Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

-666- wrote:I haven't seen any arguments yet to make me change my mind.

That may be but you haven't engaged with the debate at all.

@The rest, after a bit of thinking over it. I think it may be outside the remit of Jaws to hit models in cc. That being said, I think if you hit your own model(s), it is a case of tough luck. The problem is that it differs from norm by a great deal so it can be tricky to shoehorn into the rules.

So you are in the camp against it hitting units locked in melee then ?

Well I still think targetting is the limiting factor deciding if a shooting attack or psa can hit a model in cc. Nobody has convinced me of the importance of page 40 over page 16. The issue of Jaws having it's target decided after the act is a problem.

I have seen many players declare targets in squads with their attached rune priest and declare the model the priest will be aiming for. The reading of dropping the line by some people I play with is that you follow the normal PSA process til you would normally roll to hit and instead drop your line at your target, the first model from the priest effected.

Either way it comes out, at the end of the day it is always the TO's decision that covers the fringe issues.

liturgies of blood wrote:

-666- wrote:
I haven't seen any arguments yet to make me change my mind.

That may be but you haven't engaged with the debate at all.

I was the first one to identify this is illegal.

jwolf wrote:
Really this isn't hard. SHOOTING AT is what requires targeting. SHOOTING requires hitting. SHOOTING is what you are not allowed to do to models in CC (or friendly units), unless you have express written permission to do so. (P.40) Jaws no where has such permission.

Really, caps helps your argument.
You still haven't shown a rules basis for "shooting" to mean "hitting".
Your opinion that "shot at" and "shot" are different doesn't make any sense.

No, since the rules require you to charge the unit you shot at, not the unit you shot. (P.33) And you're just being argumentative because you have no grounds for your case in the rules.

I'm rubber you're glue...
No, really - your statement is that if you hit something, you shot it. Then you say that having shot something is not the same as having shot at something.
So where did the bullets come from? Magic?
Regardless of your original target, for you to have shot something, you have shot at it. Otherwise you have never shot at it, so your bullets just magically appear inside the target?

Seriously, can you explain how I can hit something without ever shooting at it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

-666- wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:

-666- wrote:
I haven't seen any arguments yet to make me change my mind.

That may be but you haven't engaged with the debate at all.

I was the first one to identify this is illegal.

With no rules support. And you haven't joined the debate, you just keep adding "me too!" to others who post.

I have explained my position. I feel no need to keep repeating myself. So you can stop trolling now.

-666- wrote:I have explained my position. I feel no need to keep repeating myself. So you can stop trolling now.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/452317.page?userfilterid=49995
I haven't been trolling. And I don't feel you've explained your position at all.
You cited the FAQ, which says nothing about this, and then "well said yakface" essentially.
It's fine to not participate, but please don't post reminding us that you're not participating.

I hope that makes you feel better.

rigeld2 wrote:

jwolf wrote:
Really this isn't hard. SHOOTING AT is what requires targeting. SHOOTING requires hitting. SHOOTING is what you are not allowed to do to models in CC (or friendly units), unless you have express written permission to do so. (P.40) Jaws no where has such permission.

Really, caps helps your argument.
You still haven't shown a rules basis for "shooting" to mean "hitting".
Your opinion that "shot at" and "shot" are different doesn't make any sense.

No, since the rules require you to charge the unit you shot at, not the unit you shot. (P.33) And you're just being argumentative because you have no grounds for your case in the rules.

I'm rubber you're glue...
No, really - your statement is that if you hit something, you shot it. Then you say that having shot something is not the same as having shot at something.
So where did the bullets come from? Magic?
Regardless of your original target, for you to have shot something, you have shot at it. Otherwise you have never shot at it, so your bullets just magically appear inside the target?

Seriously, can you explain how I can hit something without ever shooting at it?

There is no need to demonstrate that hitting a target with a shooting attack is shooting it "from a rules basis" - just like there is no need to demonstrate that firing a weapon and shooting a weapon are the same thing; this is basic English and not fine points of the rules.

You do not have to shoot at something to hit it. Example: put an apple on your mouth, I'll shoot at it, and if I hit the apple and the bullet travels through your brain stem I still did not shoot at you - doesn't make you any less shot in the head, does it? Is that an adequate example of how you can shoot something without shooting at it? Another example from the game of 40K would be shooting at a model with Jaws and hitting models behind it - those models are shot, but they were not targeted (which is "shot at" in the general case of the shooting phase).

I honestly cannot believe that you do not understand the difference between shooting at something and shooting something. Are you sure you are really from Texas?

Please come up with a single shred of rules support for your position or stop arguing, rigeld2. The other option is that I'll ignore you, because at this point you really appear to just be trolling - you've made no case for your position, you just keep attacking my position by either feigned or real ignorance.

It breaks down like this. The rules on Page 40 are rubbish. The section is titled "Shooting into & out of close combat"

"Likewise, while especially twisted and soulless commanders may wish their warriors to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combats in the hopes of hitting the enemy, this is not permitted." (BRB 40)

So it tells us that " this is not permitted" What you ask? "fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combats" How does one do that? no one really knows. as "fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combats" is not defined.

So we fall back on the section to give us the context: "Shooting into...close combat" Okay now we are getting somewhere, it is not permitted to shoot into close combat.

How do we shoot? P.16 tells us that, we check line of sight and pick a target.

What is our target for JOTWW? (First model hit is the target)

So as long as the only model targeted by the power is a legal target, the line placement is legal.

If you just get rid of some of the qualifiers, that pp40 line turns into...

"to fire...into..close combats..is not permitted."

If we just accept that as a real rule, and keep the definition of "fire" general, I'd be okay with disallowing Death Ray firing into CC on that basis.

Otherwise, you guys can keep arguing, but I don't think you're going to come to a conclusion. There's no new evidence. It's all about interpreting pp. 40.

Randall Turner wrote:If you just get rid of some of the qualifiers, that pp40 line turns into...

"to fire...into..close combats..is not permitted."

If we just accept that as a real rule, and keep the definition of "fire" general, I'd be okay with disallowing Death Ray firing into CC on that basis.

Otherwise, you guys can keep arguing, but I don't think you're going to come to a conclusion. There's no new evidence. It's all about interpreting pp. 40.

The qualifiers matter, though, because that paragraph specifies a certain type of shooting into close combats which is not permitted. This kind-of implies that other types of shooting into close combat are allowed, and that's essentially the point that I was originally arguing for and which DeathReaper just now argued for. I don't think it holds any water anymore, though.

So you cannot indiscriminately fire into close combat. Unless the weapon is rather indiscriminate.

Q. Can vibro cannons affect targets out of line of sight? Friendly units? Units locked in combat? (p45)
A. Yes, they are rather indiscriminate weapons.

Randall Turner wrote:If you just get rid of some of the qualifiers, that pp40 line turns into...

"to fire...into..close combats..is not permitted."

If we just accept that as a real rule, and keep the definition of "fire" general, I'd be okay with disallowing Death Ray firing into CC on that basis.

Otherwise, you guys can keep arguing, but I don't think you're going to come to a conclusion. There's no new evidence. It's all about interpreting pp. 40.

Sorry there Randall but if you have to chop and change the rules to find "the answer" then you need to find a better quote. Pg 40 is arse, pg 16 is where the ability to hit models in cc is dealt with. The only question is if you are targetting more then the first model with jaws since your side seems to do things a little different to HIPI.

jwolf wrote:
There is no need to demonstrate that hitting a target with a shooting attack is shooting it "from a rules basis" - just like there is no need to demonstrate that firing a weapon and shooting a weapon are the same thing; this is basic English and not fine points of the rules.

Except you do need to show it based on rules. Hitting a unit is defined in the rules. As is shooting. You're saying that hitting means you shot the unit. Since both of these things are defined in the rules we cannot fall back on basic English, but need a rules equality.

You do not have to shoot at something to hit it. Example: put an apple on your mouth, I'll shoot at it, and if I hit the apple and the bullet travels through your brain stem I still did not shoot at you - doesn't make you any less shot in the head, does it? Is that an adequate example of how you can shoot something without shooting at it? Another example from the game of 40K would be shooting at a model with Jaws and hitting models behind it - those models are shot, but they were not targeted (which is "shot at" in the general case of the shooting phase).

First, using a real world example isn't the best idea when using 40k defined terms.
Second, you absolutely did shoot at me, and the apple. Because in the real world it doesn't matter what you target.
In 40k it absolutely does.
In 40k you could have hit the apple then missed me. In the real world you still shot at me (in my direction, at something you knew would t stop the bullet) but in 40k using any interpretation you didn't.
So can you explain, in 40k terms, how something can be shot without shooting at it? What rule are you using to show that hits equal shot?

I honestly cannot believe that you do not understand the difference between shooting at something and shooting something. Are you sure you are really from Texas?

Nice dig - but I'm arguing on a rules basis, which doesn't take normal English definitions into account when the terms are defined in 40k.

Please come up with a single shred of rules support for your position or stop arguing, rigeld2. The other option is that I'll ignore you, because at this point you really appear to just be trolling - you've made no case for your position, you just keep attacking my position by either feigned or real ignorance.

Actually you're wrong.
I've cited that shooting is a process. I've shown that a prohibition to shoot means that you cannot follow that process the first step in the process is to pick a target and check LOS. Which means that if I don't pick a unit as a target, I'm not actually shooting that unit. Page 16 says that you are not allowed to pick a unit locked in CC as a target. Jaws explicitly does not target any model after the first one.
Your prohibition on page 40 is fluff, page 16 has the rule forbidding it.
You're coming up with ideas like "hit = shot" and "shot != shot at" with no rules support. And since shot and hit are absolutely defined 40k terms in the rules, you need some rules to support your asserted equalities/inequalities.

Rigel2, you're wrong.

If I fire a battlecannon at a unit next to a close combat, and my shot scatters into the close combat, the leman russ has clearly shot the models in that close combat, even though it did not shoot at/target them.

The same thing applies to Jaws. If you draw the line such that it crosses models in close combat, you are shooting into close combat, regardless of whether you targeted the models in close combat or not.

Page 40 forbids firing into close combat.

page40 wrote:Likewise, while especially twisted and soulless commanders may wish their warriors to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combats in the hopes of hitting the enemy, this is not permitted.

Part of this is fluff, but the meaning is clear. Firing into close combat is simply not permitted. Blast weapons which scatter in have explicit permission to do so. Jaws does not.

DeathReaper wrote:It breaks down like this. The rules on Page 40 are rubbish. The section is titled "Shooting into & out of close combat"

"Likewise, while especially twisted and soulless commanders may wish their warriors to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combats in the hopes of hitting the enemy, this is not permitted." (BRB 40)

So it tells us that " this is not permitted" What you ask? "fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combats" How does one do that? no one really knows. as "fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combats" is not defined.

So we fall back on the section to give us the context: "Shooting into...close combat" Okay now we are getting somewhere, it is not permitted to shoot into close combat.

How do we shoot? P.16 tells us that, we check line of sight and pick a target.

What is our target for JOTWW? (First model hit is the target)

So as long as the only model targeted by the power is a legal target, the line placement is legal.

Oh, Oh! Let's ignore parts of the rules we don't like! I'll ignore page 16, you ignore page 40, and we won't be talking about the same thing at all! Great idea!

/sarcasm off.

Surely just ignoring pages that inconveniently don't meet your criteria for how to determine if you are shooting into combat (especially pesky parts titled "Shooting into and Out of Close Combat") is going to be much more effective for determining what you want the rules to say, but that doesn't really help make a case based on, you know, the rules as written - I guess that would be the "Rules that Death Reaper Wants to Use"? RtDRWtU?

Okay, so maybe sarcasm wasn't quite off yet.

Obviously we disagree, and obviously your position has been covered and quite a few of us don't buy it, based on reading all the rules, not cherrypicking.

Mannahnin wrote:Rigel2, you're wrong.

If I fire a battlecannon at a unit next to a close combat, and my shot scatters into the close combat, the leman russ has clearly shot the models in that close combat, even though it did not shoot at/target them.

The same thing applies to Jaws. If you draw the line such that it crosses models in close combat, you are shooting into close combat, regardless of whether you targeted the models in close combat or not.

Page 40 forbids firing into close combat.

page40 wrote:Likewise, while especially twisted and soulless commanders may wish their warriors to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combats in the hopes of hitting the enemy, this is not permitted.

Part of this is fluff, but the meaning is clear. Firing into close combat is simply not permitted. Blast weapons which scatter in have explicit permission to do so. Jaws does not.

That line is fluff - page 16 provides the rules enforcing the fluff.
Shooting is a defined 40k process. How can you have shot something you are forbidden to target, and hence forbidden to go through the shooting process?
Edit: and again - why are you equating hitting and shooting? Since both are 40k defined terms, do you have a rule or reference permitting that?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jwolf wrote:Obviously we disagree, and obviously your position has been covered and quite a few of us don't buy it, based on reading all the rules, not cherrypicking.

You're right - lets not cherry pick. We'll follow page 40 completely accurately. I fire my bolsters at your Purifiers in melee with my Terminators.
What? I can't do that? Page 40 just says no indiscriminate fire, so since bolsters are discriminatory...
Oh, page 16 gives the actual rule you need to follow? Okay, no bolsters then. Darn.

Page 40 has no actual rule saying you can't shoot into close combat. It says you cant shoot into close combat. It doesnt define the shooing process. For that you must reference the shooting process that starts on page 15, which says you cannot target a unit in close combat. Jaws explicitly does not target any model after the first.

Look there is shooting, the visualisation of the guns on the fecky little men on the board blasting at the enemy and "SHOOTING" the process by which the rules allow you to wound and effect models in the shooting phase.

Some of us are talking in the rules language of the shooting phase. So by the rules, a Leman Russ that scatters a pie plate onto cc has not shot nor shot at the cc. It has HIT the units in cc but not shot into them as shooting into them is illegal.
This is because shooting requires targetting and targetting requires a valid target.

liturgies of blood wrote:Look there is shooting, the visualisation of the guns on the fecky little men on the board blasting at the enemy and "SHOOTING" the process by which the rules allow you to wound and effect models in the shooting phase.

Some of us are talking in the rules language of the shooting phase. So by the rules, a Leman Russ that scatters a pie plate onto cc has not shot nor shot at the cc. It has HIT the units in cc but not shot into them as shooting into them is illegal.
This is because shooting requires targetting and targetting requires a valid target.

Exactly.

Absurd. If a shooting weapon hits a thing, it has shot that thing. Basic english and rules agree here. If I shoot at Lady Gaga and hit Jay Leno I have shot Jay Leno, whether or not I targeted him.

If I (for example) have a theoretical blast weapon which states "any unit hit [or shot] by this weapon is reduced to I1 for the rest of the game", and I have a shot from it scatter into a close combat, are you going to claim that the unit/s covered has not been shot?

Shooting does require a target, but shooting weapons can and frequently do hit other units than the ones they're targeting. The rules on page 40 forbid shooting any unit in close combat (except for scattering), regardless of target.

You know, we have been looking at this all wrong. Yes, Jaws is classified as a shooting attack (even if it doesn't follow most of the rules). However, nothing is being "fired". All you are doing (game-wise, of course) is opening a hole in the ground. Therefore, you are not hitting anything, and not shooting anything. Of course, since the Vibro Cannon is the only indiscriminate weapon, it is the only thing that can fire indiscriminately (which isn't allowed?)

The Vibrocannon has an explicit allowance, thanks to the FAQ.

If 'indiscriminately" means anything, other than being fluff, it can mean either:

A) A weapon is only indiscriminate if the rules say it is (Vibrocannon FAQ).
and/or
B) A bolter is just as discriminating as Jaws, and therefore the two are equally subject to or exempt from page 40's ban on shooting into close combat.

Mannahnin wrote:The Vibrocannon has an explicit allowance, thanks to the FAQ.

If 'indiscriminately" means anything, other than being fluff, it can mean either:

A) A weapon is only indiscriminate if the rules say it is (Vibrocannon FAQ).
and/or
B) A bolter is just as discriminating as Jaws, and therefore the two are equally subject to or exempt from page 40's ban on shooting into close combat.

B is correct.
Page 16 is what actually prevents you from firing bolters at a unit locked in CC because you're prevented from selecting them as a target.
Jaws never targets anything after the first model.

Mannahnin wrote:Absurd. If a shooting weapon hits a thing, it has shot that thing. Basic english and rules agree here. If I shoot at Lady Gaga and hit Jay Leno I have shot Jay Leno, whether or not I targeted him.

No, they don't agree. Shooting is a defined process. If something has been shot, that process has been followed to make that thing shot.

If I (for example) have a theoretical blast weapon which states "any unit hit [or shot] by this weapon is reduced to I1 for the rest of the game", and I have a shot from it scatter into a close combat, are you going to claim that the unit/s covered has not been shot?

Your hypothetical weapon, if worded axactly as you say, would reduce both units to I1. If it did not say "hit" but instead "shot" then yes, I'd argue against it by the rules. The intent would be obvious, and I'd probably play it that they'd be reduced, but that's irrelevant in a RAW discussion.

Shooting does require a target, but shooting weapons can and frequently do hit other units than the ones they're targeting. The rules on page 40 forbid shooting any unit in close combat (except for scattering), regardless of target.

First sentence is correct.
The fluff on page 40 is exactly that. It never mentions targeting. It mentions firing on. We know from basic English and elsewhere in the rules that firing on is the same as shooting. So looking at the actual rules for shooting - you're prevented from targeting a unit in CC.

So now you're defining rules you want to ignore as fluff ? Very clever that indeed.

-666- wrote:So now you're defining rules you want to ignore as fluff ? Very clever that indeed.

I haven't ignored it at all.

It is not permitted to fire into a CC.

To put that into actual rules, it is not permitted to [follow the shooting process on page 15 against a unit locked in] CC.
See how it looks with actual rules support instead of just assuming that a word (fire) means more than the rules say it does?

It doesn't support your case though... Which has already been explained several times.

-666- wrote:It doesn't support your case though... Which has already been explained several times.

It does support my case. As ive explained several times.
The line on page 40 alone is fluff - so we have to look at the rules that enforce it.
Page 16 prohibits targeting units locked in CC.
Jaws does not target any model after the first one it hits.

Mannahnin wrote:Absurd. If a shooting weapon hits a thing, it has shot that thing. Basic english and rules agree here. If I shoot at Lady Gaga and hit Jay Leno I have shot Jay Leno, whether or not I targeted him.

If I (for example) have a theoretical blast weapon which states "any unit hit [or shot] by this weapon is reduced to I1 for the rest of the game", and I have a shot from it scatter into a close combat, are you going to claim that the unit/s covered has not been shot?

Shooting does require a target, but shooting weapons can and frequently do hit other units than the ones they're targeting. The rules on page 40 forbid shooting any unit in close combat (except for scattering), regardless of target.

The difference is this
The RP shots Gaga(being his intended target) if he was to hit Leno this would not be intentional for his vtarget is Gaga not leno.

Secondly
RP shots gaga, and while leno and conan have at it in the back, Leno is also hit, but was not inentional shot at.
Difference is that he is not the inenteded receiver of the shooting, there is only ever one target, that being gaga.
So everybody is hit, but not everybody is shot.
Leno is hit with jaws effects not shooting, and since its not a template or blast it does follow thne restrictikons to hit as clearly proven it the great ROLL TO HIT 2011 debate for jaws.
So this leaves us with 1 person shot(Gaga) and 2 people hit Gaga and Leno.
Leno was never the intended target, he just happened to get hit, which is allowed since it is neither a template or a blast, its a shot with special rules.

So the difference is
Is there one target- yes
Is it in CC- No
Are people being shot in CC- no
Are people being hit in CC- Yes
All shots cant be in CC, but hits can be in CC because they are not shots

liturgies of blood wrote:Sorry there Randall but if you have to chop and change the rules to find "the answer" then you need to find a better quote. Pg 40 is arse, pg 16 is where the ability to hit models in cc is dealt with. The only question is if you are targetting more then the first model with jaws since your side seems to do things a little different to HIPI.

Oh no, two misconceptions there - I *DO* fire into melee (currently), and I *DO* understand the crux of the argument (which is a little insulting to imply otherwise, it's not that complicated). Your side has a valid argument too. I'm just saying this is all hinging on an interpretation of ambiguous wording, it's not concrete, nobody's going to "win". And of course the argument that Death Ray can fire into CC b/c it's not targeting a unit in CC is exactly the same issue, again just saying I don't care that much. You guys actually do this on a semi-regular basis w/JotWW? Because usually you just zap my robots straight-up.