just to clarify night fighting and indirect fire

[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.