Point blank shooting and sportsmanship

[Bubble Ghost]

So in a game last night, an Autarch ran up on his own to my immobilised Chaos Predator and planted a Haywire grenade on it, going for the Heavy Support VP in the 'big guns never tire' mission. The grenade was a dud, and with physical comic timing worthy of Buster Keaton, or at least Wile E. Coyote, the turret swivelled around and blew him in half with its autocannon. Probably with a sort of "mwah-mwah-mwah-mwaaaaaah..." trumpet effect.

The two-point VP swing for keeping my Predator and nailing his Warlord was irrelevant as it turned out - but while it was a very amusing image, should it have been allowed? Thing was, the barrel of the autocannon actually extended out past the Autarch - he was essentially behind the gun. I've since looked it up and the diagram in the rulebook says no, you can't shoot - so this is not a tournament question, and this thread is not in the rules forum. But I genuinely have no clue which ruling would have been the pedantic one and which would have been the sportsmanlike one.

Thing is, I don't know many people who are too fond of the idea that you are beholden to anything by the specifics of your miniatures' design, because that's the sort of thing that leads to modelling for advantage. If I had money and time to burn I could just have chopped off the end of my Predator's barrel there and then, for instance. It's nice to play in an environment where you can feel that people aren't going to be rewarded for that nonsense, even though the rules as written do precisely that, and part of that feeling means not punishing people for not doing it.

Bottom line, I have no idea whether I should have felt guilty or not.

So would it have been a rules lawyer or WYSIWYG nazi who said I couldn't fire, or a sly abuser of RAI who said I could..?

[Radium]

I would say you should not have been able to shoot. Since the autocannon couldn't see the Autarch, it can't shoot.

As to what you call your friends for deciding you could or could not fire is up to you .

[IJW]

GUILTY! Probably.

If there's no LoS from the gun mount then you can't fire at the target, plain and simple. The barrel is irrelevant in this case.

[Commandojimbob]

To me it is one of those "Does it matter?" moments. In a friendly game with mates, does it matter ? Nope - the comic experiance is one that you will remember and is the one that is important (sounds very funny BTW). In a Tourney game - damn straight I would be saying "you measure from the end of the gun, I am under it, as such you cannot target me!" because its a tourney and that matters !

Suffice to say I probably would of still found it funny that the Autarch , who failed in his mission, was hiding from the turrett running around it keep under the barrell.

[Bubble Ghost]

In a Tourney game - damn straight I would be saying "you measure from the end of the gun, I am under it, as such you cannot target me!" because its a tourney and that matters !

In which case, depending on the cash prize at stake, I would be reaching for the clippers. It's that whole sensation that I like to avoid. Slippery slopes and all that.

[Reticent]

Remember too that the game is a turn based simulation of a dynamic battle. In the "battle" the game would have been simulating, it would have been trivial for the tank to move the several meters necessary to establish the shot, even though that would have been out of turn sequence for the game.

I think allowing the shot was absolutely reasonable, and that any strangeness presented by the situation is entirely an artifact of the fact that many facets of the game exists in an abstracted state for the sake of playability.

I'd allow my opponent to take that shot even in a tourney game.

[Konovalev]

Remember too that the game is a turn based simulation of a dynamic battle. In the "battle" the game would have been simulating, it would have been trivial for the tank to move the several meters necessary to establish the shot, even though that would have been out of turn sequence for the game.

I think allowing the shot was absolutely reasonable, and that any strangeness presented by the situation is entirely an artifact of the fact that many facets of the game exists in an abstracted state for the sake of playability.

I'd allow my opponent to take that shot even in a tourney game.

This. The vehicle is <immobilized> which in 40k is an exceedingly narrow term meant to represent impaired mobility but without bogging the game down with excess mechanics to define levels of impaired movement. A tank with a thrown track or damaged engine may still be able to move just not at combat speed.

In that same token, haywire grenades are not one use per game only are they? Why couldn't the autuarch plant another upon the first one's failure, or use 2 to begin with etc...

[Veteran Sergeant]

Alternating turns don't present the most realistic vision of the battlefield. Perhaps the Autarch threw the grenade as he was running up, and got blown to bits just after doing so when the grenade failed to go off.

In the end, hopefully the result was more dramatic than worrying about the nitpicks of the rules.

[Bubble Ghost]

In the end, hopefully the result was more dramatic than worrying about the nitpicks of the rules.

Definitely, it was a laid back game between two pretty sub-optimal armies (and good fun as a result). Wasn't very important either way, I just thought it was interesting question.

[Chem-Dog]

At the worst you could argue the Sponson Gunner/Infesting Daemon is literally clouting the Autarch with the weapon's barrel.

[Blinder]

At the worst you could argue the Sponson Gunner/Infesting Daemon is literally clouting the Autarch with the weapon's barrel.

Would that be resolved on BS or WS thought?

RAW- if it's entirely past the base (which I think they would be firing over the side), can't shoot, at least based on the new turret diagram.
Sportsmanship- happily going along with your opponent's reasoning (in this case, since it's your pred trying to gain a shot on his dude).

To me, this particular bit of the rules punish people for making nifty conversions (either because they end up with a short barrel and get grief for "modeling for advantage," or because they have a long barrel that can't hit *even more* stuff). What if I decide I don't like the look of the Russ sponson mounts, and replace them with semi-circle mounts and "oh by the way" the guns swivel 180 degrees now? Maybe I'm trying to game the fact that the rules don't really say *what* the sponsons should look like, just that their LOS is based on their appearance. Maybe it's a really spiffy modeling job and I just think it looks better, and even intend to play them as the normal arc. What do you figure the reaction would be if I just set it on the table while I was unpacking and a bunch of folks started checking it out?

Not intending to do this... just another gripe I have with the vehicle rules and the fuzziness of where "looks cool and only has a minor game impact" ends and "has an unacceptable impact even if it does look cool" begins "officially." At a local level it's easy to sort out, but I would have liked a bit more guideance in the rules than "you can't gain cover from your base" and "you can't penalize someone's fancy banner."

[ForgottenLore]

Bottom line, I have no idea whether I should have felt guilty or not.

Did your opponent feel like he got cheated?

If not, then NO, you absolutely should not feel guilty. As long as you both had fun then you were playing the game correctly.

If he did feel like he got cheated, but didn't say anything during the game, then no, you should not feel guilty, its his own damn fault for not speaking up.

If he did feel cheated and said something, did you dice off? If yes and you won, you should not feel guilty, that is how the game works.

If he did feel cheated, said something and you insisted on doing it your way anyway, then YES you should feel guilty.

[MajorWesJanson]

I'd say it's fine. You can easily come up with fluff reasons why it worked- the blast from the gun wounded it, or it hit close by andtook him out with shrapnel. It's just one of those abstractions that leads to odd results sometimes. My favorite vindicator blew itself up once after hitting itself on its own rear armor thanks to a really bad scatter. If that can happen in the rules, your situation is fine.

[minionboy]

The rules in the rulebook pretty clearly show that the gun on a turret can't fire closer to the model than the end of the barrel.

[xxRavenxx]

The rules in the rulebook pretty clearly show that the gun on a turret can't fire closer to the model than the end of the barrel.

Can the gun fire straight down? :P [/can of worms]

[Bubble Ghost]

Did your opponent feel like he got cheated?

If not, then NO, you absolutely should not feel guilty. As long as you both had fun then you were playing the game correctly.

If he did feel like he got cheated, but didn't say anything during the game, then no, you should not feel guilty, its his own damn fault for not speaking up.

If he did feel cheated and said something, did you dice off? If yes and you won, you should not feel guilty, that is how the game works.

If he did feel cheated, said something and you insisted on doing it your way anyway, then YES you should feel guilty.

Best answer yet.

I should probably point out that this is a rhetorical question that I posted because I thought it would be an interesting discussion. During play I'm the world's biggest doormat - I give my opponent the benefit of the doubt on absolutely everything, just for the sake of keeping it chilled out (except last week with the Stormtalon. I really hate those things) - and I find that the most fun I have with the game is when the other player is exactly the same. At the time, it never occured to either of us to actually look this up, we just had a laugh about it. Later in the game, my opponent deliberately held back from overwatching with his Dire Avengers who'd used Bladestorm in the previous turn, even though the letter of the rules would have let him - I said it would be fine, he said no, I'm not going to because it would be silly. That was the kind of game it was. Good fun.

The rules in the rulebook pretty clearly show that the gun on a turret can't fire closer to the model than the end of the barrel.

I now know that you read no more than the opening 5 sentences of the OP.

[Dangersaurus]

It would have been totally appropriate if someone knew at the time to point out the move was illegal. Knowing the rules and sticking to them is never pedantic IMO, unless backtracking is involved.

At the same time, there's no reason to feel guilty. It's just a bad call, had no effect on the outcome, and was worth a laugh.

[Plecohead]

I'd let it pass as there is no Autocannon minimum range and it's a friendly, when I played my first game it was with my brother's Imperial Guard (Guard vs Guard) and we did annihilation (and I mean annihilation as it was until there were no units left) and at the end my sergeant was running after a chimera... We probably made loads of rules slip-ups but it made the game and was a laugh. Don't let it keep you awake all night

[owen matthew]

The rules in the rulebook pretty clearly show that the gun on a turret can't fire closer to the model than the end of the barrel.

This. It seems pretty clear, all house rules and feel-good changes aside.

[frogboy]

The rules in the rulebook pretty clearly show that the gun on a turret can't fire closer to the model than the end of the barrel.

Maybe it was the end of the barrel which killed him then, anyway anyone stupid enough to stand next to a grenade and watch it go off deserves to die on principle !