4 questions need awnsering

[Roma]

Hey, these questions arose during a game and the manager said I was wrong in each case, I intend to print this out and use as evidence in future so please answer very clearly with reference from the rulebook.

Also, please only answer if you are 100% sure you are correct.

 

1. For simplicity,we decided to count a bastion as a ruin. Falling back 3 inches made me go down a level, leaving me inside the bastion rather than on top. He then shot at me through the tower, even though he couldn't see me whatsoever because its completely enclosed, but said he can because its a ruin. The section I was in has weapon holes in it but line of sight is blocked by weapons in the slots if that means anything. The manager said he could, I was so confused I did'nt say anything.

 

2.I had a typhoon land speeder completely behind a building with just a typhoon launcher sticking out. I could see him since line of sight is tracked from the weapon, in this case a single of 2 typhoon launchers on the model. I claimed he cant see me because the weapon is not part of the hull. He said this was wrong and that the weapon is part of the hull, which I think is totally wrong.

 

3.This question is only for experienced Black Templar players. i am quite certain I am right in this case, and argued with him over this, eventually he just said that it is from now on a shop rule that:

When a rightous zeal test is passed the unit MUST move the FULL D6 towards the nearest unit. In the codex it says treat exactly like a consolidation move, in the consolidation move in the rulebook it says the unit MAY move UP TO D6. Also Marshal Laeroth, a very experienced player who plays in tournaments says this is right on his website.

 

4. Finally, this one is a bit confusing but bear with me. this is the situation in which he started his turn is: I am on the first floor of a building which counts as a ruin and is 3 floors high, I am on the first floor, a large flat surface. He is on the ground 4 inches away from the building.

 

This is how he moved and assaulted. He basically moved 5 terminators right beside the fortress, then rolled 5 for assault through a ruin(difficult tarrain). He moved up the level(3inch), bringing him onto my level. Then assaulted the models right beside the edge(my terminators). So he moved my models out of the way to make room for the assault because they were right beside the edge he got up.

The manager said that was right, I was VERY confused. All the models were terminators(including his).

 

Thanks in advance guys, cus im totally confused.

[ilnar]

He was right for number two, LOS is from the weapon,

The others you were right

For the assault, you'd need a picture, but most likely there wasn't room on the platform for yours and his models?

[Roma]

He was right for number two, LOS is from the weapon,

The others you were right

For the assault, you'd need a picture, but most likely there wasn't room on the platform for yours and his models?

 

Thanks, I changed it to be more clear, try read it now,my models were there originally and got assaulted by his. I thought the weapon wasn't part of the hull since its optional so if you see it you don't count as seeing the vehicle so thanks for clearing that up.

[thade]

Warhammer is all "True Line of Sight" now; it's like the first page of actual rules in the rulebook. If you can see the model from your model, you can shoot at it. If you can't, then you can't. I believe that in previous editions you could shoot through Area Terrain in the way he's describing, but I might be mistaken. Nevertheless, you have to be able to see it to shoot it.

 

Assaults can get tricky with terrain; we'd have to see pictures to be certain. :\ He was right to roll Difficult Terrain in order to assault you; 3" per level is pretty typical. Technically he should - of course - not move your models, but very, very often in weird situations like that, people do. It is a "swirling melee" after all. Probably wouldn't have been a big deal, had you both already not been at such odds. :\ I hate games like that; I never play against a player like that more than once.

 

As for him making it a "store rule" as the "store owner", that is - in my opinion - an inappropriate manner of "throwing his weight around", as it were. You can leave that out of your print out, if it behooves you. :ph34r: Though the easiest thing to do would be to point to the LOS rules in the BRB as well as the Consolidation rules, then note your Codex's text. Check your FAQ too, it might be helpful.

[Roma]

Thank you all, so so far i was right for all except 2, and in 4 it gets tricky so just give you opponent benefit of doubt cheers. I tried explainin to the store manager, but he said that people who do that on tourneys are cheating, yeah, big chance.

 

My questions are answered but if a few more people could confirm this, so when I print it will be solid evdience.

[Roma]

Thank you all, so so far i was right for all except 2, and in 4 it gets tricky so just give you opponent benefit of doubt cheers. I tried explainin to the store manager, but he said that people who do that on tourneys are cheating, yeah, big chance.

 

My questions are answered but if a few more people could confirm this, so when I print it will be solid evdience.

[Droma]

1,2, and 4 you are for sure correct on. Number 3 you are also correct on assuming you have the wording exact. I don't have a BT book so someone will need to confirm the wording in there but that is how consolidation works.

[Roma]

Thanks again, So for number 4, i have no idea how to make an image. basically the theory: moving up a ruin level and 2 away from the level edge into assault using a single assault phase. However there are models near the edge, meaning he cannot place the any terminatore bases on that level without going ONTO bases or, as he did, moving my models out of the way.

[DarkGuard]

You were right in all of them. Even number two. The weapon is not part of the hull. From BRB, page 60:

 

When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc).

 

The TML isn't a turret, nor is it the hull. I'd say it's a gun barrel, a weapon, in which case you ignore it for LoS. Cheap trick I use with my Dreads from time to time with ruins.

 

As for the 1st one, it's about true LOS, if you can't see it, you can't shoot. It's basic 40K now, and I'm shocked and appalled that a store manager try and cheat in that regard.

 

As for the 3rd one, I don't like it, but RAW it's legal. RAI I'd argue it isn't, and I feel it's rather cheap not going the full distance just to get an advantage.

 

And as for the 4th one, again your models don't move at all until defenders react. 2" over multi-levels is measured from the head to the base anyway, so as long as he got a couple of models into base contact his guys would be fine, and yours would move to his on the bottom floor anyway.

 

In short, whenever he tries these things ask him to show you the relevant section in the rules. If he keeps it up I'm sure you can complain to someone higher up :ph34r:.

 

I think the main thing is that a lot of managers are now employed less for knowing the game but more for knowing how to sell. Which is fine, GW needs to sell. But just because their manager doesn't mean they know the rules inside out. I know the rules for two gaming systems (40K and WotR) better than any of my local store's staff, it's not uncommon for store staff to not know everything.

[ilnar]

No, the land speeder can shoot you, since LOS for shooting is from the gun,

[Roma]

Thanks you all, but be aware, I wasn't playing against the manager, we just asked him when we had a dispute. If what darkguard says is true please second. Obviously it is true but I dont want any confusion when anyone is reading the printed version.

[Blitzkrieg861]

Here's my take...

 

1) This should've been clarified before the game started but even if it was considered a ruin you still can't see what you can't see. I play with a lot of ruin terrain and some of it has windows, broken walls or whatever and some of it is a straight wall that you could easily hide 5 men across behind. It is what it is. It shouldn't be assumed that because it's a ruin you can see anything and everything inside. I agree with you, I wouldn't have contested the visibility at all but your opponent should've clarified before the game because that's a little odd that his entire army has the X-Ray Vision USR.

 

2) I agree with you as well. If you're drawing sight from the missile launcher itself (just the little box part/the end that sticks out) this is accurate for drawing line of sight but I do not feel it counts as part of the hull. It's quite obviously a weapon and the rules are pretty specific that you can't target a weapon. Has to be the hull. You ignore fins, banners, guns, dozer blades, etc. I feel you were accurate.

 

3) I don't play Templar but if the rule for consolidation says "may" move then the store manager should look up the meaning of the word may...

 

4) Hard to say without a picture. Usually in my gaming group we would just assume "okay your guys are in base contact with mine, let's just leave them where they are to avoid models falling and ridiculously cramped urban terrain" But this all depends on how nit picky people are. If it's not a tournament setting or preparation for a tournament I don't see the need to be that stingy on the rules.

 

Hope you don't have to deal with this type of crap again. I personally have had to show people in the rule book several times that the way in which I was playing something or telling a person how a situation should be played out was the correct way. I can understand people wanting to see the proof but at the same time I can understand where you're coming from as it makes the next few minutes (or even the rest of the game depending on how heated it was) very ackward and can be insulting at times. Again, I hope this situation is resolved for you quickly so you can get back to enjoying playing the game, Brother Roma.

[maturin]

Roma - just a word of caution. Printing out a thread from a forum like ours as "evidence" will probably carry very little weight with whomever you're having the dispute, as we're all just players with our own interpretations. If someone whipped out a bunch of sheets of printed paper as "proof" during a disagreement about rules, I'd just roll my eyes at them. We're not GW, and our word is not law.

 

I'd say your best approach is to ask people here (as you did), get the backup references and reasoning why down pat in your head, and then use those points in your next discussion with your opponent.

 

In the worst case scenario where they won't be flexible, then you either don't play there any more, or just be cool and say "whatever", and enjoy the rest of the game. It's only a game, after all. If you can beat them while giving them the benefit of the doubt, then the victory's all the more satisfying for you.

 

IMHO, as far as your questions go:

 

1) TLOS reigns, but I suspect both parties had different things in mind when you declared the bastion a ruin. Was that for rules only, or did you opponent assume it meant there were holes in the walls, etc? It's hard to model a ruin that's an intact building since it is, by definition, not a ruin. Plays merry havoc with the rules.

 

2) I believe you're right there.

 

3) By RAW you may be right, but it's kind of a rules-lawyerish move. I'd play by RAI and go with the full D6 movement.

 

4) Again, tough to call but it's best to go by the golden rule. I'd let my opponent have the assault without a doubt, and I'd expect the same courtesy in return.

[Arikel]

1) LOS is needed in all cases to shoot, even through terrain, except in certain situations from codex rules and some indirect fire weapons.

 

2) This is tricky. LOS was there but would it be considered part of the hull, I don't know typhoons well enough to throw an opinion on that.

 

3) May is the key word. here. Might want to check the templar faq to see if this is mentioned.

 

$) Assaulting up a level like this would be legal I believe, in this case. If there is not enough space for him to put his minis on your floor they stay on lower floor of the runi but are considered in base to base with yours on the upper level if they had enough movement to go up the two inches to meet you. Just spent a few minutes searching for my rulebook but I can't find it, I think it has diagrams about assaulting within a ruin and or up multiple levels that would help with this, it's possible i am misremembering or that this is our own local house rule.

[jeffersonian000]

1) TLOS would mean that he could not target your model in this case.

 

2) Interesting thing about this scenario: if he cannot see the facing that is towards him, but can see another facing, you get a 3+ cover save rather than the usual 4+ (BRB, pg62). As you described the scenario, TLOS would have prevented the attack as the weapon is not considered part of the vehicle's hull. However, if he could actually get a legal shot, you'd have gotten a 3+ cover save.

 

3) Zeal is interesting. I've had players move a minimal amount as it suited them, and I've had players move the maximum they could, as it suited them. I pretty sure the common usage of the rule is "up to" the maximum distance rolled.

 

4) Well, if the unit can't fit, the unit can't be placed their. And if no model is in base contact at the end of the assault moved, the Assault fails. If at least one model in the unit reaches base contact, and other models in the unit are within distance to get there attacks in, his placement is good enough. However, your models should not have to be moved to make room for his models on the initial assault. If this would have prevented the Assault, then the rules would have been followed correctly.

[dswanick]

4) Well, if the unit can't fit, the unit can't be placed their. And if no model is in base contact at the end of the assault moved, the Assault fails. If at least one model in the unit reaches base contact, and other models in the unit are within distance to get there attacks in, his placement is good enough. However, your models should not have to be moved to make room for his models on the initial assault. If this would have prevented the Assault, then the rules would have been followed correctly.

This is incorrect.

RUINS AND ASSAULT

In some cases the ruin might genuinely be unstable or uneven, or the space could be very limited on a particular level, making it impossible to move assaulting units into base-to-base contact with the unit they wish to assault. When this happens, it is perfectly acceptable to place models as close to their foe as is safely possible, including the level below or above, providing that you place the assaulting models as close as possible to their opponents and you make clear to your opponent which of your models are in base-to-base contact with his models.

[Legatus]

With the relevant references:

 

1. For simplicity,we decided to count a bastion as a ruin. Falling back 3 inches made me go down a level, leaving me inside the bastion rather than on top. He then shot at me through the tower, even though he couldn't see me whatsoever because its completely enclosed, but said he can because its a ruin. The section I was in has weapon holes in it but line of sight is blocked by weapons in the slots if that means anything. The manager said he could, I was so confused I did'nt say anything.

"All ruins are area terrain (...)"

(BRB, p. 82, 'Ruins: The Basics')

 

"When moving models into this area, you may temporarily remove the rocks, trees, etc. (...) to make moving the models easier. Remember, however, to put them back where they originally were (or as close as possible!) after you finish moving, as they may affect the line of sight of models shooting through that area terrain."

(BRB, p. 13, 'Area Terrain')

 

Area Terrain is not "abstract" and can be seen through, it may affect Lines of Sight. So you were right.

 

 

2.I had a typhoon land speeder completely behind a building with just a typhoon launcher sticking out. I could see him since line of sight is tracked from the weapon, in this case a single of 2 typhoon launchers on the model. I claimed he cant see me because the weapon is not part of the hull. He said this was wrong and that the weapon is part of the hull, which I think is totally wrong.

"When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them against the target and then trace the line of sight from each weapons' mounting and along its barrel, to see if the shot is blocked by terrain or models."

(BRB, p. 58, 'Vehicle Weapons & Line of Sight')

 

The vehicle rules assume, maybe wrongly so, that vehicle weapons will allways point outward from a mounting point on a vehicle. Obviously on a turret weapon or the heavy bolter in front of a Leman Russ that is clearly the case, but on some pintle mounted weapons it may look like the weapon LOS can be drawn even if it does not originate from a mounting on the vehicle hull. However, the vehicle LOS rules assume that this will allways be the case (or else you could not draw LOS from the weapon either). For the purpose of fluff explanation you can perhaps assume that the mounting of a pintle mounted storm bolter or the typhoon missile launchers is very vulnerable to enemy fire. Either way, the manager was right. If a vehicle can shoot at something, that something can allways shoot back.

 

 

3.This question is only for experienced Black Templar players. i am quite certain I am right in this case, and argued with him over this, eventually he just said that it is from now on a shop rule that:

When a rightous zeal test is passed the unit MUST move the FULL D6 towards the nearest unit. In the codex it says treat exactly like a consolidation move, in the consolidation move in the rulebook it says the unit MAY move UP TO D6. Also Marshal Laeroth, a very experienced player who plays in tournaments says this is right on his website.

"If an infantry unit (...) is called upon to make a Morale check and passes it, then the unit must move towards the nearest visible enemy unit. This is identical to a Consolidation move (...)"

(Codex Black Templars, p. 23, 'Righteous Zeal', emphasis mine)

 

"At the end of a combat, if a unit's opponents are all either destroyed or falling back, so that the victorious unit is no longer locked in combat with any enemy, they may consolidate. This means that they may move up to D6" in any direction (...)"

(BRB, p. 40, 'Consolidation', emphasis mine)

 

This issue is not entirely clear (mainly because the Codex Black Templars is not sufficiently specific), however, the marked difference is that Black Templars units MUST move towards an enemy unit, while a unit that is able to consolidate MAY move in any direction. Players prefer to interprete the "may move up to D6" of the consolidation rule as meaning the Righteous Zeal requirement to move towards an enemy unit is sufficiently adhered to if the unit moves 0.0000001". However, I find that a blatant exploit of an ambiguously written rule, and clearly against the intent of the rule. You could debate your store manager all day about this issue. His ruling to go with RAI as a store rule seems reasonable enough.

 

 

4. Finally, this one is a bit confusing but bear with me. this is the situation in which he started his turn is: I am on the first floor of a building which counts as a ruin and is 3 floors high, I am on the first floor, a large flat surface. He is on the ground 4 inches away from the building.

 

This is how he moved and assaulted. He basically moved 5 terminators right beside the fortress, then rolled 5 for assault through a ruin(difficult tarrain). He moved up the level(3inch), bringing him onto my level. Then assaulted the models right beside the edge(my terminators). So he moved my models out of the way to make room for the assault because they were right beside the edge he got up.

The manager said that was right, I was VERY confused. All the models were terminators(including his).

"In some cases the ruin might genuinely be unstable or uneven, or the space could be very limited on a particular level, making it impossible to move assaulting models into base-to-base contact with the unit they wish to assault. When this happens, it is perfectly acceptable to place models as close to their foe as is safely possible, including the level below or above, providing that you place the assaulting models as close as possible to their opponents and you make clear to your opponent which of your models are in base-to-base contact with his models. We find that directly below or above works well, representing them charging up or down a flight of stairs."

(BRB, p. 85, 'Ruins and Assaults')

 

Technically, he should have placed his Terminators on a lower or higher level, or as close as possible to the models he whised to assault, and not move your models out of the way to make room on that same level. But from a game mechanic point of view he was correct. When assaulting a unit inside a ruin, there is more leeway as to where you can place your models if you want to assault, due to the space constrictions. Standing on a level with no more room for other models will not protect you from being assaulted. Enemy units can still assault your unit. Even though the exact placement of models would be handled slightly differently than you did in your game. But essentially the manager was right.

[Roma]

Thank you all, my questions are answered. That will be it. However I would ask mods not to delete it for future reference.

[Frosty the Pyro]

As a point of interest on #1, you said there were fireing slits, which were blocked by weapon, if those weapons were the weapon of your models he could probably shoot you. Remember that although you can not draw line of sight to a weapon, a weapon cannot block line of sight to the model carying it (you may not bring your cover with you). If his models could draw line of sight to even the tineyest fraction of one of your models though those slits, he may fire.

[dswanick]

2.I had a typhoon land speeder completely behind a building with just a typhoon launcher sticking out. I could see him since line of sight is tracked from the weapon, in this case a single of 2 typhoon launchers on the model. I claimed he cant see me because the weapon is not part of the hull. He said this was wrong and that the weapon is part of the hull, which I think is totally wrong.

"When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them against the target and then trace the line of sight from each weapons' mounting and along its barrel, to see if the shot is blocked by terrain or models."

(BRB, p. 58, 'Vehicle Weapons & Line of Sight')

 

The vehicle rules assume, maybe wrongly so, that vehicle weapons will allways point outward from a mounting point on a vehicle. Obviously on a turret weapon or the heavy bolter in front of a Leman Russ that is clearly the case, but on some pintle mounted weapons it may look like the weapon LOS can be drawn even if it does not originate from a mounting on the vehicle hull. However, the vehicle LOS rules assume that this will allways be the case (or else you could not draw LOS from the weapon either). For the purpose of fluff explanation you can perhaps assume that the mounting of a pintle mounted storm bolter or the typhoon missile launchers is very vulnerable to enemy fire. Either way, the manager was right. If a vehicle can shoot at something, that something can allways shoot back.

I'm going to disagree with this response. Reading the rule quoted above, the OPs Typhoon can shoot because the weapon, on its extension pod, had true LoS to it's target. At the same time, the managers unit could not fire back at the Typhoon, because the rule states to ignore, amongst other things, gun barrels for determining if a target vehicle can be seen and shot at. The manager was wrong on this one.

[Leonaides]

Rule out gun barrels if you like, but then you have those support struts that come out from the body of the speeder - surely they are mountings, and therefore part of the hull, so shootable?

[dswanick]

Rule out gun barrels if you like, but then you have those support struts that come out from the body of the speeder - surely they are mountings, and therefore part of the hull, so shootable?

Well, a disagreement over that is unavoidable. It's like the disagreement over Drop Pod ramps counting as Hull or Decorative Element. Perosnally, the hull is the hull - not any bits and pieces projecting out from the hull. But that is a whole other discussion. ;)

[Legatus]

I'm going to disagree with this response. Reading the rule quoted above, the OPs Typhoon can shoot because the weapon, on its extension pod, had true LoS to it's target. At the same time, the managers unit could not fire back at the Typhoon, because the rule states to ignore, amongst other things, gun barrels for determining if a target vehicle can be seen and shot at.

Then the most literal interpretation would have been that the Typhoon could not fire either. Vehicle Line of Sight is not measured from a gun barrel, it is traced from the weapon's mounting and then along the gun barrell. So if the mounting does not have LOS, then the gun cannot fire. But if the mounting has LOS, then the enemy should have LOS to the mounting.

[dswanick]

I'm going to disagree with this response. Reading the rule quoted above, the OPs Typhoon can shoot because the weapon, on its extension pod, had true LoS to it's target. At the same time, the managers unit could not fire back at the Typhoon, because the rule states to ignore, amongst other things, gun barrels for determining if a target vehicle can be seen and shot at.

Then the most literal interpretation would have been that the Typhoon could not fire either. Vehicle Line of Sight is not measured from a gun barrel, it is traced from the weapon's mounting and then along the gun barrell. So if the mounting does not have LOS, then the gun cannot fire. But if the mounting has LOS, then the enemy should have LOS to the mounting.

Which, according to the OP, it did. But mount =/= hull, automatically. After all, many completely assembled Land Speeders don't even have the pylons as part of the model. Would you argue that the model is incomplete because they are "missing" parts of their hull? Again, it all comes back to GW's inability to craft a rule that isn't open to tons of interpretation. Sponson Mounts, Drop Pod doors, Valyrie and Razorwing Wings, etc... This is probably one of those times when the players should consider discussing the definition before starting a game.

[DarkGuard]

No, the land speeder can shoot you, since LOS for shooting is from the gun,

 

Very true, but that wasn't the question.

 

2.I had a typhoon land speeder completely behind a building with just a typhoon launcher sticking out. I could see him since line of sight is tracked from the weapon, in this case a single of 2 typhoon launchers on the model. I claimed he cant see me because the weapon is not part of the hull. He said this was wrong and that the weapon is part of the hull, which I think is totally wrong.

 

The bit in bold is the question. You are entirely correct, as is everyone else that LoS is traced from the weapons. But it appears to me that the OP is saying that as his opponent could only see the TML, then his opponent cannot see the Typhoons at all. His opponent was disputing this, saying he could see it and shoot it. Like everything else, the OP is correct in this instance.