4 questions need awnsering

[SeattleDV8]

I think Legatus is correct.

You do realize that the standard typhoon launcher is mounted just above the stabilizer/wing.

If the typhoon could shoot then both the weapon (not just the 'gun barrel') and the wing/stabilizer would be visible.

Therefore becoming a valid target.

[Legatus]

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.

I took that as meaning that he claimed to have LOS with his Typhoon, and perhaps even fired at that enemy unit during his own shooting phase, but then claimed that the enemy unit could not fire back at him. Either a LOS can be traced from the weapon's mounting (which I take as "the point where the weapon is attached to the vehicle), in which case the enemy can also trace LOS back to the vehicle, or there is no LOS for both the vehicle and for the enemy unit.

[dswanick]

I took that as meaning that he claimed to have LOS with his Typhoon, and perhaps even fired at that enemy unit during his own shooting phase, but then claimed that the enemy unit could not fire back at him. Either a LOS can be traced from the weapon's mounting (which I take as "the point where the weapon is attached to the vehicle), in which case the enemy can also trace LOS back to the vehicle, or there is no LOS for both the vehicle and for the enemy unit.

But that is the problem. When it comes to TLos and Vehicles the rules are not symmetrical. LoS for a vehicle shooting is traced down the barrel of the gun to the target. But LoS to a vehicle is traced to the hull, specifically excluding gun barrels, antennas, decorative elements, etc. Thus a Typhoon, with it's weapons mounted out on pods, could trace a valid line of sight from it's "gun barrel" to a target while said target can not trace a valid line of sight back to the Typhoon's hull - without prior agreement as to what constitutes hull. The wings of the Typhoon are no more hull than are the wings of a Razorwing Fighter or Valkyrie and there are several threads in this very forum about the disagreement between members as to what constitutes "hull".

[Legatus]

When it comes to TLos and Vehicles the rules are not symmetrical. LoS for a vehicle shooting is traced down the barrel of the gun to the target.

It is traced from the weapon's mounting, not merely from the barrel.

 

 

The wings of the Typhoon are no more hull than are the wings of a Razorwing Fighter or Valkyrie and there are several threads in this very forum about the disagreement between members as to what constitutes "hull".

I dunno. Of course those wings can get pretty bulky. But then they are essential parts of an aircraft.

[SeattleDV8]

Agreed, wings on a vehicle are not 'gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles,etc'

Thats the entire list of things that are ignored when determining LOS to a vehicle.

[Legatus]

Well, the "etc" means that there is more than the specific elements mentioned on that list, but I would still see wings as an essential part of an aircrafts body, and not compareable to the negligible elements that are listed as examples.

[Valkyrion]

Am I the only one who thinks that if your model shoots then you may be shot at? If you are firing then you must be in the open enough to be shot at.

 

If it's unfair that the TML couldn't be targeted then surely it'd also be unfair to claim the heavy 2 when only one weapon was clearly shooting? I'd argue that both missile pods would need to be in line of sight as they are a single weapon.

 

If the part of the vehicle that you can see would, if destroyed, have a detrimental effect on the vehicle then it should be fair game to target. This includes sponsons and wings but not pintle mounted weapons or dozer blades and so on.

 

I know that isn't the rule, but IMO is how it should be played and is close to what GW intended for the rule.

[dswanick]

Am I the only one who thinks that if your model shoots then you may be shot at? If you are firing then you must be in the open enough to be shot at.

 

If it's unfair that the TML couldn't be targeted then surely it'd also be unfair to claim the heavy 2 when only one weapon was clearly shooting? I'd argue that both missile pods would need to be in line of sight as they are a single weapon.

 

If the part of the vehicle that you can see would, if destroyed, have a detrimental effect on the vehicle then it should be fair game to target. This includes sponsons and wings but not pintle mounted weapons or dozer blades and so on.

 

I know that isn't the rule, but IMO is how it should be played and is close to what GW intended for the rule.

No, your not the only one. I am simply pointing out that RaW, the wording of the vehicle firing/firing at vehicle rules allow for the possibility that a firing vehicle model might not be a valid target for its victim.

[Valkyrion]

I'd argue that both missile pods would need to be in line of sight as they are a single weapon.

 

Sorry for quoting myself, but is this not relevant? The TML is a single weapon so don't both weapon ports need to be able to draw line of sight?

[dswanick]

I'd argue that both missile pods would need to be in line of sight as they are a single weapon.

 

Sorry for quoting myself, but is this not relevant? The TML is a single weapon so don't both weapon ports need to be able to draw line of sight?

'sOK, I occasionally do it myself.

RaW there is no requirement for this, no. Rationally, it would seem necessary. Alternatively, maybe the two missiles are fired from the same housing - with each housing representing 2 or 3 twin-linked shots worth of missiles. Or maybe the twin-linked rule is simply a game mechanic used to represent a smarter-than-average targeting machine spirit which is capable of directing the one missile fired onto the target mid-flight - kind of like current military operator-guided missiles.

Again, I'm not arguing for the use of RaW to get shots from a vehicle that can't be targeted back - I'm simply pointing out that the RaW is not a symmetrical two-way street and therefore open to this kind of potential abuse. The best conclusion, as is the case with so many GW-crafted rules, still seems to be to discuss this with your opponent before or after the battle.

[ShinyRhino]

Let's try to frame this from the mindset of the store manager, as he's there to keep the peace and make things fair and happy:

 

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.

 

This one is a failing of both players to accurately define the terrain before the game. Simply calling something a "ruin" isn't quite enough, as it seems like the declaration of "ruin" meant to one player "treat as area terrain only, ignore all walls", but to the other it meant "use structure, but cannot use the Building rules for it".

 

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.

 

This one is a result of two players vying for advantage on rules wording. A missile pod/rack is not a "gun barrel". If you try to tell me that your rack of missiles can fire at my models, but that return fire at said rack of explosive warheads will have no effect, I'm going to call shenanigans. Same with the folks who try to claim that a Predator's main turret housing is immune to return fire. Lessnot o be learned? Don't rely on dodgy tactics that grasp at the edges of the rules.

 

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.

 

The rules state it works like a consolidation move. Moving .0001" is legal, but many players (both Templar and non-Templar) feel it's a slap in the face to the Templar codex. Back when the Templar book was considered underpowered, many folks were ok with overlooking it, but now that they get 3++ save stormshields, and a pair of Heavy 2 Cyclone Missiles in a 5-man squad with potential Tank Hunters upgrades...folks are less inclined to grant you that wiggle room.

 

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.

 

If the full move would put you in B2B with ebemy models, but space in a ruin does not allow actual model placement, the rules allow you to place on the level below, or other safe location (safe meaning "not going to cause 10models to topple out of a piece of terrain and result in breakage"). He can't move YOUR models, though. Placement of your models is very important for Fall Back moves, consolidation moves, and determining the 6" range of enemy models for rallying purposes.

 

 

With the "fair and happy" mindset, you can see why the manager ruled the way he did. Arguing semantics about whether a rack of missiles is a "gun barrel", or if Templars would shirk from moving toward the enemy are unwinnable arguments thatonly cause angst and strife amongst the playerbase.