Search lights

[Vann Harl]

Shed some light for me please;

 

I notice that the description for Searchlights as an upgrade for vehicles is different between the DH and new SM codex. When I first read the DH codex it was a bit ambivelant and I read it as - a vehicle with a search light can spot the enemy in night fight scenarios (ie the new dawn of war set up) - ie: there is no roll to see it under the night fight rules.

 

Does the DH searchlight differ from the SM one? - do we still need to roll to see the target initially?

[number6]

As with any other rules discussion, FAQ > Codex > BRB. So in this case, as with DH smoke launchers and force weapons (and etc.) our smoke launchers work slightly differently from the way they are described in the BRB.

[jeffersonian000]

I love our 3rd Ed Search Lights because there is no roll to spot and you do not have to worry any ranges other than weapon ranges. And our Smoke Launchers are still awesome against anti-AV14 ranged attacks.

 

SJ

[Dilgar]

^_^ Our searchlights do not whaaa? This I did not know, just assumed they used the normal rules...Is this in the Gotcha?

[KaldCB]

Those 1 point searchlights may actually be a good point filler, as dawn of war may come up every third game

[ArmouredWing]

Those 1 point searchlights may actually be a good point filler, as dawn of war may come up avery third game

For me they're the vehicle version of the BoSL, I don't leave home without them.

[Marid]

:jaw: Our searchlights do not whaaa? This I did not know, just assumed they used the normal rules...Is this in the Gotcha?

 

Nope. I wasn't aware of the difference. I'll get it on it later today. :lol:

[Marid]

Hmm. Are you sure there is no roll to spot? The DH entry just says, "They allow one enemy unit spotted by the vehicle ..." I interpret this as the target still must be spotted. This rule is defined clearly in the BBB p95 as needing a roll.

[ValourousHeart]

Would it still work that way if you are using the IA2 update FAQ for your tanks?

[Grand Master Iapetus]

Hmm. Are you sure there is no roll to spot? The DH entry just says, "They allow one enemy unit spotted by the vehicle ..." I interpret this as the target still must be spotted. This rule is defined clearly in the BBB p95 as needing a roll.

 

I think the other plausible interpretation is that the entry is specifically limiting the SL to spot only one vehicle (not multiple ones) vs. saying that you must roll for spotting...

[Quasarcq]

The WH codex is like this too. Since I've always used this entry as how to use search lights, RAW, from the WH codex I have never made a roll, just a declaration of who's spotting who.

 

People don't like it either when I "Choose" to hit and run my Seraphim, but hey, as Number6 clearly stated that's how GW outlined how to deal with rules conflicts. I take the good and the bad of having an older Dex and make the most out of whats good.

[Prathios]

I think we should take a long hard look at the paragraph on the right side of page on in the Dark Angels faq. Because I think sometimes we are getting a bit carried away with RAW. Taking the good and bad is one way of doing it and is how I've played but there is a lot to be said for whats written. Go take a look at the faq and let me know what you think cause honestly I'm going to roll for spotting because it doesn't make sense not to roll for it, its dark just having a spotlight doesn't make the enemy light up like a strobe if you don't know where to look. Thats why its called spotting.

[jeffersonian000]

That line of reasoning depends on whether or not errata for one Codex can be applied to all other Codices. Per GW, only your army's Codex applies to your army, and not someone else’s (as established in the "Using your opponents Wargear" response).

 

SJ

[Prathios]

Since nothing in the paragraph singles out any specific team it seems like its a general note for everyone. Again I think everyone gets way to hung up on every tiny detail and word in the rules. Its like everyone ignores the fact that "have fun" is an actual rule.

[Melissia]

Yes, I'm certain you can sue that reasoning to house-rule your way into getting certain things for your army, but you know, that requires the opponent's permission.

 

People have fun playing by the rules. When someone breaks the rules that often reduces their fun, ergo, it requirest he opponent's permission. Thus, RAW is preferred.

[Prathios]

Yes, I'm certain you can sue that reasoning to house-rule your way into getting certain things for your army, but you know, that requires the opponent's permission.

 

People have fun playing by the rules. When someone breaks the rules that often reduces their fun, ergo, it requirest he opponent's permission. Thus, RAW is preferred.

 

 

What does that have to do with getting certain things for my army? I specifically said I was going to roll for search lights. Your using the RAW is giving yourself a bonus of magic super lights that automatically make the enemy light up neon without you even spotting them. The RAW argument is a great method for rules lawyers to get their way, and so far I have seen it very rarely lead to "more fun". Playing by the rules is one thing, picking every tiny thing out to get your way is rules lawyering. I do my best to stick to the basics of the codex like taking my magnetic transports only the guys I got them for can use, my silly force weapon rules, and my abhorrent assault cannon. But you have to draw the line somewhere.

 

I swear some people on here would stick to it if a guy in the printing department played a practical joke and listed the value of our bolters S10 AP1 Assault35. Regardless of if you think your taking some kind of metaphoric high ground, the RAW are open to a degree of interpretation by you and were written by people who were niether English gods or Lawyers themselves. Which means they make mistakes. Since this isn't a competitive game you play it as best you can with what you're given.

 

You know the RAW do not list which side of the dice is the correct face to read when rolling. So which is it? It certainly can't be the top since common sense has been declared heretical on anything even remotely not RAW. A lot of people like to use the Imperial Armor rules which require permission, does that reduce fun? Last time I checked fun is what you make it. If nitpicking the rules is what you consider fun, by all means go over it with a fine tooth comb. Again the rules were not written by a team of super experts of infallible mind and body, they made mistakes, feel free to hold to a mistake like it was made of solid gold.

[Melissia]

:lol:

If you want to houserule I'm not going to stop you. But do not delude yourself into thinking you're obeying the rules as set down by the FAQs/Codices/BRB, because you are not.

 

RAW = The official rules. If you don't like them, you're free to change them,b ut you have to have your opponent's permission to do anything other than RAW.

[number6]

Please, let us not have an Immovable Object vs Irresistible Force battle here. :P

 

My mod goggles are on, and I'm watching closely....

[Thaelion Hexis]

Seconded, let us cut out any potential bickering. Your opinion is your opinion.

 

I am of the RAW persuasion. As mentioned earlier, if I am taking the bad with an old codex, I am most certainly going to benefit from some of the perks. Of course I try to balance my occasional rules lawyer-ness without the removal of fun whilst keeping the game balanced for all involved. To that extent I will lawyer rules that work against me as well as for to keep all games fair to the best of my knowledge.

[Prathios]

Thats certainly exactly what I do as well Marshal Paul. However because the nature of the game isn't perfectly balanced keeping things fair is a little subjective. But in the end that's the point right? But no I won't get into an argument with Melissia on this, clearly nobody is going to budge on this point. Despite the fact that I don't honestly think we disagree on anything. Its almost a pure semantics argument. It blows my mind though that we can have this many arguments on this subject and GW doesn't just put out a few official errata or FAQ that could solve all our problems... sigh. Seriously it would take one of the crew down there like ten minutes to solve most of this stuff and type it up.

[Melissia]

Wait, put out errata? You mean, actually get to work on something? And for C:WH/C:DH? Pfft.

[Marid]

I'm a bit confused since the context of the original post seems to have dropped away. The RAW seem pretty clear to me:

 

The description of Searchlights in the DH codex p19 does not say that the equipped vehicle ignores the Night Fighting scenario rules. It says the Searchlights effects apply to spotted targets.

 

It says that a spotted unit can be fired on by other units illuminated by the Search Light. Presumably, this means that the target is as good as spotted for other firing units now.

 

In order to spot a target in a Night Fighting scenario one should go to the BBB p95 where the spotting rules are given. There it says that a spotting unit must pass the Night Fighting sight distance roll of 2d6x3 inches.

 

Or is there some rule that I'm not aware of that is throwing a spanner in the works?

[Melissia]

Edit: THe rule is muddier than I thought it was. Need to look into it more when I get done eating dinner.

[Karitas]

Seems to make sense to me (and that's where i always default to ^_^ ) That if the operator of a searchlight can see an enemy, at night, then the rest of the army can see him too, cos he's lit up.

 

we must remember that these rules exist as a way to "make sense" of a combat situation. and most of them do. I've just read both the entries and they seem to me to say exactly the same thing, with different words. the core of which i've said above as plainly as i can.

[Eltnot]

I'm a bit confused since the context of the original post seems to have dropped away. The RAW seem pretty clear to me:

 

The description of Searchlights in the DH codex p19 does not say that the equipped vehicle ignores the Night Fighting scenario rules. It says the Searchlights effects apply to spotted targets.

 

It says that a spotted unit can be fired on by other units illuminated by the Search Light. Presumably, this means that the target is as good as spotted for other firing units now.

 

In order to spot a target in a Night Fighting scenario one should go to the BBB p95 where the spotting rules are given. There it says that a spotting unit must pass the Night Fighting sight distance roll of 2d6x3 inches.

 

Or is there some rule that I'm not aware of that is throwing a spanner in the works?

I'm in agreement with this. You have to spot your target with the vehicle that has a spotlight for it to use it.