just to clarify night fighting and indirect fire

[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?