Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums

Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums (https://www.heresy-online.net/forums/)
-   40k Rules Discussion (https://www.heresy-online.net/forums/17-40k-rules-discussion/)
-   -   Gravitatory Vehicles blocking line of sight? (https://www.heresy-online.net/forums/40k-rules-discussion/262-gravitatory-vehicles-blocking-line-sight.html)

sportman 01-06-07 12:49 AM

PW, I don't think ur write on this one. What ur saying is that a squad would not care if a large carnifex was closer to them if they wanted to shoot gaunts. I've read the rulebook and it desn't classify target priority like that. It only works the other way around.

Galahad 01-06-07 12:51 AM

Seriously, man. Open the book and read it. Vehicles, Artillery and monsterous creatures are the ONLY TARGETS YOU MAY SINGLE OUT IN THIS WAY

If an infantry unit is in front of a large target, you may single out the closest large target and shoot it instead.

Nowhere does it say or even SUGGEST that it works the other way around. In fact, it implicitly says if it ain't a vehicle, artillery or monster critter, you CANNOT single it out and shoot it wihtout a priority roll if somehting else is closer.

It's not "I'm going to shoot at large targets OR everything else."

It's "I'm going to shoot at the closest target OR the closest Large Target"

Normal rules:
Shoot at the closest target, make a Ld check to shoot anything else.
OR
Opt to shoot the closest vehicle, make a LD check to shoot any vehicle other thant he closest.

Nowhere, NOWHERE does it add "Or choose to shoot the closest 'non-large' target"

In fact, the rule we're wrangling about is called "Shooting at LARGE targets"

not "Shooting at large or small targets"

You;re reading too much into it. Just look at the black and white. You may single out large targets and nothing else.

As for calling GW, that is never a good way to end an arguement. A different person picks up the phone every time, so you get a different human being's opinion on a rule. I called them three times with a yes or no question and got three different answers.

Q: Can furioso dreadnoughts use drop pods?
A1: No, it;s not listed under their unit entry
A2: Yes, Drop Pod Assault rules mention 'all dreadnoughts'
A3: Uh...I think this is mentioned in your codex FAQ. Go to the website and download it, it should answer all your questions. <click> (For the record, it's not in the update FAQ)

Jeridian 01-06-07 03:36 AM

Aye, so many people love to ignore this rule.

I remember a game when a Necron Monolith deep struck into the middle of my army- no biggy, I can ignore it and shoot at the Necrons.
Then I fail most of my Target Priority and soon heavy bolter rounds are pinging pointlessly of the pyramid.

So if you have an expendable vehicle and/or valuable troops- send it ahead and it may even draw the fire of a squad that can't hurt it, but could hurt the troops.

jigplums 01-06-07 11:20 AM

It makes sense, If a 16ft monsterous creature was baring down on me, id be pumping that bolter for all it was worth... Who cares if it has a 2+ save when its about to rip you in half

Jeridian 01-06-07 10:12 PM

Agree it makes sense.

Shoot at the big scary tank rumbling over your trench, or at distant enemy infantry scurrying beyond it.

The Wraithlord 01-06-07 10:53 PM

Quote:

My unit does not have to make a target priority check to shoot your unit. SInce I never declared I'm shooting large targets I can ignore the immoblized tank.
Incorrect. The tank is the closer unit and a priority check MUST be made to shoot at anything that is not closer. The ONLY exception to this is if you are shooting at a Vehicle/Large Target that is not the closest unit. You may ignore the closer unit to taget the vehicle, provided the closer unit is not also a vehicle or large target.


Quote:

Normal rules:
Shoot at the closest target, make a Ld check to shoot anything else.
OR
Opt to shoot the closest vehicle, make a LD check to shoot any vehicle other thant he closest.
This is correct.

pathwinder14 01-08-07 01:44 PM

Sigh...I re-read the rules....again. Looks like I am indeed wrong. But I argued my point so well; so articulate; so well thought out. Crap. Oh well.

At least this little rules debacle turned out well. We had no flame wars going on.

Galahad 01-08-07 02:11 PM

Indeed. As long as something is learned, no debate is a waste of time, and everyone did a pretty good job of keeping cool. I dub this thread a total success ;-)

The Wraithlord 01-08-07 06:20 PM

Indeed, a nice rules debate that remain just that, a debate. Too often this kind of thing results in flammage of all and sundry but we kept it together nicely.


PW, don't feel bad. I have done the same thing several times myself and then been proved wrong (don't get me started on the Chosen of Ahriman :evil: ). It doesn't help if that is the way you and your regular opponents have been playing.

Phazael 01-08-07 08:48 PM

Short answer:
Mobile Skimmers never block LOS.

You can ignore small targets in favor of larger stuff when making target priority tests, but not the reverse.


So, in your example, banshees hopping out the back of a serpent could be shot at provided any needed priority tests were passed.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:41 PM.

Powered by the Emperor of Man.


vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.0 Beta 4 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome