frontal arc due to the limitations of the shooting rules, which covers warmachines when they do not have contradicting rules of their own, [Compare with the legal terms "lex specialis" and "lex generalis" which are basic principles in how rules are related and which superceedes the other]. Furthermore I am arguing that the pivot cannot be done before the target is chosen (which is implied on page 109 of the BRB).
The case where you might lose LOS in the pivot is unfortunate, but in my opinion a small drawback on the interaction between models-terrain-rules.
It is no different to other situations, for example in a charge where you can see your target and you are in range of him but then you cant complete it because some terrainpiece or whatnot prevents a charge from hitting home during the move.
Never argue with a fool, he will only bring you down to his level, and then beat you out of experience.
The truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
- Never argue with a fool, he will only bring you down to his level, and then beat you out of experience.
Ironic
80 imperial guard stormtroopers for sale
11 chaos dwarf bull centaurs for sale
8 dragon ogres white metal for sale
All in the thread below
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showth...48#post6716248
yeah i know, sad really.The truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
- Never argue with a fool, he will only bring you down to his level, and then beat you out of experience.
Ironic
Never argue with a fool, he will only bring you down to his level, and then beat you out of experience.
After much being said, I like to give it a try at (something of) a comprehensive manner.
From general to specific:
1)
On p. 5 Unit Facing is discussed: units have different arcs including a front arc.
On p. 10 Line of Sight is explained.
Nowhere in these chapters are these tied together. Only some specific rules do this, like the last paragraph under Declare Charge for example.
I consider Unit Facing and Line of Sight distinct rules which are unconnected by themselves (both often coincide though).
AMWOOD argued this above too.
2)
On p. 38 under Shooting the first regular paragraph explicitly states that warmachines have their own rules (from p. 108 and on), but reading on is no waste of time because many rules are the same.
From this I conclude that Shooting with regular troops and shooting with warmachines are covered by distinct rules in their own chapters, but there are rules in common. IMO these only apply when the Warmachine rules directly refer to the Shooting rules, which happens alot.
3)
P. 109 under shooting with warmachines gives an order of business: first choose target, then pivot.
It also gives a rule on determining LOS, but does not connect it to target selection or pivoting.
4)
For me the difficulties start in parapraph Choose Target under Cannons. Before the erratum it was clear: you can pivot in the movement phase to bring an intended target into LOS. In the shooting phase you select a target within LOS and fire away.
When pivoting moved to the shooting phase, it started to get messy. You nominate a point within LOS, but you are allowed to pivot to bring the chosen target into LOS. But when do you choose? And governed by what rules? No reference to the general shooting rules alas.
I think the key here is: What was the intention of the change?
To give more flexibility to the active player to decide on a target in the shooting phase? Or to limit the options of the active player by restricting his target selection?
IMO, if the latter was intended, the erratum would have been different and more explicit (but you never know with GW). Without knowing for sure, I think it wasn’t the intention of the erratum to change the target selection this thoroughly, so in that case the “old mechanic” still stands though pivoting is moved a few phases. This effectively makes 360° target selection possible.
I know many have addressed this before, and many don’t agree (I HAVE read the entire thread).
But careful reading could only lead me to above conclusions, so I decided to just throw them in there.
Cheers LH.
LOL. Why? Someone can die because of drunk typing?
Finecast is like a watch from Armani - very expensive and waterproof.
Kaiserfaust!!! little plog of mine - http://www.warseer.com/forums/showth...e-clad-in-IronAnd thus ends another episode of Whineseer-panty-twist theater. Join us next time when we overreact to a roumor about another new unit who's unknown rules will cause us to poo our pants once again.
I love when people sum things up like this, makes it neat and nice, and it's easy to follow the logic.
I must say that after this post, and doing more re-reading. I have changed my opinion that the cannon, and other warmachines that does not refer to the shooting rules are indeed exempts from the targetting restrictions laid out in the shooting rules on page 38.
Page 11 "Where rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules."
and since the requirement in the shooting rules are slightly contradicting (they never refer to front arc) I must concede the point.
But if the LOS is to be adhered to doesn't this imply that the cannon only has 180 LOS? In the LOS rules it states that you measure from the models eyes, and in the case of the cannon, it's muzzle. Which of course cannot see to its sides nor to its rear.
Never argue with a fool, he will only bring you down to his level, and then beat you out of experience.
1) Page 39 First paragraph "A model can shoot at an unengaged enemy unit that is at least partially within it's forward arc, and to which it has an unblocked line of sight. The enemy must also lie within range of the weapon being used." This is in the shooting rules which "apply to all models in the game, unless specifically stated otherwise."(page 11) A single sentence you keep overlooking ties frontal arc and line of sight together for the purpose of choosing a target for shooting. No where in the war machine rules(general or specific) does it specifically say you may ignore any of these restrictions.
2) Again page 11 says "Basic rules apply to all models in the game, unless specifically stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting, close combat and so on," Page 38 confirms this with "even the most colossal trebuchet is governed by many of the same rules as the humble bow and arrow". You are taking the wrong condition on this point. All of the basic shooting rules apply unless the war machine rules tell you to do something differently. It's not refer to this section only when told.
3) Following the fact that you must choose a target according to the basic rules,(except where specifically told differently) targets must be "an unengaged enemy unit that is at least partially within it's forward arc, and to which it has an unblocked line of sight. The enemy must also lie within range of the weapon being used."(page 39) That's a pretty obvious connection between LoS, frontal arc and target selection. The rules on page 109 tell you to take line of sight and range from a single point on the war machine rather than using the models eyes and base respectively, all other basic rules apply.
4) Personally I have to assume that the wording was changed because it was previously wrong. The erratum was likely changed because it was a typo/proofread mistake, cannons were likely never intended to pivot in the movement phase but were brought in line with the rest of war machines who pivot to face thier target in the shooting phase. If it doesn't reference a change to the general shooting rules then they still apply, choose the point within sight, range and forward arc, pivot to face that point and then fire. The "old mechanic" was a mistake which is why it was fixed, if it was the way things were supposed to work then they would have changed the general rule on page 109 to match cannons, not change the cannon specific rule to match the rest.
I'm sorry but I still do not see how you get past the requirement that the target has to be in the frontal arc, line of sight and within range. That is a core rule and at no point does the war machine rules specifically say to do something else. You are not allowed to bypass that unless specifically allowed.
As phrased on page 11 of the BRB a little further from your quote under 'Basic versus advanced' it says: "Where rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules".
The cannon and some of the other WM's rules doesn't need to state that they specifically overtake the basic rules because it is enough that the rules written are contradicting with the basic rules for them not to be applied.
For example: where the basic shooting rules states that a model needs to have their targets partly in their frontal arc and LOS aswell as having them within the range of their weapons, the cannon and some of the other WM's Advanced rules say that they require only a point within LOS and within the weapons range to be fired.
I've learned loads in this thread back and forth and it is now my interpretation that the cannon isn't bound by its forward arc when targetting.
However. Since the cannon is governed by LOS as presented on page 10 of the BRB it is bound by the correct usage of it. Hence it will need to see the target, using the Muzzle of the gun as its LOS point (BRB page 109) before it is allowed to pivot towards it, (also page 109). And this can by the LOS rules only by the most shrewd rulesbending result in the cannon having 360 LOS since the muzzle of the gun is used, which means that the cannon only can see straight ahead and not to the sides nor to the rear. I would argue that the muzzle might give at the very maximum a 180 LOS, But nothing more at any given time.
Last edited by Mostream; 21-04-2012 at 20:29. Reason: spelling
Never argue with a fool, he will only bring you down to his level, and then beat you out of experience.
I fully understand your line of reasoning, and it is very logical assuming warmachines are subject by the general rules on shooting. This is also where our opinions differ.
P. 38 says "This section covers the shooting rules for common weapons and the majority of troop types. War machines and other, more peculiar, devices of destruction are covered in their own chapter."
This says all IMO: no Lex Generalis - Lex Specialis relation, but seperate chapters with seperate rules.
The shooting chapter is relevant for war machines though, because the war machines section often -specifically- refers to rules in the shooting section: "To fire a bolt thrower, select a target according to the normal rules for shooting" p. 111, "To fire grapeshot, select a target according to the normal rules for shooting" p. 113. A contrario: target selection for regular shooting of cannons and stone throwers is NOT governed by the normal rules for shooting. For the rest see my previous post.
Maybe I'm not convincing you with this, but nothing you have stated convinced me either, so maybe we have to agree on disagreeing, no worries.
@Mostream:
Good point on the 180. I see the logic in this. But then one point stings: Mortar and Stone Throwers have 360 because crossbar and mortar muzzle can draw lines to all sides. But the cannon can only draw lines forwards/sideways?
Again, I understand it, but it feels arbitrary at best and just random at worst. This just underlines the crappy LOS rules, with it's ridiculous "eyes" clause. But that has been discussed in depth in other threads, and we will not resolve it here.
If an opponent claimed 180 for my cannon, fine, no lengthy discussion or rolling off, I'll abide. But I'll be giving my regular Empire opponent 360. (But not anymore for grapeshot haha, at least something gained from this discussion)
RAW sucks balls when it comes to LOS since it would be much easier if it was written that is connected with the Arcs. But its not, and It's a case of the most important rule or a houserule how it's determined considering the "eye-view" phrasing in the Rulebook.@Mostream:
Good point on the 180. I see the logic in this. But then one point stings: Mortar and Stone Throwers have 360 because crossbar and mortar muzzle can draw lines to all sides. But the cannon can only draw lines forwards/sideways?
Again, I understand it, but it feels arbitrary at best and just random at worst. This just underlines the crappy LOS rules, with it's ridiculous "eyes" clause. But that has been discussed in depth in other threads, and we will not resolve it here.
If an opponent claimed 180 for my cannon, fine, no lengthy discussion or rolling off, I'll abide. But I'll be giving my regular Empire opponent 360. (But not anymore for grapeshot haha, at least something gained from this discussion
I will throw my pennies in with 180LOS fron the point of measuring on the model and its facing till there is a proper ruling on it :/
My arguement at crossbars and the mortar, and whatnot is simply that I treat the point on the weapon as a set of eyes and that they have LOS in the direction of their facing.
edit: furthermore I find it laughable that the grapeshot and boltthrowers are governed by the regular rules and has a requirement to restricts it's targetting to its frontarc when Cannons normal shot and its ilk does not.
Last edited by Mostream; 21-04-2012 at 21:46. Reason: added bolthrowers
Never argue with a fool, he will only bring you down to his level, and then beat you out of experience.
There is no such a thing.
Gravity?
Last edited by Tuttivillus; 21-04-2012 at 22:52.
Finecast is like a watch from Armani - very expensive and waterproof.
Kaiserfaust!!! little plog of mine - http://www.warseer.com/forums/showth...e-clad-in-IronAnd thus ends another episode of Whineseer-panty-twist theater. Join us next time when we overreact to a roumor about another new unit who's unknown rules will cause us to poo our pants once again.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote