Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
last week I was at a RTO tournament and was playing my first game against a tau player. I had placed my chimeras side to side so that he couldn't get the side armour with his stealth team, or so I thought...
He said you could acctually fire at side armours of a tank even though another tank block the line of sight, because the shots were still coming in that direction. The rule supervisor came over and comfirmed this and I really like his final sentence "I know it's the strangest rule"
I didn't want to be a ***** about it so I didn't ask for a page in the rulebook, so I was thinking maybe you guys can. The funny thing is that I've read through the rulebook several times and have never noticed anything like this, strange is the word.
I've never heard this one before, but I can see how it would work. If the stealths can see the front armor, they can shoot at the chimie, but if they're on the side (behind the line running from the center of the vehicle through the front corner), then their shots hit the side. I guess. Seems like a bit of jiggering, but the rules are vague enough that I can't say it's wrong. Definitely an obscured target, at least.
thank you and good night
Yeah, he's right, it is weird. Remember that you would definitely be Obscured though.
All the old Specialist Games resources are currently being uploaded at the Tactical Command forums, and you can find them here: http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/fanatic/.
why would this happen? can we have a pg. reference?
exactly this rule goes past every logical explantion, If a tank is in the way you simply can't shoot at the side of the tank behind it, it's fricking obvious! this has to be some kind of mistake by GW, and as said page reference?
The rule is on page 65. Look at the picture showing the four quadrants of a vehicle.
If the attacking unit is in one of those quadrants and shoots the target vehicle, then the attack counts against that side of the vehicle.
The rules do not care that you could see and draw a straight LOS to the side armor while standing in the front quadrant, nor do they care if the entire side of the vehicle is in cover, but you can see the front of the vehicle. Same with scattered explosions. They don't care where the template scattered to, front, rear, etc, only what side the shooter was attacking from.
So in Guardsman 173rd's original example, you can extend the side quadrant out far enough that a shooter can be in a position to see the target vehicle behind the cover vehicle, but only the front of it. However the shooter is standing in the side quadrant so, according to the rules, the attack goes against the side armor.
Stupid, illogical, and poorly written, but it is GW after all.
well my point is i've looked at pg. 65 and it doesn't say pick the armour value of the quadrant you're in. it just explains how to fire blast weapons...
but I still think it is strange, wouldn't the vehicle block line of sight rule override this one? on page 65 nothing is stated clearly (I couldn't pick anything out at least), could you give us a quote wolfraider?
Not sure if I'm reading this right. Here's a vague attempt at an illustration.
Now, from what it sounds like, you had two or more Chimera's faced to cover their weaker side armor (Chimera's A and .
From how you tell it, it seems the Stealths (o) were trying to shoot Chimera B. From my illustration, the three Y Stealths on the front have a LOS to the front of Chimera B. The other three X Stealths have their LOS to Chimera B blocked by Chimera A.
If someone let the X Stealths shoot at the side armor of Chimera B, then they need to be kicked in the face with a kleat.
As I said, poorly written. There is no actual line that says anything close to 'your attack goes against the armor facing the direction of the attack as defined by the picture on page 65'. It would be nice, but no.
The only line I know of is the last line just before the picture. "Armor values... vary depending on whether the shot comes from the front, side..." Then the picture. It is assumed that the picture defines the what "...comes from the front, side, rear" actually entails.
Generally it is really bad to assume anything when dealing with GW rules. Your best bet is to treat them exactly as they state and not read anything into them. In this case there is no other example or explanation on the direction of an attack.
Personally I think it should be if you can only see the front you can only shoot the front regardless of where you stand. However, it leads to attacks positioned off to the side, but primarily in the front, that can actually see the side. The attacker then says he's shooting the side armor even though he's in the front. An arguement follows about whether a straight LOS can be drawn to the side from a front position. W\Previously we always solved it using a ruler, pointer, or squat and look.
GW's attempt to solve it is make a sweeping unrealistic rule, simplify the rule to the point of stupidity, and write it so it becomes as complicated and unclear as possible.