just to clarify night fighting and indirect fire

[gwensdad]

I've had this come up several times with my Basilisks during turn 1.
It's night fighting, there's no enemies visible to them within 36". Therefore, they can't fire-not even indirect against anything they can't see anyway. Just making sure I'm running this right. It just seems weird that on turn 2, they can engage anything on the board even if no friendly unit can see it but night fighting makes them semi-useless (unless I get another unit to "spot" for them with a searchlight)

[daboarder]

Yep tgats right

[Magpie]

The amendment to the Grey Knight Purgation Squad's Astral Aim power, which allows the unit to fire on targets out of Line of Sight, means it can now ignore the stealth and shrouding effects of night fighting. It may be an oversight as the Purgation squad cannot usually be armed with a weapon with a greater than 36" range in the 5th Ed rules the Codex was written for but it could be viewed that being able to ignore the cover bonuses may also allow it to engage beyond the 36" "wall", if they were manning a quad gun or Icarus cannon for example.

While there is nothing that says units that can fire at targets without LOS can fire beyond the 36", I think there is sufficient logical reasons to suggest that it may be possible, as the inference in the Night Fighting rules is that the unit beyond 36" is out of sight, "such units are completely hidden in the darkness"

No LOS is no LOS after all whether it be light or dark.

[daboarder]

Its not a LOS issue. Otherwise the rules would have said you cannot draw LOS beyond 36. Instead they steaight up black and white say NO you cannot fire beyond 36

[Magpie]

They don't say you can't fire they say you cannot pick a target because it is hidden. Hidden would mean out of Line of sight.

Picking a target is the fundamental first step of the Shooting Phase and is restricted by Line of Sight and Range.
The rules for night fight do not restrict range of a weapon so it isn't unreasonable to suggest it is a line of sight restriction.

[daboarder]

No it says you cannot pick a target. Therefore you cannot pick a target noy because of LOS but because of night fight. See that why we have thw nught vision rules.

[Nabterayl]

I have to agree with daboarder, here, Magpie.

Page 124 says that when the Night Fighting rules are in effect, "The shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away." It doesn't say that the shooting unit can't see a target more than 36" away, or that a target more than 36" away is deemed to be out of line of sight. It just says that a target more than 36" away cannot be picked as a target.

The Astral Aim amendment doesn't address this part of Night Fighting at all, and I don't see any ambiguity that might give us license to start asking why a shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away. It simply can't.

[Magpie]

We don't have to ask why a shooting unit cannot pick a target beyond 36" tho' we are told why, because "such units are completely hidden in the darkness"

[daboarder]

Good those units are hidden in darkness.. the firer doesnt even know they exist therefore their special brand of hocis pocus doesnt work.....job done go home.

Seriously stop trying to weasel out of the clear cut.

[Magpie]

So a Barrage weapon is completely unaware of a unit 37" away in the darkness in open ground yet can be fully aware of a unit 200" away in a ruin that has no windows and is behind 2 forests, 6 buildings and 3 Land Raiders.

[Nabterayl]

I'm agnostic on that point. For all I know, they are absolutely aware of the unit that is 36" away. That does not override the rulebook when it tells us that the shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away. Awareness is not at issue. The issue is the meaning of "cannot pick." Unless you can demonstrate some ambiguity in "The shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away," then the analysis is over.

[daboarder]

I was just demonstrating that his use of "fkavour text" was a silly argumemt. As it could easily be made the other way

As to you magpie. Hyperbole, b*tch and moan all you want. Doesnt change the rule. You cannot shoot at units beyond 36

[Magpie]

I'm agnostic on that point. For all I know, they are absolutely aware of the unit that is 36" away. That does not override the rulebook when it tells us that the shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away. Awareness is not at issue. The issue is the meaning of "cannot pick." Unless you can demonstrate some ambiguity in "The shooting unit cannot pick a target more than 36" away," then the analysis is over.

What it comes down to, the area of doubt is :
Page 12:
Choose (aka pick) a Target The unit can shoot at one enemy unit it can see.
which ties into the qualification from Page 124 that a target cannot be picked because the unit is hidden in the darkness.
So the Barrage weapons ability to select targets that it cannot see should by logical extension carry on to the prohibition of selecting a target hidden in the darkness.
That to me says the principle is worthy of further thought or clarification.

As we are now moving into the douche bag section of the thread. I am done and I'll take my thoughts to where they can be discussed without raging and foaming at the mouth

[daboarder]

You cannot target a unit because the rules say you cannot

Do you really try to pull this on people in a game?

Flavour text DOES NOT EQUAL RULES!

[Tyrendian]

I'm with Magpie there - not from a RAW standpoint, as that is, as you rightly say Daboarder, quite clear. But since when do GW put out well-worded rules? *sigh*
In friendly games - and only there, mind you, I wouldn't try to argue that at a tournament - I would let my opponent blind-fire his Basilisk (or what have you...) at units beyond 36", maybe with a restriction that it has to be "spotted" by another unit in his/her army (although not with a searchlight - just being inside 36" would suffice for me...).
That's purely from a "I want to have a fun game that doesn't bend logic too badly" standpoint though - so if my opponent thinks otherwise on the matter, I wouldn't be bothered either...

[daboarder]

Nightfight does not have to represent just natural light. It can reperesent anything from a daemonic enchanment, an eldar webway assualt or the spores from a tyranid invasion.

On a mechanical point of view its the way it is to bqllance out the fact that only half an army can be in reserve. Its to give other armies a chance against alpha strike long range armies such as guard and tau.

[Wildcard]

Also, last game we came to a conclusion (after some serious thinking) that due to the wording, the searchlight (or any other form of illumination) does not remove the "36 inch limit".
I dont have my rulebook here so i cannot quote the rules word per word, but it was something along these lines:

"- If illuminated, the target cannot benefit from the night fight rule." Thus, only way the target benefits are the stealth and shrouded. Searchlight doesn't remove all and every effect of the night fight, just the 'benefits'..

There might be some things that i am missing of our argument here because i cannot check it, but that was the core of it..

[daboarder]

Now thats a good thing to discuss.

Personally, not getting shot is a pretty big benefit.

[Magpie]

The same logic that allows units who can fire without Line of Sight to pick targets beyond 36" would also allow units to pick targets beyond 36" that are illuminated.

We can't pick targets beyond 36" because they are hidden, we can pick illuminated targets regardless of range as, due to the searchlight, they do not "benefit" from night fight rules.

We make a value judgement that being hidden is a benefit, not a simple carte blanch prohibition due to range.

[daboarder]

+++CENSORED BY THE INQUISITION+++

The rule is black and white

[Magpie]

Consistency is the key in all things.
You can't dismiss the "flavour" in one instance yet rely on it in another.

You either accept that in Night Fight no unit an select a target beyond 36" without qualification or you allow some degree of interpretation based on the wider practical considerations, as the rules themselves instruct us to do.

As Wildcard says the only tangible benefits are the improvements to cover saves. Suggesting that not being an eligible target is a benefit is a more nebulous concept that requires you to look beyond the "black and white".

For example I could equally suggest :
Illuminated units gain no benefit from night fight, so that means they can be shot BUT night fight also confers the detriment of not being able to shoot beyond 36". As it is only the benefits that don't apply, the detriments must still remain. So a unit that was itself illuminated, from having been shot at last turn, wouldn't be able to shoot back at an illuminated target over 36" away because while it does not get the benefits of being stealthed, shrouded and hidden it still suffers the detriment of Night Fight of not being able to pick a target past 36".

Obviously it doesn't work like that and simple common sense means that the illuminated unit is in a pool of light that lets everyone shoot at it without any Night Fight restrictions.

That's the problem with only considering blinkered RAW interpretations, with GW's style of rules at some point a value judgement has to come in, for consistency you need to find that point where an interpretation fits all situations equally, nothing is as simple as black and white.

But do feel free to rage and froth a bit more.

[Bigred]

Let's all take it down a notch...

[Tynskel]

The mod's here, and I haven't done anything...

hmmmm... something's wrong...
Spider Sense Tingling...

[daboarder]

Sorry boss,

Its just painful to see him hijack thread after thread with nonsensical arguments that are repeated ad nauseum. Particularly when such thing give the poor blokes asking the question the impression that there is an ambiguous rule.

Ill try not to bite anymore

[Magpie]

Everyone else on these forums seem to be able to control their reaction to my "appalling" habit of expressing a point of view.
They are also able to disagree with me without resorting to lame insults.

I think the FNP thread is a pretty good review of the generally held view of the other forum members.

Maybe you should just man up and take some responsibility for your own behaviour rather that trying to foist the cause for them onto someone else?

[Anggul]

I can't help but feel Magpie is trolling you all. We all know that Night Fighting means you just straight-up can't shoot at anything further than 36" away, the repetitive, nonsensical arguments should alert you to trolling I feel.

[Magpie]

Expressing an alternate point of view is not trolling as far as I am aware.

[daboarder]

I thought the FNP thread was hillarious. Despite answering the OPs question he still called me a douchebag because the answer wasnt what he wanted. I was then attacked about everything from my intelligence to my appearence because a bunch of self righteous ****s thought they could basically.

I dont know why I come here most people seem incapable of havong a discussion based upon the actual evidence instead of some straw man argument. Its only really posters like tynskel and dark link that things are worth discussing with for the most part

[Daemonette666]

When I was in the Signals Corp and also as a Recruit Instructor, we worked closely with both Mortars and Artillery, - particularly calling in mortar/artillery fire, answering the radios at the command vehicles attached to an artillery or mortar battery, etc. I know that Artillery and Mortar fire is not called down willy nilly. A unit has to request it. Either that or someone senior has planned a barrage on a pre-scouted or photographed enemy target or strong point. Many times these targets are given what are called DF (designated fire) target names. They can then use that point as a reference, giving their angle in Mils (6400 Mils to a circle - 1 Mil is equal to the angle by a person 1 Kilometer away from you moving 1 Meter) from you to the target and the distance the target in meters the target is from the DF point at that angle, i.e. Fire Mission reference DF Chariot angle1400 mils, left 300, add 400, fire for effect over.

Now based on the standard rules in 40K, I would have preferred them to allow a more realistic system, where each time you fire at a target that has not moved, you get a more accurate in hitting it if you have a spotter giving you feedback to correct fire at a target not in LOS of the artillery.

I can see the arguments for both sides here. Dasboarders side where RAW where it is fixed, and you can not change the rules - you can not argue with GW about what they say, even though it does not make sense (which happens a lot). Magpies side of the discussion - where realistically, the target could be a predesignated target scouted and photographed hours or even days beforehand, with the calculations all worked out and plotted, the artillery all sited in on a closer target to get their bearings and setting leveled in and set. The bombardment may not be initially accurate though, as artillery can be way off target (hence the rules for scattering the full scatter distance if the target is not in Line of Sight), but a spotter can remedy this in follow up rounds.

I personally can not see the problem with being able to shoot over the 36" range limit for night fighting for indirect artillery fire. I have to stick to GWs silly unrealistic rules, however.

I would love there to be rules for counter artillery fire, but I know that would make the game more complex, and with 6th edition 40K being so over complex and cinematic right now, we do not need it getting even more over complex.

[Nabterayl]

Consistency is the key in all things.
You can't dismiss the "flavour" in one instance yet rely on it in another.

You either accept that in Night Fight no unit an select a target beyond 36" without qualification or you allow some degree of interpretation based on the wider practical considerations, as the rules themselves instruct us to do.

As Wildcard says the only tangible benefits are the improvements to cover saves. Suggesting that not being an eligible target is a benefit is a more nebulous concept that requires you to look beyond the "black and white".

For example I could equally suggest :
Illuminated units gain no benefit from night fight, so that means they can be shot BUT night fight also confers the detriment of not being able to shoot beyond 36". As it is only the benefits that don't apply, the detriments must still remain. So a unit that was itself illuminated, from having been shot at last turn, wouldn't be able to shoot back at an illuminated target over 36" away because while it does not get the benefits of being stealthed, shrouded and hidden it still suffers the detriment of Night Fight of not being able to pick a target past 36".

Obviously it doesn't work like that and simple common sense means that the illuminated unit is in a pool of light that lets everyone shoot at it without any Night Fight restrictions.

That's the problem with only considering blinkered RAW interpretations, with GW's style of rules at some point a value judgement has to come in, for consistency you need to find that point where an interpretation fits all situations equally, nothing is as simple as black and white.

But do feel free to rage and froth a bit more.
Magpie, my own frustration with your contributions to this thread is that I thought we had an agreement on this forum that we only give people "Here's how you should play" recommendations when they ask for it. When somebody asks a rules question, I thought the Lounge consensus was that we help them understand what the rules say, however absurd that may seem, and however contrary to how we would prefer, as sporting ladies and gents, to actually play. That, or we clearly label our "But that is clearly stupid, and here's why you should play it this way" editorializing as such.

This post of yours seems to indicate that you view the proper role of a rules forum to be something other than helping people understand what the rules say. Is that true? You don't need to care how frustrating I find your contributions sometimes, but I'd appreciate knowing where you're coming from so that we can interact in a way that is more useful for everybody who comes here.

[DarkLink]

They don't say you can't fire they say you cannot pick a target because it is hidden. Hidden would mean out of Line of sight.

Wrong. If they meant LOS, they would say, "cannot draw LOS to X unit beyond 36" ". That's very much not what they say.

Night Fight does not block LOS outside of 36". It simply prevents you from targeting anything beyond 36", regardless of LOS.

[Cadian122]

At the risk of enflaming this discussion even more - I play Guard, and most of my armies have a decent artillery component (Death Korps anyone). I generally go by this rule: If the unit is more than 36" away, I can't shoot it unless it has been lit up by a searchlight - in which case it's fair game to shoot it. None of my opponents (so far) have had any issue with this interpretation of the rule - granted it hasn't come up too often in my Tournament play, but I think it came up once, and my Opponent had the same interpretation of the rule, so it wasn't a real issue.
To clarify once more, this is how I play it, and I think it's a decent compromise.

[Nabterayl]

At the risk of enflaming this discussion even more - I play Guard, and most of my armies have a decent artillery component (Death Korps anyone). I generally go by this rule: If the unit is more than 36" away, I can't shoot it unless it has been lit up by a searchlight - in which case it's fair game to shoot it. None of my opponents (so far) have had any issue with this interpretation of the rule - granted it hasn't come up too often in my Tournament play, but I think it came up once, and my Opponent had the same interpretation of the rule, so it wasn't a real issue.
To clarify once more, this is how I play it, and I think it's a decent compromise.
That's my understanding of the RAW, actually, not a compromise. Searchlights "illuminate" the target of a shooting attack, and page 87 tells us, "Illuminated units gain no benefit from the Night Fighting special rule." In my opinion, it is most reasonable to read the "benefits" of Night Fighting as including not being a valid target when more than 36" away from a shooter, not just Stealth and Shrouded.

[daboarder]

Yup thats how it works...

Pretty sure the initial searcblight needs to be within 36 to target the jnit though doesnt it?

[Nabterayl]

Certainly as I understand it, yes. Since page 87 tells us that a vehicle with a searchlight can only illuminate "its target" and only after "firing all of its weapons," it follows that the vehicle with the searchlight has to be able to select the unit to be illuminated as a target in the first place, which means the target needs to be no more than 36" away from the vehicle with the searchlight.

[DarkLink]

Yes, you need to be able to shoot the target to use a searchlight. So drive a Rhino or whatever up 12", snap fire your storm bolter at the target, illuminate them with searchlights, and destroy them.

[Magpie]

I see that as a double standard.

In one instance the 36" cannot be passed when it is logical to assume that firing out of LOS is the same as selecting a target that is hidden, yet we are quite happy to break that barrier because it is logical to assume that the searchlight has illuminated the target. edit- for all units to see regardless of range, including those who do not have line of sight to it but can fire at targets out of line of sight.

I certainly agree that a searchlight will illuminate the firer and target for all to see but for consistency the same has to extend to non-LOS weapons as well.

[Nabterayl]

yet we are quite happy to break that barrier because it is logical to assume that the searchlight has illuminated the target.
May I request a little more precision here? That used to be what we were good at as a community. Of course we assume that the searchlight has illuminated the target; that's the premise of the hypothetical - that a vehicle with a searchlight has fired all of its weapons at a target, and chosen to illuminate that target with the searchlight as page 87 allows. I cannot tell, though, if you mean "assume that the searchlight has illuminated the target" in the sense of "we assume that photons are being emitted by the searchlight and reflecting off the target, of such an intensity and of such wavelengths that they are absorbed by the photosensors of the shooting unit and processed by those photosensors in such a way as to make the target visible to the shooting unit, notwithstanding the lack of direct sunlight on the battlefield" or in the sense that we mean it.

When we "assume that the searchlight has illuminated the target," we assume that it has illuminated the target within the meaning of page 87. We are only assuming that a black box (which we denote with the term "searchlight") has added a quality to the target (which quality we denote with the term "illuminated").

"Illuminated" in this argument does not mean that within the game narrative, the target unit has actual photons reflecting off it, or that the vehicle with the searchlight is emitting actual photons. There is no assumption about photons or sensory apparatus at all. We have no idea whether the shooting unit has line of sight to a target that is "illuminated" in this sense, and we certainly do not claim that a shooting unit has line of sight simply because the target unit is "illuminated." The only claim we make for a target that is "illuminated" is that such a target "gains no benefit from the Night Fighting special rule" (87). We feel warranted in assuming that an "illuminated" target "gains no benefit from the Night Fighting special rule" because that is exactly what page 87 says.

The slightly larger assumption we make is that one of the "benefits" of the Night Fighting special rule is that a unit subject to Night Fighting cannot be targeted by a unit more than 36" away from it. If this is a "benefit" of the Night Fighting special rule (and I don't see what else it would be), then an "illuminated" unit does not gain it, because page 87 says that an "illuminated" unit gains no "benefit" from Night Fighting.

That's all we're assuming. There is no narrative involved here, no story to tell about floodlights or photons or sensors or line of sight or anything - just black boxes to which we assign qualities based on the text of the rulebook and which we then arrange according to the ordinary rules of logic.

[Magpie]

... - just black boxes to which we assign qualities based on the text of the rulebook and which we then arrange according to the ordinary rules of logic.

And those very ordinary rules of logic say to me that a unit hidden by terrain or darkness can be targeted by units that have the ability to shoot what they can't see.

[Tynskel]

You are missing the point.

With night fight, your units have *no clue* where their opponents are when they are outside 36".
The Search Light lets *everyone* know 1) who the user of the search light is, and 2) where the opponent is.

[Magpie]

Yeh I get that but your units also have no clue where the opponents are when they are out of line of sight.

[DarkLink]

I see that as a double standard.

In one instance the 36" cannot be passed when it is logical to assume that firing out of LOS is the same as selecting a target that is hidden, yet we are quite happy to break that barrier because it is logical to assume that the searchlight has illuminated the target. edit- for all units to see regardless of range, including those who do not have line of sight to it but can fire at targets out of line of sight.

I certainly agree that a searchlight will illuminate the firer and target for all to see but for consistency the same has to extend to non-LOS weapons as well.

Well, seeing as the Searchlight rules state that once something has been light up by searchlights, you ignore Night Fight on that unit and thus the normal 36" range restriction disappears, I don't see how you could think that there's a double standard here.

[Denzark]

I do have some sympathy for both points of view here, however, my take is quite simple. Indirectly firing artillery (barrage) allows you to target stuff out of LoS, true. And this would instinctively tell you that in a similar way to firing blindly at soemthing behind a wll, hill, building etc, you should be able to fire blindly at something obscured by night, be the reality of that night darkness, tryanid spawn, nrugle flies, eldar spell etc.

However that instinct is completely irrelevant when the rule states during night fight, you cannot pick a target beyond 36". The fact it is in or out of LoS is totally nugatory - if it is outside of 36" it is not a legitimate target, LoS or not, end of.

[Magpie]

Well, seeing as the Searchlight rules state that once something has been light up by searchlights, you ignore Night Fight on that unit and thus the normal 36" range restriction disappears, I don't see how you could think that there's a double standard here.

That would be fine if that was what the rule says but it doesn't.

Night Vision says you ignore the effects of Night Fighting however, perhaps significantly, the searchlight rules merely prevent an illuminated target from benefiting from the Night Fight rules, "ignore" is not mentioned. It isn't clear so we have to make a value judgement on "benefit". I contend that if you allow a value judgement on "benefit" to include the maximum engagement range restriction (which by the rules is a restriction on the firer and only by implication a benefit to the target) but then do not allow a similar judgement on "hidden" then you have a double standard.


However that instinct is completely irrelevant when the rule states during night fight, you cannot pick a target beyond 36". The fact it is in or out of LoS is totally nugatory - if it is outside of 36" it is not a legitimate target, LoS or not, end of.

Fair enough but that would also have to preclude picking an illuminated target outside of 36" as well, otherwise it's not "end of" it's "end of .... sometimes".

I'll just remind everyone that I have never said that the rules say anything different to that, but I have said it is worth questioning whether that should be the case.

[Nabterayl]

I'll just remind everyone that I have never said that the rules say anything different to that, but I have said it is worth questioning whether that should be the case.
See ... this is why I find you unhelpful so frequently. For about five pages now, it has been unclear (at least to me) what you were actually saying. Every time I asked for clarification you declined. Now, five pages into the thread, you finally say flat out that you are not arguing that we are wrong about what the rules say. Instead you are, without agreeing with us as to what the rules say, arguing that they ought to say something different.

Somebody asked whether the rule was A. We said the rule was A. You said the rule ought to be C. You haven't even bothered to engage with us as to whether we are right that - whether it should be or not - the rule is A.

Which is ... frankly, not super helpful.

I don't think you try to be rude or unhelpful, so maybe you think you were perfectly clear that you were saying, "Guys, guys - the rule ought to be C!" in a room full of people saying, "The rule is A!" If so, perhaps take this as some friendly-meant feedback that it was not clear at all until this post.

[Magpie]

Perhaps if you were to read my very first post in the thread?

"While there is nothing that says units that can fire at targets without LOS can fire beyond the 36", I think there is sufficient logical reasons to suggest that it may be possible, as the inference in the Night Fighting rules is that the unit beyond 36" is out of sight, "such units are completely hidden in the darkness"
No LOS is no LOS after all whether it be light or dark."

[Nabterayl]

Yeah ... that's the ambiguous part. "I think there is sufficient logical reasons to suggest that it may be possible" indicates that you are making a statement about what the rule is, not what it ought to be.

That statement, to me, reads, "I do not have a directly on-point citation for the rules interpretation I am about to espouse, but I do think I have good indirect reasons for my assurance that the rule is what I think it is."

It does not read, "I agree that the rules do not work the way I am about to describe, but I think that my proposal makes more sense than what the rule actually is."

[Denzark]

Magpie, good way to argue both ends, which political party pays you?