Power of the Machine Spirit, Searchlights and Night Fighting

[dswanick]

Specific overrides general.

Correct, but in this case PotMS does not specifically override Searchlights.

PotMS specifically allows it to fire *as normal* except where the PotMS rules contradict that. The weapon firing with PotMS may designate a separate target explicitly. The vehicle with PotMS may also fire one more weapon than usually permitted, so reaching the 'may not fire at all' text is overridden by being allowed to fire one more weapon than usual. (1 is 1 more than the 0 usually permitted). All your objections here are specifically overridden by the text of PotMS.

Incorrect. See the debate about PotMS and Smoke. Same principle, and GW FAQd it that PotMS does not override text which disallows shooting. No shooting ≠ 0.

[Squirrelloid]

Specific overrides general.

Correct, but in this case PotMS does not specifically override Searchlights.

PotMS specifically allows it to fire *as normal* except where the PotMS rules contradict that. The weapon firing with PotMS may designate a separate target explicitly. The vehicle with PotMS may also fire one more weapon than usually permitted, so reaching the 'may not fire at all' text is overridden by being allowed to fire one more weapon than usual. (1 is 1 more than the 0 usually permitted). All your objections here are specifically overridden by the text of PotMS.

Incorrect. See the debate about PotMS and Smoke. Same principle, and GW FAQd it that PotMS does not override text which disallows shooting. No shooting ≠ 0.

 

I'm not in conflict with searchlights at all. Can we identify the correct issue, namely how many times we are taking a target and thus how many times we have to check for nightfighting. Or do you disagree that the searchlight working is a consequence of acquiring a target via the nightfighting rules?

 

If PotMS does not override not allowing to fire at all, then failing to spot either target (on separate rolls) should prevent it from firing at both targets. Ick, but what the rules say.

 

Anyway, lets identify the actual bit of rules we disagree on. I think its at 'After selecting a target' in the nightfighting rules. Would you care to specify a different point of disagreement?

[KnowThyEnemy]

I'm merely stating how I would play it as it seems the fairest way.

 

gotta love The Most Important Rule at work, bravo good sir :P.

 

as for the debate, it seems more logical to me to be a little cautious and make 1 roll for nightfighting and select just 1 of the 2 units being targeted to be hit by the spotlight. i will disagree on the 'if both targets aren't in range, then you miss both' simply on the basis that if your using the understanding of making 1 roll for nightfighting to see how far your unit can see in general, than you should be able to fire at the unit that is within that range, despite the fact the other unit isn't.

 

(get ready to chuckle) realistically ( :lol: ) if you could see X", and you could see 1 rhino but the other was too far away, you would still shoot the rhino you could see, because hes a heretic and should burn. same thing can apply to the searchlight: its 1 searchlight, shooting happens simo for a unit shooting another unit(s), so how could 1 searchlight illuminate 2 targets in different locations at the same time?

 

i know none of these statements have rules text supporting them, but frankley this seems like an example that needs a hint of common sense :)

[Morollan]

Totally agree with KnowThyEnemy. It's the most logical solution to the problem of a rule written for single targets working with multiple targets. Not really helpful for an OR thread but it just seems to be the sensible position to adopt. Nobody gets an undue advantage and nobody gets screwed.

[Something Wycked]

i will disagree on the 'if both targets aren't in range, then you miss both' simply on the basis that if your using the understanding of making 1 roll for nightfighting to see how far your unit can see in general, than you should be able to fire at the unit that is within that range, despite the fact the other unit isn't.

I disagree with that idea too, even though it was my idea :P I was just pointing out what the RAW specifies, as required by the current methodology of the +OR+ ;)

 

So, essentially, +1 for stinkenheim, KnowThyEnemy, DarkGuard, and Morollan :P You guys rock for bringing out the "rules as fair."

[thade]

This is one of those situations where I see my gaming group approaching it the following way:

 

Guy with the Land Raider: "Weird. I mean, it only has one search light, so I guess I only illuminate one thing, right?"

Guy getting shot at: "Night Fighting only lasts for one turn as I play Space Marines like a BOSS and not some weakling Necron Special Character shenanigan. So it's okay with me if it illuminates two targets."

Guy with LR: "No no, that seems too powerful; I only illuminate one."

Guy getting shot at: "It's not that bad. Really, go ahead and illuminate two."

 

And then we dice it off.

[Something Wycked]

..... I need to bring my minis to Boston.

[Squirrelloid]

I'm not opposed to a houserule where it only illuminates one target.

 

I do think the RAW is clearly the other way. I'm not saying it made any sense as a model of reality.

[falldown]

It does make sense in reality. I have a spotlight (not a floodlight) on my tank. I'm getting shot at from two directions I swing my light in one direction and illuminate the first area I think the enemy is shooting from. Hey look there are dudes! Snipers fire! Area two continues to shoot at me. I now have a choice, swing my single spotlight over to area two and lose my ability to illuminate group one or stay on group one so my snipers can still see badguys. If I move the spotlight onto group two my snipers shooting at group 1 are now just throwing lead downfield in the general vicinity of the first group as they can no longer see what they were shooting at.

 

Or disco that crap and just swing it madly back and forth like you're in a rave.

[Isiah]

Here's my 2c, could be wrong, but:

 

As the Night Fighting rules haven't been written to accommodate splitting fire, then it seems to me that you must apply the rule separately to each firing weapon (normal and PotMS) if they are firing at different targets. Remember that the spotting distance is stated as being made between "the two units". No mention of more, so including more targets in one spotting throw wouldn't be following the RAW that we already have.

 

And if you miss with one spotting throw, PoTMS always allows you to fire one extra weapon not normally allowed, so overrides the unit not being able to fire at all bit.

 

Same with the searchlight aspect, 2 potential illuminations.

[maturin]

As far as RAW goes, I find myself agreeing with Isiah and Squirrelloid.

 

From a fluff perspective, rolling once to check nightfighting for two targets doesn't make sense. To me, the nightfighting roll doesn't tell you that "you can see X far at night". It represents your chance of spotting a particular unit in the chaos and confusion of an obscured battlefield. Otherwise why would Joe Marine, from unit 1, be able to see 24" while Bob Marine, from unit 2 but standing 2" from Joe, be only able to see 6"? The night isn't darker only where Bob's standing. So it's perfectly logical to check each time you try and shoot at a unit, and logical that you might spot a unit 24" away but not spot the one 12" in front of you.

 

Plus, there are two different gunners shooting and checking to "see" - the Space Marine gunner and the Machine Spirit. Easy to see how one could overlook something the other spotted.

 

Now on the table, I've always played it the "fairest" way and agree that's how we should handle it.

[Something Wycked]

And if you miss with one spotting throw, PoTMS always allows you to fire one extra weapon not normally allowed, so overrides the unit not being able to fire at all bit.

 

Same with the searchlight aspect, 2 potential illuminations.

These two bits I disagree with- PotMS has been shown to not always function when all firing is denied (Smoke Launchers); it functions when the vehicle is moving too fast to fire, but not when the vehicle cannot see.

 

And there's only one searchlight. How is it possible for one beam of light to light up two seperate targets simultaneously?

 

But for the rest of your post, we're all just extrapolating existing RAW to situations it wasn't designed to cover so your opinion is as good as any ^_^

[Squirrelloid]

And there's only one searchlight. How is it possible for one beam of light to light up two seperate targets simultaneously?

 

This is entirely the wrong question. It assumes that reality is a good model for the game.

 

How does one searchlight light up two separate targets? Because the rules allow it. That the rules allow it is the *only* reason that it needs. It doesn't need to make sense in our reality, the 'reality' of the game is the rules.

 

The game violates reality in dozens of ways. A single spotlight lighting up two targets is hardly the most egregious.

[thade]

This is entirely the wrong question. It assumes that reality is a good model for the game.

 

The game violates reality in dozens of ways. A single spotlight lighting up two targets is hardly the most egregious.

These are important points and they translate to a lot of issues we've come across on here. That said, Night-fighting is hardly a common occurrence and only rules out shooting over mid-range. One or two targets being illuminated is a far cry from broken, however silly it may seem "in light" of the questionable realism. (See what I did there? Hang on, I bet I can hit that with my spot light too.)

[Isiah]

And if you miss with one spotting throw, PoTMS always allows you to fire one extra weapon not normally allowed, so overrides the unit not being able to fire at all bit.

 

Same with the searchlight aspect, 2 potential illuminations.

These two bits I disagree with- PotMS has been shown to not always function when all firing is denied (Smoke Launchers); it functions when the vehicle is moving too fast to fire, but not when the vehicle cannot see.

 

And there's only one searchlight. How is it possible for one beam of light to light up two seperate targets simultaneously?

 

 

....hmm but that's for something different. Don't assume there is any kind of precedence from one FAQ answer to cover a different issue unless GW tells us otherwise.

 

And on searchlights - it's a standard item of vehicle wargear and as such some people don't even bother to put them on (or more likely they get broken off) yet rule wise they of course still function.

[Something Wycked]

Let me say it a different way: PotMS allows "one more than normal" to fire. When you move Combat speed, the amount allowed to fire is 1+defensive. When you move Cruising speed, the amount allowed to fire is 0. When you use Smoke Launchers, no firing is allowed at all. When you don't roll high enough on Night Fighting, no firing is allowed at all. It seems like the same sort of thing to me.

 

As for searchlights not being modeled, it makes sense- you don't put pistols or grenades on every Tactical Marine because they're standard gear and unnecessary by WYSIWYG. If the vehicle doesn't come standard with a searchlight, and you buy a searchlight for the vehicle, then it needs a searchlight on it to become WYSIWYG. In either case, the searchlight functions rule-wise.

 

What doesn't make sense is one piece of wargear affecting multiple targets when RAW provides for the wargear to affect only one target. The net effect here is arguing that the ability to fire at a second target through PotMS also enables the searchlight to highlight a second target; PotMS RAW do not provide for extending searchlight benefits to a second target. The searchlight RAW were written with single-target firing in mind: one target firing at one target. We really have nothing to go on in the RAW to determine if the searchlight should be able to highlight a second target or not.

 

In other words, the RAW do not explicitly permit the searchlight to highlight two targets, and this is a permissive rule set.

[DarkGuard]

I put searchlights on my models, and my models get them as standard. Maybe I should put two on my Land Raider, then I can fire one at each target :P (that's a joke by the way people, I'm not actually doing that).

[Isiah]

What doesn't make sense is one piece of wargear affecting multiple targets when RAW provides for the wargear to affect only one target. The net effect here is arguing that the ability to fire at a second target through PotMS also enables the searchlight to highlight a second target; PotMS RAW do not provide for extending searchlight benefits to a second target. The searchlight RAW were written with single-target firing in mind: one target firing at one target. We really have nothing to go on in the RAW to determine if the searchlight should be able to highlight a second target or not.

 

In other words, the RAW do not explicitly permit the searchlight to highlight two targets, and this is a permissive rule set.

 

It doesn't need to. RAW specifies that a searchlight can be used against an acquired target when using night fighting rules. If you go through the process twice (once for normal weapons and once for the PotMS weapon) then the searchlight is legitimately using its searchlight as per RAW: i.e. one target each time as you said. Obviously though, it's a very clever searchlight :).

[Blitzkrieg861]

Shots at multiple targets still happen at the same time. How is one searchlight going to light up two different targets simultaneously? That's definitely interpreting towards an advantage. Seriously, don't even ask that question.

[Squirrelloid]

Shots at multiple targets still happen at the same time. How is one searchlight going to light up two different targets simultaneously? That's definitely interpreting towards an advantage. Seriously, don't even ask that question.

 

Why does simultaneity even matter?

 

Can a firing unit wound multiple models at the same time? The language "a hit" / "select a target" is similar between the two.

 

"Searchlight" is a piece of wargear with game text. The game text says it works whenever the model equipped with it acquires a target (as per nightvision). Unless you really care to argue 'selecting two targets' is not "selecting a target" twice, the RAW is clear. (And that argument has the further problem that the nightfighting rules only work when you "select a target").

 

You're trying to apply reality to make a rules argument, and reality is not part of the rules. Its not interpreting to advantage, its reading what the rules say rather than trying to bring preconceived notions about how things 'should' work into the game.

 

In reality a given spotlight may only be able to point at one place at a time. In the 'model's reality' of the rules, it can point at as many targets as the tank can acquire (usually one, but sometimes two). These two realities do not inform each other at all. You'd not take conclusions from the rules and apply them to reality. Similarly, you should not take conclusions from reality and apply them to the rules.

[dswanick]

It doesn't need to. RAW specifies that a searchlight can be used against an acquired target when using night fighting rules. If you go through the process twice (once for normal weapons and once for the PotMS weapon) then the searchlight is legitimately using its searchlight as per RAW: i.e. one target each time as you said. Obviously though, it's a very clever searchlight <_<.

But you're not going through the process twice. You're doing Step #1 once, you're just being allowed to designate two targets with that single Step.

[Blitzkrieg861]

Fair enough.

[maturin]

As far as the "how can 1 searchlight simultaneously designate two targets" question:

 

We don't know what span of time a game turn is supposed to represent. If it represents anything more than a couple of seconds (and it probably does, since most battles probably ought to take more than 12 or 18 seconds), then a searchlight could swing to point out both targets, sequentially. All a vehicle needs to do is point out to other units the location of an enemy unit (again, assuming the confused/chaotic battlefield). It doesn't necessarily need to keep it illuminated for other units to "spot" the location of an enemy unit on that game turn. The other units can use their own optics to range in, now that they know an enemy unit is present at a certain location.

 

 

But you're not going through the process twice. You're doing Step #1 once, you're just being allowed to designate two targets with that single Step.

 

I have to disagree with this, dswanick. We haven't concluded that a vehicle with POTMS doesn't need to acquire each target separately as per nightfighting rules; RAW is hazy enough that you may have to roll separately. And if you do, then by RAW the searchlight would work for both targets.

 

But let's assume your stance is correct, for the sake of argument. <_< Let's look at the steps in the shooting sequence:

 

1. Check line of sight & pick a target.

2. Check range.

3. Roll to hit.

4. Roll to wound.

5. Take saving throws.

6. Remove casualties.

 

What is your usual way of playing this with POTMS?

 

Do you: A) Declare both targets B ) Measure range to both targets C) Roll to hit both targets D) Roll to wound/penetrate both targets etc etc

 

or do you: A) Declare one target, check range, roll to hit, roll to wound/penetrate/etc and then B ) Declare the second target, check range, roll to hit, roll to wound/penetrate/etc?

 

If you use POTMS the first way, you're doing each step once, and only get to use the searchlight on one target by RAW, as you suggest. But if you use POTMS the second way, then you are indeed doing each step twice, and the searchlight gets to illuminate both. If you do some mix of the two ways above (like I do) then you're hopelessly confusing the situation and should stop playing 40k immediately. :)

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: edited to refine what I meant to say and added reply to dswanick's comments

[stinkenheim]

If we want to bring some borderline reality to this game to help explain how two targets can be illuminated, well my land raider has headlights modelled on... I'm assuming everyone else's does to lol.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the driver simply flicks the full beams on illuminating the target in front that most weapons are targeting, the spotlight on top of the vehicle then swivels to light up whatever the additional weapon is firing at.

 

Just suggesting... Although I realise that goes against my initial idea of only lighting up one but hey, we are allowed to change our minds occasionally ;) still say only one spotting range roll but that's just my gut feeling.

[Squirrelloid]

It doesn't need to. RAW specifies that a searchlight can be used against an acquired target when using night fighting rules. If you go through the process twice (once for normal weapons and once for the PotMS weapon) then the searchlight is legitimately using its searchlight as per RAW: i.e. one target each time as you said. Obviously though, it's a very clever searchlight <_<.

But you're not going through the process twice. You're doing Step #1 once, you're just being allowed to designate two targets with that single Step.

 

I don't see why the number of times you go through a step matters. Do you "select a target" twice. Not do you go through step 1 twice. Do you "select a target". If you do, then you roll separately for each selected target, even if it 'happens simultaneously'.

 

If you don't "select a target" twice, then the nightfighting rules don't apply at all, since they *only apply* when you "select a target".

 

Do you only go through the process of rolling to wound once, and therefore only ever one roll to wound? Those rules to refer to a singular instance that can occur multiple times in the same phase.