Mannahnin wrote:Shoot, shots, and hit are equated throughout the shooting rules.

I just read all 16 pages of the shooting rules, including weapon types, and found lots of "the shot" as in "the shot fired from the gun" but only two "shot" as in "incoming shots". Both of them are in fluff sentences in the first two paragraphs talking about cover saves.

Could you show me where I missed this equation throughout the shooting rules?

If only a unit which is targeted is considered to be shot, then the rules for the Vibrocannon and Nurgle's Rot which have been cited are meaningless.

This should be a clue.

Yea, GW never writes redundant rules. Ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:By use of the word indiscriminately the rules are incorporating some fluff in to explain the rationale for why the restriction exists. The restriction is that you may not shoot into close combat, and it is not limited to targeting. This is an expansion, specific to shooting and HtH, of the brief mention on page 16.

So we can use the literal definition of a 40k defined word, but write off other words as fluff?
Edit: heck, it does say "the middle". Can I graze the edge? Or is that fluff as well?
What are the actual rule words in that sentence? How much of it has to be fluff before we call it fluff and ignore it in a rules debate?

There is an easy and clear way to read it which does not require Jaws to work inconsistently to how templates work, and does not require dismissing the rules for Vibrocannons and Rot off as being redundant and meaningless.

The rule is clear. You can't use a shooting attack on a unit in HtH, except for random scatters, or attacks which explicitly say otherwise.

Mannahnin wrote:There is an easy and clear way to read it which does not require Jaws to work inconsistently to how templates work,

Since Jaws isn't a template, I'm fine with it being inconsistent with Template rules.

and does not require dismissing the rules for Vibrocannons and Rot off as being redundant and meaningless.

Is this what you're falling back on? I'm genuinely curious - did you not want to put forth the effort to find the rules you assured me were throughout the shooting rules, or are they really not there?
Rot does have targets - its even mentioned in the rules quoted in this thread. It has to have the exception.
Vibrocannons are a line attack... I wonder what other ability is a line attack that has been discussed in this thread....

The rule is clear. You can't use a shooting attack on a unit in HtH, except for random scatters, or attacks which explicitly say otherwise.

The first sentence is patently false. We wouldn't have a 10 page thread (99% without trolling or name calling! That's gotta be a record! :-) if it was perfectly clear.

I've mentioned the others (that I know of anyway). Of the 4, two definitely does not apply - Blood Lance. Jaws is under discussion. The Vibro Cannon and Death Ray function very similarly to Jaws.

Edit: Crap, we need more trolling and name calling.

It really is. You're invested in your side. The only reason this discussion exists is because folks using Jaws like it and want it to be broken.

Nothing can shoot into HtH unless it says it can. Page 40 is perfectly clear.

I would like to point out that I do not play SW. I *despise* Jaws, however, based on the wording, I am perfectly fine (albeit not necessarily happy) allowing Jaws to hit friendly models and models in cc.

I could be wrong, but I am fairly (99%) certain that rigeld does not play SW either.

...If SW players hadn't been using it wrong neither of you would have gotten inured to the idea that it's worse than it actually is.

Even if page 40 were ambiguous, as one option you've got an interpretation which is clear and consistent throughout the game, and consistent with the English meanings of the terms to shoot something and to hit something with a shot, and as the other an interpretation which is inconsistent, dismisses half of the first paragraph of rules titled "Shooting into & out of close combat" meaningless, and makes Jaws broken.

Mannahnin wrote:It really is. You're invested in your side. The only reason this discussion exists is because folks using Jaws like it and want it to be broken.

Really? You're accusing me of being biased? I only play Nids (and am slowly branching out to C:SM).
I dislike Jaws. It's (to me) an example of terrible game design.

Nothing can shoot into HtH unless it says it can. Page 40 is perfectly clear.

You're right - nothing can shoot into CC.
Jaws, while a PSA, isn't shooting. It isn't even hitting. It's drawing a line and affecting touched models.
It doesn't target anything after the first model touched.

Even with all that it's not broken. It's powerful, but I've won the last two fights against my SW buddy who uses it.

I'm still waiting on whether or not you were wrong about the equality being referenced throughout the shooting rules.
If you'd rather not answer I can understand that. I'm not trying to put you on the spot -rather I want to know if the cornerstone of my argument is actually correct. I just can't find it in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:...If SW players hadn't been using it wrong neither of you would have gotten inured to the idea that it's worse than it actually is.

Funnily enough I've never had this situation come up. Because of Jaws I always put myself where he'd risk nuking his own models.
If I'm wrong, all it means is slightly less stress during the movement phase, and me caring even less overall about the power.

Even if page 40 were ambiguous, as one option you've got an interpretation which is clear and consistent throughout the game, and consistent with the English meanings of the terms to shoot something and to hit something with a shot, and as the other an interpretation which is inconsistent, dismisses half of the first paragraph of rules titled "Shooting into & out of close combat" meaningless, and makes Jaws broken.

I'd give you that the intent is for no hits of any kind from outside CC are allowed without an exception. But the RAW don't say that.

Yes they do, unless you come up with a really strange and unintuitive meaning of "shoot" which is at odds with the English meaning. Which isn't necessary, because the shooting process isn't in conflict with the English meaning of shoot. It's completely compatible.

Mannahnin wrote:Yes they do, unless you come up with a really strange and unintuitive meaning of "shoot" which is at odds with the English meaning. Which isn't necessary, because the shooting process isn't in conflict with the English meaning of shoot. It's completely compatible.

Exactly. The English meaning of "to shoot" and the Rules meaning of "to shoot" aren't incompatible at all. ESPECIALLY when placed in the past tense, i.e. shot.

Mannahnin wrote:Yes they do, unless you come up with a really strange and unintuitive meaning of "shoot" which is at odds with the English meaning. Which isn't necessary, because the shooting process isn't in conflict with the English meaning of shoot. It's completely compatible.

Mannahnin wrote:Shoot, shots, and hit are equated throughout the shooting rules.

that's what I'm referring to.
You said they were equated throughout the shooting rules. I couldn't find one rules example of them being equated.
Did I miss one, or we're you wrong?

Feel free to PM me. I'd like to know if I missed something.

And it's not completely compatible. For the plain english definition I just have to pull a trigger and the bullet leaves the barrel. The 40k process I must pick a target, make sure I can see it, check to hit, check for wounds, check for saves, remove casualties.

I don't know about you, but I don't remove casualties when I shoot. Also, whatever I hit I shot at.
Plain English tells me that. Your assertion is that shot is different from shot at - which isnt true on plain English.
And again - you're falling back to a plain English definition of one word, calling multiple others fluff, and cherry picking how to read the sentence on page 40.

How much of a sentence has to be fluff before its ignored for a RAW discussion?

rigeld2 wrote: Also, whatever I hit I shot at.

Small nitpick, but this is not true at all.

I can shoot at you and hit a brick wall instead. So I hit the brick wall, but I shot at you.

They're equated by being used interchangeably.

You are misunderstanding what to be shot means in the rules of 40k and in English. It means to be hit/struck by a shooting attack. Which is the same thing it means in regular English.

You most certainly did not shoot at whatever you hit in regular English speech. People frequently hit things and even kill people they were not shooting at. If I shoot at one person and strike another, I have still shot that second person even though I was not shooting at them.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: Also, whatever I hit I shot at.

Small nitpick, but this is not true at all.

I can shoot at you and hit a brick wall instead. So I hit the brick wall, but I shot at you.

No, really - you intended to shoot at me, but bullets don't magically curve and hit things the gun wasn't pointed at. You didn't intend to, but you shot at the brick wall.

Or would you say that with an accidental discharge you didn't shoot at anything? Cause you did.., that sliding glass door over there is pretty sure my buddy shot at it a few years ago. (not you Unit1126PLL, you in general)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:They're equated by being used interchangeably.

But they aren't. I just read through the shooting section. Unless I missed something the only two times shot is used as a verb is fluff sentences in the cover section. Please, tell me where they're used interchangeably.

You are misunderstanding what to be shot means in the rules of 40k and in English. It means to be hit/struck by a shooting attack. Which is the same thing it means in regular English.

Shot is the past tense of to shoot.
To shoot in 40k is a process.

You most certainly did not shoot at whatever you hit in regular English speech. People frequently hit things and even kill people they were not shooting at. If I shoot at one person and strike another, I have still shot that second person even though I was not shooting at them.

Your intent was to shoot at the first person. You actually shot at the second person.

And still - how much of a sentence needs to be disregarded as fluff before its ignored?

rigeld2 wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: Also, whatever I hit I shot at.

Small nitpick, but this is not true at all.

I can shoot at you and hit a brick wall instead. So I hit the brick wall, but I shot at you.

No, really - you intended to shoot at me, but bullets don't magically curve and hit things the gun wasn't pointed at. You didn't intend to, but you shot at the brick wall.

Or would you say that with an accidental discharge you didn't shoot at anything? Cause you did.., that sliding glass door over there is pretty sure my buddy shot at it a few years ago. (not you Unit1126PLL, you in general)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:They're equated by being used interchangeably.

But they aren't. I just read through the shooting section. Unless I missed something the only two times shot is used as a verb is fluff sentences in the cover section. Please, tell me where they're used interchangeably.

You are misunderstanding what to be shot means in the rules of 40k and in English. It means to be hit/struck by a shooting attack. Which is the same thing it means in regular English.

Shot is the past tense of to shoot.
To shoot in 40k is a process.

You most certainly did not shoot at whatever you hit in regular English speech. People frequently hit things and even kill people they were not shooting at. If I shoot at one person and strike another, I have still shot that second person even though I was not shooting at them.

Your intent was to shoot at the first person. You actually shot at the second person.

And still - how much of a sentence needs to be disregarded as fluff before its ignored?

So you claim that "to shoot at" and "to shoot" are identical, while claiming that "to shoot at" is to target, because I have some bad news for you buddy:

TARGET - "something aimed or fired at" there at the end is your "to shoot at" phrasing

AIM - "to point (a camera or firearm) at a target" - there you go with target again.

Now, you're telling me that every time I aim my rifle at a target, I always hit that target without fail?

If that is true, then any soldier / hunter / shooter ever would like to have a word with you.

EDIT: In fact, I think you're being disingenuous with that claim. Be careful - disingenuity is tantamount to lying.

Unit, if you rad my long post near the top of this page, you'll see why using definitions won't work. If you use English definitions, Jaws does not meet any of the requirements to "fire" and therefore that paragraph on page 40 would not apply.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Now, you're telling me that every time I aim my rifle at a target, I always hit that target without fail?

If you were truly aimed at the target, yes you would hit every time.

Don't believe me? go to an indoor gun range, set the weapon up in a vice so it does not move, adjust for bullet drop off, and watch the bullets go in the same place every time.

If you thought you were aimed at the target, but because of wind conditions/shakey hands/forgetting to adjust for gravity you do not hit the target, then you truly were not aimed at the target like you had thought.

Because if you had been aimed at the target you would have hit the target.

Happyjew wrote:Unit, if you rad my long post near the top of this page, you'll see why using definitions won't work. If you use English definitions, Jaws does not meet any of the requirements to "fire" and therefore that paragraph on page 40 would not apply.

We're not using either the 40k or English words exclusively, but rather a blend of the two - kind of like how language usually works in a technical manual.

In the case of "fire" clearly it is not using the English definition - in fact, no use of the word "fire" in the rulebook is, because no projectiles are moving at all. In this case, there IS a conflict, in which event the 40k definition is used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Now, you're telling me that every time I aim my rifle at a target, I always hit that target without fail?

If you were truly aimed at the target, yes you would hit every time.

Don't believe me? go to an indoor gun range, set the weapon up in a vice so it does not move, adjust for bullet drop off, and watch the bullets go in the same place every time.

If you thought you were aimed at the target, but because of wind conditions/shakey hands/forgetting to adjust for gravity you do not hit the target, then you truly were not aimed at the target like you had thought.

Because if you had been aimed at the target you would have hit the target.

Actually, no, because:

The gun has moving parts, and so naturally must have tolerances. These tolerances induce unpredictability into every shot.
The gun is just slightly more worn after each shot, and this wearing induces unpredictability into each shot.
The gun is slightly warmer after each shot, and this slight expansion of the moving parts induces unpredictability into each shot.

Not even computers can put 30 rounds through a single hole on a target.

EDIT:

Hell, even fething QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS would through the shot off, not to mention manufacturing errors.

If people can't agree that people often shoot at things without hitting them, or hit things they weren't shooting at (aiming for), then this is really going nowhere.

Mann, trust me I agree whole-heartedly that you can shoot at something but either not hit it (because you are like me and only ever roll 1's To Hit), or hit something else entirely (like those large blast markers that always seem to scatter into my own guys...).

The problem is one side sees the first paragraph as rules (you cannot fire upon a unit locked in cc); where as the other side sees it as fluff, since page 16 says right off that you cannot target a unit in cc. In my opinion, the only parts of that section that are actual rules are: units in cc cannot shoot; templates and blast markers cannot be initially placed to hit models in cc; and models in cc hit by shooting attacks do not take Morale or Pinning tests.

Ok, I think this is getting a little side-tracked, so I'm going to try to bring it back on topic. Now, the rules in question are found on page 16, 40, 50 of the BRB, pg 37 of the SW codex, and pg 3 of the SW FAQ.

The rules from the BRB are:
"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." and "While blast markers and templates may not be deliberately placed such that they cover any models locked in combat, they may end up there after scattering and will hit any models they touch" - Pg. 40
- If this is a rule, you cannot simply ignore words from the rule. Unfortunately, "firing indiscriminately" vs. "firing discriminately" is never defined in the BRB or a codex, so it must be interpreted as it is written and in the plain English sense. This tells us you cannot fire indiscriminately into a close combat. It says nothing about discriminate fire. If this were the only rule, it could be argued that bolters could be fired into CC (as there is no chance of them hitting enemy models {They can only hit their target}, they are not firing indiscriminately {they might be considered "random" because of the dice roll to hit, however, that is not part of JotWW}). It also tells us you cannot place templates and blast markers over a close combat. It does not say you cannot hit models in close combat, with blast/template weapons or any weapon for that matter.

"A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locking in combat as its target..." - Pg. 16
- This tells us that you cannot target enemy units that are locked in combat to fire at. So even if your fire is completely discriminate, you cannot target a unit in combat. It does not say you cannot hit/wound models locked in combat. It also does not say you cannot "shoot" a unit in combat.

"Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon..." - Pg. 50
- This tells us that PSA's follow the normal rules for shooting.


The SW rules are:
"As a psychic shooting attack, the Rune Priest may trace a straight line along the board, starting from the RP and ending 24" away... Monstrous creatures, beasts, cavalry, bikes, and infantry models that are touched by this line..." - pg 37
This tells us how the psychic shooting attack occurs. It does not reference a target anywhere. This is fixed by the FAQ, which states: "The Rune Priest must have line of sight to the first model that the power affects – in effect he is treated as the target model; the power just happens to hit everybody else..." Thus, the only model targeted is the first model affected.

So, what do we have?
Premises:
1. You cannot target units in CC with shooting attacks.
2. You cannot fire indiscriminately into CC.
3. You cannot place a template over models in CC.
4. JotWW is a PSA, and thus it treated like a shooting attack.
5. JotWW targets the first model affected.
6. JotWW is not a template.
7. Indiscriminate means "not marked by careful distinction" or "Haphazard, random" - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indiscriminate
8. JotWW has a clearly defined area of effect and is neither random nor haphazard.

Conclusions:
9. Because of 6, ~3 (not three).
10. Because of 1, 4 and 5, the first model affected cannot be in combat.
11. Because of 4 and 8; ~7 and therefore JotWW is not "firing indiscriminately".
12. Because of 11, ~2.
13. As per 10 and ~2, JotWW can be "fired" into combat, provided it affects a model outside of combat first.

Nowhere in any of this does it forbid JotWW from hitting units locked in combat, provided you affect a model not locked in combat first (and thus do not target a model locked in combat). Is it RAI? Maybe. They do specifically say "models" and not enemy models in the JotWW power, implying you can hit friendly models. If you can hit friendlies, I see no reason you can't hit models in CC. Is it specifically allowed? Again, maybe. It is alluded to, but never specifically permitted. Does RAW say you can't? It does not actually out-right disallow it. In fact, it seems (to me) to lean in favour of allowing it to happen. Even though I don't play SW (I play Tau and CSM), I would allow it. Do I think it's ridiculous? Yes, but so is the Dreadknight.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
EDIT: In fact, I think you're being disingenuous with that claim. Be careful - disingenuity is tantamount to lying.

Again with the accusation of lying...

So my sliding glass door wasn't shot at? Then why did it shatter into a million pieces and a cop car roll up a few minutes later lights and sirens blazing?
The only thing that decides "at" is intent?

I wonder if this is a cultural usage thing - I was brought up an Army brat, was in the Army, hang out with a lot of ex-military and current police officers.

I'm not saying, never have said, and will not ever say that you only ever hit what you were intending to shoot at.
I am saying that whatever you actually hit, in the way I've always used English, is what you were shooting at. Intent has nothing to do with it.
"I'm going to shoot at you" but you point the gun at the ceiling and fire. You shot at the ceiling, not at me.

In the case of "fire" clearly it is not using the English definition - in fact, no use of the word "fire" in the rulebook is, because no projectiles are moving at all. In this case, there IS a conflict, in which event the 40k definition is used.

Okay, so even though the sentence is mostly fluff you still want to use it as rules. How much of the sentence needs to be fluff before its ignored?
Using it as rules - you're agreeing that fire is using the 40k definition. Great. Fire = shooting = shooting process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:If people can't agree that people often shoot at things without hitting them, or hit things they weren't shooting at (aiming for), then this is really going nowhere.

It's really a sidetrack. The main issue is if you treat page 40 as fluff or rules, and what definition of each word you use.
You haven't answered my two important questions:
1). How much of a sentence needs to be fluf before we treat the sentence as worthless in a rules discussion?
2). Did I miss anything during my reading of the shooting rules that shows equivalency or usage of the words interchangeably?

9 out of 32 words in the sentence could be rules.
"likewise .. To fire ... Into close combat, is not permitted."
Even then, fire = shooting = shooting process, which requires selecting a target, something Jaws doesnt do.

If people get easily sidetracked into irrelevant arguments, then this is really going nowhere.

kaisshau, I agree with you on all points except premise 2, and thus conclusions 12 and 13.

2. Indiscriminate is clearly fluff. It goes with "twisted and soulless", which is how the paragraph describes commanders who wish to shoot into HtH. In point of fact the rule on page 40 actually ONLY permits weapons which ARE haphazard or random to strike close combat, as only scattering blast weapons are permitted to do so, and are granted explicit permission to do so if and only if they scatter there. They may not be placed in such a way that they initially cover models in close combat, EVEN if they target some other unit nearby. This makes clear that "indiscriminate" must be fluff, because if you try to apply it literally it contradicts the immediately-following rules about blast marker placement.

If only "indiscriminate" firing cannot go into HtH, then the rulebook on page 40 is telling us that every other kind of shooting can. Which is obviously incorrect and absurd. It would also put it in conflict with its own following paragraph, where you are specifically forbidden from placing a template so that it covers models in HtH, despite that being non-random and exactly as precise in mechanics as Jaws. Your reading of this rule (taking "indiscriminate" to be literal rather than fluff) would put pages 16 and 40 into direct conflict, and page 40 in conflict with itself. One of the guiding principles of rules interpretation is "break no rule", where we look for the interpretation which satisfies and obeys all relevant rules. If you instead read page 40 as a set of additional restrictions and allowances specific to and provided to us in a section of rules titled "Shooting into & out of close combat", then it makes perfect sense and is entirely compatible with the targeting restriction given on page 16.

rigel2 wrote:I'm I wonder if this is a cultural usage thing - I was brought up an Army brat, was in the Army, hang out with a lot of ex-military and current police officers.

Likewise on both counts. I think that's probably a common background for wargamers.

rigel2 wrote:I'm not saying, never have said, and will not ever say that you only ever hit what you were intending to shoot at.
I am saying that whatever you actually hit, in the way I've always used English, is what you were shooting at. Intent has nothing to do with it.

Absolutely incorrect. Shooting AT something expresses what you are attempting to do. Shooting something expresses the effect achieved. I can shoot at you and hit the wall behind you instead, or in addition, to my attempt to shoot you. My intent was to shoot you, and maybe I DID shoot you- but I also shot the person or the wall behind you, whether or not that was what I was aiming at.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigel2 wrote:9 out of 32 words in the sentence could be rules.
"likewise .. To fire ... Into close combat, is not permitted."

There you go. You've got it. The fluff expresses why you may not, and that they understand and anticipate that you may want to.

rigel2 wrote:Even then, fire = shooting = shooting process,

With you so far.

rigel2 wrote:...which requires selecting a target,

Yes but irrelevant. If I target a chimera with a heavy flamer, and I shoot it in the the side armor using that heavy flamer, and I cover other enemy models at the same time, I have not targeted them but I most certainly am shooting them.

You select a target with a flamer template, with Jaws, or with a blast marker. But you choose exactly where any of the three are specifically placed, you are forbidden from including any models in close combat under them, and page 40 expresses explicitly that blast markers can in fact hit models in close combat if and only if they scatter there.

rigel2 wrote: something Jaws doesnt do.

Incorrect since it was FAQ'd. When you draw the line the first model crossesed is your target. You're still not allowed to target models you can't see, so you're not allowed to draw the line so that it first crosses a model out of LOS.

Happyjew wrote:And that is why the Vibro-cannon is able to shoot models in close combat, because there is no target. Though I do agree it is stupid that JotWW and Blood Lance don't require a To Hit roll.

But they do require a Psychic test which comes with the possibility of perils of the warp. Not as bad as that wierd door on a Necron Monolith which causes any enemy model within D6 inches to be "removed from the game". No roll to hit, no roll to wound.

Mannahnin wrote:kaisshau, I agree with you on all points except premise 2, and thus conclusions 12 and 13.

2. Indiscriminate is clearly fluff. It goes with "twisted and soulless", which is how the paragraph describes commanders who wish to shoot into HtH. In point of fact the rule on page 40 actually ONLY permits weapons which ARE haphazard or random to strike close combat, as only scattering blast weapons are permitted to do so, and are granted explicit permission to do so if and only if they scatter there. They may not be placed in such a way that they initially cover models in close combat, EVEN if they target some other unit nearby. This makes clear that "indiscriminate" must be fluff, because if you try to apply it literally it contradicts the immediately-following rules about blast marker placement.

If only "indiscriminate" firing cannot go into HtH, then the rulebook on page 40 is telling us that every other kind of shooting can. Which is obviously incorrect and absurd. It would also put it in conflict with its own following paragraph, where you are specifically forbidden from placing a template so that it covers models in HtH, despite that being non-random and exactly as precise in mechanics as Jaws. Your reading of this rule (taking "indiscriminate" to be literal rather than fluff) would put pages 16 and 40 into direct conflict, and page 40 in conflict with itself. One of the guiding principles of rules interpretation is "break no rule", where we look for the interpretation which satisfies and obeys all relevant rules. If you instead read page 40 as a set of additional restrictions and allowances specific to and provided to us in a section of rules titled "Shooting into & out of close combat", then it makes perfect sense and is entirely compatible with the targeting restriction given on page 16.

I know there is a tenant of specific overrides general, but where does it say that the rules in the book must be interpreted in order? IE, why is it wrong for a rule on Pg. 16 to restrict a rule on Pg. 40 and it must be that the rule on page 40 expands/restricts the rule on Pg. 16? The sentences themselves are all internally consistent. I tend to look at the rulebooks as a whole when interpreting them, not as a discrete set of instructions to be followed in specific order. Unless this is stated to be false somewhere, here's how I see it working, from general to specific:

No rules - All firing permissible.
Pg. 40 says no indiscriminate firing into combat (Most general, deals with all "firing") - Discriminate fire into combat is the only permissible fire into combat.
Pg. 16 says cannot target a unit into combat (More specific, deals only with targeting) - Discriminate fire that does not target a unit in combat is allowed. Templates/blasts that do not target units in combat but touch them would be permissible, under just these two.
Pg. 40 also say no blasts/templates touching combat (More specific, deals only with firing using templates) - Discriminate fire that is not a template/blast and does not target a unit in combat is allowed.
Pg. 40 then says scattered templates/blasts can touch combat (More specific, it a permissive rule rather than a restrictive rule - mentions something specifically allowed, rather than restricting, which leaves all that is not restricted as permissible) - Discriminate fire that is not a template/blast and does not target a unit in combat is allowed; templates/blasts can scatter into combat, only "indiscriminate" fire allowed into combat.

I do not see how this is ever "in direct conflict". You don't have one rule saying All infantry move 6" and another one saying All infantry move 16'. You have one saying infantry move 6". A subset of this group (Jump Infantry) move 12". While these rules are in conflict, they are not in direct conflict, and we apply the principle of specific supersedes general to get "Infantry move 6", except Jump Infantry who move 12"". I admit this never says firing into combat is allowed, but again, by RAW, it is never specifically forbidden.

Mannahnin wrote:

rigel2 wrote:I'm I wonder if this is a cultural usage thing - I was brought up an Army brat, was in the Army, hang out with a lot of ex-military and current police officers.

Likewise on both counts. I think that's probably a common background for wargamers.

I'm sure it is - just trying to figure out the disconnect.

rigel2 wrote:I'm not saying, never have said, and will not ever say that you only ever hit what you were intending to shoot at.
I am saying that whatever you actually hit, in the way I've always used English, is what you were shooting at. Intent has nothing to do with it.

Absolutely incorrect. Shooting AT something expresses what you are attempting to do. Shooting something expresses the effect achieved. I can shoot at you and hit the wall behind you instead, or in addition, to my attempt to shoot you. My intent was to shoot you, and maybe I DID shoot you- but I also shot the person or the wall behind you, whether or not that was what I was aiming at.

The way I was brought up to understand is that anything in front of the barrel is shot at. Like I said, evidently cultural issues. Apologies for any misunderstanding.

rigel2 wrote:9 out of 32 words in the sentence could be rules.
"likewise .. To fire ... Into close combat, is not permitted."

There you go. You've got it. The fluff expresses why you may not, and that they understand and anticipate that you may want to.

So it's cool to ignore almost 75% of a sentence and still use it as rules?

rigel2 wrote:...which requires selecting a target,

Yes but irrelevant. If I target a chimera with a heavy flamer, and I shoot it in the the side armor using that heavy flamer, and I cover other enemy models at the same time, I have not targeted them but I most certainly am shooting them.

The template rules say you hit them, not that you're shooting them. Shooting would require targeting and rolling to hit (although with a template you'd auto-hit).

You select a target with a flamer template, with Jaws, or with a blast marker. But you choose exactly where any of the three are specifically placed, you are forbidden from including any models in close combat under them, and page 40 expresses explicitly that blast markers can in fact hit models in close combat if and only if they scatter there.

Technically with Jaws, you place the line and then have a target - since the FAQ says that the first model touched is the target.

rigel2 wrote: something Jaws doesnt do.

Incorrect since it was FAQ'd. When you draw the line the first model crossesed is your target. You're still not allowed to target models you can't see, so you're not allowed to draw the line so that it first crosses a model out of LOS.

Sorry, I should've said "something Jaws doesn't do after the first model."

This hasn't been about hitting CC as the first model and hence targeting them. It's about the fact that Jaws explicitly doesn't target anything after the first model, so you get a legal target between you and the CC you want to snipe out of and power away.

You agreed that the "fire" in the sentence on page 40 is referencing the shooting rules. The shooting rules deny targeting of a CC and that's it. The blast marker rules support that - the only way to wound models in a CC with a blast is to scatter there - which hits rather than shoots.

Since Jaws does not target any model after the first, it can shoot into a CC.

Here's something...

Can you pre-measure range when shooting? No?

Then how can you say that I'm "intentionally" drawing a line so that it hits models in CC?

I say, "I want to shoot that model, the one that's not in close combat."

Next you make your psychic test.

Then, (and only then) you draw the line straight from the rune priest to the target model and beyond to a range of 24".
NOW everything on that line is affected.

The problem I see is that, people are drawing the line BEFORE they declare the target so as to make sure that they hit that big guy in CC that they really want to kill. This is NOT legal. You have to draw the line after you select the target and make your psychic test.

The intent is automatic, not by chance.

If the range was random, then you could accidentally get into melee. It's not random and it doesn't scatter.

If the FAQ didn't state you "Target" a model, there might be more room for the "It works in melee" party.

Consider this: a template targets lone guy in front of a melee, but not matter what the template will fire into melee. The template may not fire.

Furthermore, since this damn thread is starting to look like the defunct USA congress and senate, I'm going to point out that no were in the rulebook do line weapons exist. At all. I'll simply argue you can't use the damn thing.

juraigamer wrote:Consider this: a template targets lone guy in front of a melee, but not matter what the template will fire into melee. The template may not fire.

Templates are explicitly forbidden from hitting a model in CC.

Furthermore, since this damn thread is starting to look like the defunct USA congress and senate, I'm going to point out that no were in the rulebook do line weapons exist. At all. I'll simply argue you can't use the damn thing.

The entirety of how to handle the PSA is in the rules for Jaws. The rules for a line weapon don't have to exist in the BRB, the Codex provides everything.

rigeld2 wrote:
The entirety of how to handle the PSA is in the rules for Jaws. The rules for a line weapon don't have to exist in the BRB, the Codex provides everything.

Quite true sir, the codex provides all the rules you need to use the power beyond the standard rules for the game.

Which means, that since the rulebook states you cannot deliberately shoot into a melee, and the rules for jaws do not give you permission, nor does the FAQ, you cannot have it fire into melee in any respect.

Check. Your move?

juraigamer wrote: that since the rulebook states you cannot deliberately shoot into a melee

This (or specifically, the definition of "shoot") is the crux of the disagreement, you're right back into the same circular argument, no value added.

Seriously, you guys aren't going to settle this one.

rigeld2 wrote:

juraigamer wrote:Consider this: a template targets lone guy in front of a melee, but not matter what the template will fire into melee. The template may not fire.

Templates are explicitly forbidden from hitting a model in CC.

Furthermore, since this damn thread is starting to look like the defunct USA congress and senate, I'm going to point out that no were in the rulebook do line weapons exist. At all. I'll simply argue you can't use the damn thing.

The entirety of how to handle the PSA is in the rules for Jaws. The rules for a line weapon don't have to exist in the BRB, the Codex provides everything.

Where does it say that JotWW is a template weapon? It doesn't.

This question has been raised, beaten w/ a stick, shot in the head, dumped in the river & done all over again.

As has been stated several times throughout this thread & the one thing to remember is that this is a Psychic SHOOTING attack. Therefore, the actual target cannot be in CC as the specific rules for shooting come right out & say that you CANNOT target a model in CC. There is no SW FAQ that alters this rule in anyway, so therefore the targeting of the Carnifex in CC by the RP was not a legal move.

~Vryce

juraigamer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The entirety of how to handle the PSA is in the rules for Jaws. The rules for a line weapon don't have to exist in the BRB, the Codex provides everything.

Quite true sir, the codex provides all the rules you need to use the power beyond the standard rules for the game.

Which means, that since the rulebook states you cannot deliberately shoot into a melee, and the rules for jaws do not give you permission, nor does the FAQ, you cannot have it fire into melee in any respect.

Check. Your move?

That's not what the rule book says. Nice try though.
The rule book says that firing into close combat is forbidden.
Firing in 40k means to follow the shooting process.
The shooting process says you're not allowed to target a unit in close combat.
Jaws explicitly does not target any model after the first one.
Therefore as long as Jaws has a valid target on the line before the close combat, it touches models in the close combat, and those models must test.

It's like you didn't even read the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vryce wrote:This question has been raised, beaten w/ a stick, shot in the head, dumped in the river & done all over again.

As has been stated several times throughout this thread & the one thing to remember is that this is a Psychic SHOOTING attack. Therefore, the actual target cannot be in CC as the specific rules for shooting come right out & say that you CANNOT target a model in CC. There is no SW FAQ that alters this rule in anyway, so therefore the targeting of the Carnifex in CC by the RP was not a legal move.

~Vryce

As long as he targets a model outside CC, it can hit a model in CC. The original scenario put forth by the OP is illegal, but similar things could happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grugknuckle wrote:Where does it say that JotWW is a template weapon? It doesn't.

I never said it does?
I was responding to someone positing a similarity between templates and Jaws. Not saying that Jaws is a template.

rigeld2 wrote:

juraigamer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The entirety of how to handle the PSA is in the rules for Jaws. The rules for a line weapon don't have to exist in the BRB, the Codex provides everything.

Quite true sir, the codex provides all the rules you need to use the power beyond the standard rules for the game.

Which means, that since the rulebook states you cannot deliberately shoot into a melee, and the rules for jaws do not give you permission, nor does the FAQ, you cannot have it fire into melee in any respect.

Check. Your move?

That's not what the rule book says. Nice try though.
The rule book says that firing into close combat is forbidden.
Firing in 40k means to follow the shooting process.
The shooting process says you're not allowed to target a unit in close combat.
Jaws explicitly does not target any model after the first one.
Therefore as long as Jaws has a valid target on the line before the close combat, it touches models in the close combat, and those models must test.

It's like you didn't even read the thread.

The rulebook states you may not deliberately fire into close combat. You may scatter into close combat, that is the only way.

As such, since jaws doesn't have any randomness to it, nor a rule stating it may fire into close combat, it may not fire in a way that hits something in close combat.

I've read the thread, the SW rulebook, the SW FAQ, the INAT FAQ, the BRB and the BRB FAQ. Twice.

The rulebook says it can't happen, the SW stuff doesn't give you permission to, and the INAT says it cannot happen.

Therefore, since you are missing key details and haven't made another move, checkmate.

And with that, I bid you and this thread good day, until 6th edition.

juraigamer wrote:
The rulebook states you may not deliberately fire into close combat. You may scatter into close combat, that is the only way.

As such, since jaws doesn't have any randomness to it, nor a rule stating it may fire into close combat, it may not fire in a way that hits something in close combat.

I've read the thread, the SW rulebook, the SW FAQ, the INAT FAQ, the BRB and the BRB FAQ. Twice.

The rulebook says it can't happen, the SW stuff doesn't give you permission to, and the INAT says it cannot happen.

Therefore, since you are missing key details and haven't made another move, checkmate.

And with that, I bid you and this thread good day, until 6th edition.

Except that Jaws is firing randomly, because you target a model, then place the line. you are not allowed to premeasure this line so if you target a model, and the line happens to cross into CC then those models are hit. you can not premeasure and deliberately hit models in CC because you can not premeasure

That is what you are missing.

Checkmate indeed.

DeathReaper wrote:

juraigamer wrote:
The rulebook states you may not deliberately fire into close combat. You may scatter into close combat, that is the only way.

As such, since jaws doesn't have any randomness to it, nor a rule stating it may fire into close combat, it may not fire in a way that hits something in close combat.

I've read the thread, the SW rulebook, the SW FAQ, the INAT FAQ, the BRB and the BRB FAQ. Twice.

The rulebook says it can't happen, the SW stuff doesn't give you permission to, and the INAT says it cannot happen.

Therefore, since you are missing key details and haven't made another move, checkmate.

And with that, I bid you and this thread good day, until 6th edition.

Except that Jaws is firing randomly, because you target a model, then place the line. you are not allowed to premeasure this line so if you target a model, and the line happens to cross into CC then those models are hit. you can not premeasure and deliberately hit models in CC because you can not premeasure

That is what you are missing.

Checkmate indeed.

However, if in 40k you make an illegal action (such as moving too far when forgetting to DT test) then you are permitted to, depending on opponents consent:
1) Redo the action
2) Not do the action at all.

Checkmate indeed.

juraigamer wrote:Therefore, since you are missing key details and haven't made another move, checkmate.

DeathReaper wrote:Checkmate indeed.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Checkmate indeed.

You guys seem to be mistaken. This is not a checkmate but a stalemate.

DeathReaper wrote:
Except that Jaws is firing randomly, because you target a model, then place the line. you are not allowed to premeasure this line so if you target a model, and the line happens to cross into CC then those models are hit. you can not premeasure and deliberately hit models in CC because you can not premeasure

That is what you are missing.

Checkmate indeed.

Wouldn't that situation be the same as declaring a shot with a flamer, laying the template down on the target unit, and discovering that there is nowhere to place the template that doesn't cover a friendly model or a nearby close combat? It would become an illegal shot. It's not random, it is a just risky target choice.

Unit1126PLL wrote:However, if in 40k you make an illegal action (such as moving too far when forgetting to DT test) then you are permitted to, depending on opponents consent:
1) Redo the action
2) Not do the action at all.

Checkmate indeed.

Citation needed. Not that it matters because:
It is not an illegal action.

as you are not firing (Using the shooting rules which need a target) on a unit in CC. You are firing on the first model you hit, anything else is incidental damage.

zeshin wrote:Wouldn't that situation be the same as declaring a shot with a flamer, laying the template down on the target unit, and discovering that there is nowhere to place the template that doesn't cover a friendly model or a nearby close combat? It would become an illegal shot. It's not random, it is a just risky target choice.

No, as the template rules specifically restrict you from hitting a unit in CC. Jaws does not.

why would jaws need anything that restricts it from hitting a unit in CC?

Shooting into CC is already restricted.

What jaws lacks, is permission to affect models in CC... something several other abilities that may affect CC DO have.

BarBoBot wrote:Shooting into CC is already restricted.

Twelve pages says this is debatable. Which pretty much makes the rest of your post specious.

I don't care how it comes out, and am pretty sure it's NOT going to come out, but keep the logic clean. Don't assume the conclusion you're trying to prove as part of your argument.

BarBoBot wrote:why would jaws need anything that restricts it from hitting a unit in CC?

Shooting into CC is already restricted.

Because shooting in 40K = using the well defined shooting rules, which is a process which includes selecting a target.

Jaws only targets the first model in its path, everything else is incidental and thus you can hit things in CC if you do not target any model in CC.

Deathreaper wrote:Because shooting in 40K = using the well defined shooting rules, which is a process which includes selecting a target.

There are shooting attacks which ignore one or some of those steps. The process is not an exclusive list, or a definition.

kaisshau wrote:I know there is a tenet of specific overrides general, but where does it say that the rules in the book must be interpreted in order? IE, why is it wrong for a rule on Pg. 16 to restrict a rule on Pg. 40 and it must be that the rule on page 40 expands/restricts the rule on Pg. 16? The sentences themselves are all internally consistent. I tend to look at the rulebooks as a whole when interpreting them, not as a discrete set of instructions to be followed in specific order.

Certainly. It's not about page order, it's just the usual hierarchy of a more specific rule takes precendence over and/or expands on a general rule.

In this case you have general rules for shooting, including a firing process on page 15. Elsewhere in the rules, you have expansions on this which go into more detail, often covering specific situations with additional detail. For example, the shooting process on page 15 tells us that shooting (in general) has 6 steps:
1. Check LOS and pick a target.
2. Check range.
3. Roll to hit.
4. Roll to wound.
5. Take saving throws.
6. Remove casualties.

Now, this is obviously the generic version of the process, and several parts of it can be overridden and don't apply to all shooting attacks. For example, a Vibrocannon is a shooting attack, but does not pick a target or need LOS. An Orbital Barrage is a shooting attack, but does not check range. Jaws of the World Wolf is a shooting attack, but does not roll to hit. Lash of Submission is a shooting attack, but does not roll to wound, and thus does not allow saves, nor does it usually cause casualties. So you can see right there examples of shooting attacks which ignore one or more of literally every one of the steps of the shooting process.

This makes very clear that not all shooting follows all steps of the shooting process, and that the shooting process itself is not an exhaustive and exclusive definition of what constitutes shooting. In fact what defines shooting is in many case just the rule itself SAYING that it's shooting. If a rule tells us that it's a shooting attack, it's a shooting attack, whether it obeys all or none of those six steps above.

kaisshau wrote:No rules - All firing permissible.]

Well, with no rules at all, no firing is possible, of course.

kaisshau wrote:Pg. 40 says no indiscriminate firing into combat (Most general, deals with all "firing") - Discriminate fire into combat is the only permissible fire into combat.

This is where you're immediately tripped up.

By reading this literally, as opposed to as fluff, you create a conflict between that sentence and the very next paragraph on page 40, regarding placement of blasts and templates. Templates are not, in a mechanical sense, at all indiscriminate. They are exactly as precise and discriminating as the line from Jaws. We can precision-place either one, and there is no randomness at all about which models they touch. Yet templates are forbidden from being placed over models in combat.

This makes obvious that the word indiscriminate was meant purely as fluff. In real life, and in the story setting of the game, a flamethrower is in fact indiscriminate, and if you hosed a melee down with burning petroleum, you would burn your friends as readily as your enemies. This is the rationalization for why your troops would not fire it in combat, despite the mechanics being such that without the prohibition, you the player could easily do so with no risk.

kaisshau wrote:Pg. 16 says cannot target a unit into combat (More specific, deals only with targeting)

Page 16 is describing a general firing process. If there was a conflict regarding targeting, it might take precedence. In this case there is no conflict.

Page 40 instead expands on this rule, which is its natural role, as it is the section of the rules devoted to and titled "SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT". It is clearly labeled and designed to cover a specific subject in more advanced detail. It tells us several things, the first and broadest of which is that we are never allowed to fire into close combat. This is important and complementary to the rules on page 15 and 16, because as already demonstrated, there are many shooting attacks in the rules which do not obey all the normal rules for a shooting attack given in the shooting sequence. Importantly, some shooting attacks are capable of affecting multiple units, including ones they did not target. One of the three paragraphs of the "SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT" is devoted to making clear how to handle the two most common such shooting attacks- templates and blasts, and making clear that you may not use them to deliberately cover/shoot/affect models in close combat, which is a prohibition independent of and more restrictive than the simple prohibition on targeting given on page 16.

Mannahnin wrote:

Deathreaper wrote:Because shooting in 40K = using the well defined shooting rules, which is a process which includes selecting a target.

There are shooting attacks which ignore one or some of those steps. The process is not an exclusive list, or a definition.

Yes, and those have specific exceptions.

Without a specific exception we must follow the base rules.

This reminds me of the DoomFist argument back in 4th edition.

DeathReaper wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Deathreaper wrote:Because shooting in 40K = using the well defined shooting rules, which is a process which includes selecting a target.

There are shooting attacks which ignore one or some of those steps. The process is not an exclusive list, or a definition.

Yes, and those have specific exceptions.

Without a specific exception we must follow the base rules.

And Jaw's hitting models without targeting them is an exception to the base rules.

Unless you're going to claim that you can hit a model without targeting it within the base rules?

EDIT:
Do you even hit specific models within the base rules, or just units?

DeathReaper wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Deathreaper wrote:Because shooting in 40K = using the well defined shooting rules, which is a process which includes selecting a target.

There are shooting attacks which ignore one or some of those steps. The process is not an exclusive list, or a definition.

Yes, and those have specific exceptions.

Without a specific exception we must follow the base rules.

Sometimes those exceptions are implicit, rather than explicit. Lash doesn't say "this does not roll to wound", it just doesn't.

The base rules for "SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT" are that you may never shoot into close combat, and they detail that even with a template, you may not place it so as to cover models in close combat, which is a restriction above and beyond the simple targeting restriction on page 16. The paragraph about template and blast weapons is an example of how you apply the blanket prohibition on shooting into close combat on attacks which can hit units other than just the one targeted. It is illustrative and creates a clear and simple precedent for how to handle Jaws.

Mannahnin wrote:

kaisshau wrote:Pg. 40 says no indiscriminate firing into combat (Most general, deals with all "firing") - Discriminate fire into combat is the only permissible fire into combat.

This is where you're immediately tripped up.

By reading this literally, as opposed to as fluff, you create a conflict between that sentence and the very next paragraph on page 40, regarding placement of blasts and templates. Templates are not, in a mechanical sense, at all indiscriminate. They are exactly as precise and discriminating as the line from Jaws. We can precision-place either one, and there is no randomness at all about which models they touch. Yet templates are forbidden from being placed over models in combat.

I can either read it entirely literally, ignore it all as fluff, or choose bits and pieces based on my whim (which could never be the basis of a RAW argument). Let's reproduce the rule: ""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." To cut it up and interpret it your way, it must be read at saying "Likewise, players may try to have their units to fire into close combats, this is not permitted." It requires cutting just about half the sentence, and changing/adding a few words. That is not the rule as written. The rule applies to commanders, wishing their warriors to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combats, hoping to hit the enemy.

Mannahnin wrote:

kaisshau wrote:Pg. 16 says cannot target a unit into combat (More specific, deals only with targeting)

Page 16 is describing a general firing process. If there was a conflict regarding targeting, it might take precedence. In this case there is no conflict.

Here you reference a "conflict", saying that it would result in one rule taking precedence over the other, and this is fine. But somehow it being on the same page makes this "conflict" impossible?

Mannahnin wrote:
Page 40 instead expands on this rule, which is its natural role, as it is the section of the rules devoted to and titled "SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT". It is clearly labeled and designed to cover a specific subject in more advanced detail. It tells us several things, the first and broadest of which is that we are never allowed to fire into close combat.

No, the rule says that commanders cannot wish their warriors to fire indiscriminately into close combat. That is the RAW. What does this mean? A completely logical interpretation is that you may not fire anything that has a randomized element, which means anything that has a roll cannot be used (to-hit, psychic test, scatter). Or, it could be that anything that can miss the enemy/target (and could thus be described as haphazard) cannot be fired into combat (everything but some psychic attacks and templates/blasts which don't scatter). These are both possible logical interpretations, but this is RAI, not RAW.

Mannahnin wrote:
This is important and complementary to the rules on page 15 and 16, because as already demonstrated, there are many shooting attacks in the rules which do not obey all the normal rules for a shooting attack given in the shooting sequence. Importantly, some shooting attacks are capable of affecting multiple units, including ones they did not target. One of the three paragraphs of the "SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT" is devoted to making clear how to handle the two most common such shooting attacks- templates and blasts, and making clear that you may not use them to deliberately cover/shoot/affect models in close combat, which is a prohibition independent of and more restrictive than the simple prohibition on targeting given on page 16.

Yes. Which is why you cannot place blasts/templates that don't scatter over combat, as they are specifically ruled out. Templates that could scatter are already out because they are indiscriminate. The rules say nothing about non-template attacks that cannot miss (and are thus discriminate) and do not target a unit in close combat. What is JotWW? A non-template attack that cannot miss. Thus, the rules on Pg. 40 do not affect it.

kaisshau wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

kaisshau wrote:Pg. 40 says no indiscriminate firing into combat (Most general, deals with all "firing") - Discriminate fire into combat is the only permissible fire into combat.

This is where you're immediately tripped up.

By reading this literally, as opposed to as fluff, you create a conflict between that sentence and the very next paragraph on page 40, regarding placement of blasts and templates. Templates are not, in a mechanical sense, at all indiscriminate. They are exactly as precise and discriminating as the line from Jaws. We can precision-place either one, and there is no randomness at all about which models they touch. Yet templates are forbidden from being placed over models in combat.

I can either read it entirely literally, ignore it all as fluff, or choose bits and pieces based on my whim (which could never be the basis of a RAW argument). Let's reproduce the rule: ""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." To cut it up and interpret it your way, it must be read at saying "Likewise, players may try to have their units to fire into close combats, this is not permitted." It requires cutting just about half the sentence, and changing/adding a few words. That is not the rule as written. The rule applies to commanders, wishing their warriors to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combats, hoping to hit the enemy.

Game rules do not apply to fictional soulless commanders ordering their fictional soldiers to shoot indiscriminate weapons. I content that which parts are fluff is obvious to any reader who is not easter-egg hunting. It is a simple and blanket prohibition on using any shooting attack on a unit in close combat.

kaisshau wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

kaisshau wrote:Pg. 16 says cannot target a unit into combat (More specific, deals only with targeting)

Page 16 is describing a general firing process. If there was a conflict regarding targeting, it might take precedence. In this case there is no conflict.

Here you reference a "conflict", saying that it would result in one rule taking precedence over the other, and this is fine. But somehow it being on the same page makes this "conflict" impossible?

It doesn't make it impossible. It makes it extremely implausible. The sentences next each other are obviously meant to work together. If the way you are interpreting them causes them to instead clash, taking the phrase "indiscriminate" as being a rules statement, which is is obviously not because it's completely contrary to what the next paragraph says about template weapons, then it would seem extremely likely that your interpretation is erroneous. Break no rule here goes hand in hand with Occam's Razor.

kaisshau wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Page 40 instead expands on this rule, which is its natural role, as it is the section of the rules devoted to and titled "SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT". It is clearly labeled and designed to cover a specific subject in more advanced detail. It tells us several things, the first and broadest of which is that we are never allowed to fire into close combat.

No, the rule says that commanders cannot wish their warriors to fire indiscriminately into close combat. That is the RAW. What does this mean? A completely logical interpretation is that you may not fire anything that has a randomized element, which means anything that has a roll cannot be used (to-hit, psychic test, scatter). Or, it could be that anything that can miss the enemy/target (and could thus be described as haphazard) cannot be fired into combat (everything but some psychic attacks and templates/blasts which don't scatter). These are both possible logical interpretations, but this is RAI, not RAW.

Firing indiscriminately has no real relation to the rules, because the rules themselves don't really have such an option. It can only be fluff, because no rule in this game defines any procedure by which a unit could fire indiscriminately. People have speculated that perhaps it could possibly mean shooting with a randomized element, but if you go down that path it leads directly to paradox. Because if taken literally paragraph one, as you've said, forbids firing indiscriminately but not firing discriminately. Which leads to the absurd conclusion that templates and bolters can be fired right into HtH, but things which scatter cannot. But paragraph two says exactly the oppositie. In fact it says that precision-placed templates CANNOT, and only blast markers which randomly scatter there CAN. So if you try to find a way to make "indiscriminately" work as a mechanical reference, it causes two immediately-successive paragraphs to say directly opposed things.

kaisshau wrote:[

Mannahnin wrote:This is important and complementary to the rules on page 15 and 16, because as already demonstrated, there are many shooting attacks in the rules which do not obey all the normal rules for a shooting attack given in the shooting sequence. Importantly, some shooting attacks are capable of affecting multiple units, including ones they did not target. One of the three paragraphs of the "SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT" is devoted to making clear how to handle the two most common such shooting attacks- templates and blasts, and making clear that you may not use them to deliberately cover/shoot/affect models in close combat, which is a prohibition independent of and more restrictive than the simple prohibition on targeting given on page 16.

Yes. Which is why you cannot place blasts/templates that don't scatter over combat, as they are specifically ruled out. Templates that could scatter are already out because they are indiscriminate. The rules say nothing about non-template attacks that cannot miss (and are thus discriminate) and do not target a unit in close combat. What is JotWW? A non-template attack that cannot miss. Thus, the rules on Pg. 40 do not affect it.

The rules on page 40 titled "SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT" forbid all deliberate shooting into close combat, and allow only blast weapons which randomly scatter there. Jaws is a shooting attack, and lacks a rule stating that it can affect close combat (like Nurgle's Rot has), and thus is cannot be used on models in HtH.

rigeld2 wrote:This hasn't been about hitting CC as the first model and hence targeting them. It's about the fact that Jaws explicitly doesn't target anything after the first model, so you get a legal target between you and the CC you want to snipe out of and power away.

You agreed that the "fire" in the sentence on page 40 is referencing the shooting rules. The shooting rules deny targeting of a CC and that's it. The blast marker rules support that - the only way to wound models in a CC with a blast is to scatter there - which hits rather than shoots.

Since Jaws does not target any model after the first, it can shoot into a CC.

Just sayin. I haven't seen a valid response to this.

The rules on page 40 titled "SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT" forbid all deliberate shooting into close combat, and allow only blast weapons which randomly scatter there. Jaws is a shooting attack, and lacks a rule stating that it can affect close combat (like Nurgle's Rot has), and thus is cannot be used on models in HtH.

You can't use Jaws on a unit in close combat any more than you can use a heavy flamer on one by targeting another unit on the other side of the combat. Page 40 doesn't care what your target is. Just that you're using a shooting attack.

Mannahnin wrote:The rules on page 40 titled "SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT" forbid all deliberate shooting into close combat, and allow only blast weapons which randomly scatter there. Jaws is a shooting attack, and lacks a rule stating that it can affect close combat (like Nurgle's Rot has), and thus is cannot be used on models in HtH.

You can't use Jaws on a unit in close combat any more than you can use a heavy flamer on one by targeting another unit on the other side of the combat. Page 40 doesn't care what your target is. Just that you're using a shooting attack.

So you're going back on agreeing that "fire" on page 40 is referencing the shooting rules?
Because that's the only real rule in that sentence.

What? There are two rules in the first paragraph. The second one is gussied-up a bit with a fluff rationale, but they are two very simple and comprehensive rules.

1. If you're engaged in HtH, you can't shoot at all.
2. You can't shoot any unit engaged in HtH.

The second paragraph makes clear that templates and blast markers (even thought they might be targeting something else) still can't be placed so as to cover models in close combat, but blast markers can scatter there and will cause damage to anyone covered if they do.

The third says that if you're in close combat you don't have to take morale or pinning tests from shooting.

Each paragraph logically builds on and from the one before it. They're quite simple, unless you have a problem with a fluff rationale being included in a rule, in which case this is not a good game system for you.

And how do you shoot at something?

You use the shooting rules on P.16.

You check LoS, and pick your target.

The target of JotWW can not be in CC.

Mannahnin wrote:What? There are two rules in the first paragraph. The second one is gussied-up a bit with a fluff rationale, but they are two very simple and comprehensive rules.

1. If you're engaged in HtH, you can't shoot at all.
2. You can't shoot any unit engaged in HtH.

The second paragraph makes clear that templates and blast markers (even thought they might be targeting something else) still can't be placed so as to cover models in close combat, but blast markers can scatter there and will cause damage to anyone covered if they do.

The third says that if you're in close combat you don't have to take morale or pinning tests from shooting.

Each paragraph logically builds on and from the one before it. They're quite simple, unless you have a problem with a fluff rationale being included in a rule, in which case this is not a good game system for you.

Could you evade the question more?

You agreed that the word fire in the"indiscriminate" sentence is referring to the shooting rules.
The same shooting rules that require selecting a target.
If you're not selecting a target, you're not shooting (or firing) into a close combat by the 40k rules.
Jaws explicitly does not target anything after the first model.

Jaws is neither a template not a blast weapon, so restrictions on those weapon types are irrelevant.
Line weapons existed when the 5th Ed BRB was written. To lump them in with blasts and templates just because doesn't make sense.

If you're using a shooting weapon or shooting attack you are shooting. Not all shooting attacks select targets (see Vibrocannon). In fact literally every one of the six points of the shooting process is ignored or disregarded by one or more different shooting attacks which exist in this game. If you are claiming that things which do not confirm to the six step shooting process are not shooting, then you are claiming that Jaws, Vibrocannon, and Lash are all not shooting attacks. Which they all explictly are.

If your shooting attack is affecting a model in close combat you are shooting into close combat. It's really just that simple and intuitive.

Mannahnin wrote:If you're using a shooting weapon or shooting attack you are shooting. Not all shooting attacks select targets (see Vibrocannon). In fact literally every one of the six points of the shooting process is ignored or disregarded by one or more different shooting attacks which exist in this game. If you are claiming that things which do not confirm to the six step shooting process are not shooting, then you are claiming that Jaws, Vibrocannon, and Lash are all not shooting attacks. Which they all explictly are.

If your shooting attack is affecting a model in close combat you are shooting into close combat. It's really just that simple and intuitive.

That's not what I'm claiming.
Jaws is definitely a shooting attack.
Models after the first are not targeted.
The rules prohibit targeting a unit in CC.
Remember, as you still haven't come forward with any rule that actually shows equivalence between hit and shot, they aren't equivalent. I've asked for such a rule, and despite being assured that they were used interchangeably throughout the shooting rules, I can't find a single example of such a thing.
Jaws doesn't even cause hits - it just draws a line and forces a test on models touching the line.

You're reading more into the word "fire" than the rules allow. Fire means the shooting process. The shooting process says on page 16 that you cannot target a unit in CC.

For someone who hates redundant rules, you're trying really hard to show that the prohibition on page 16 isn't just redundant - its irrelevant.

Page 15 and 16 discuss picking out a target. Right up front they tell you that you can't pick a unit in HtH. Later in the rules, in a section specifically devoted to it, they go into greater detail and expand on that.

Steps 3 & 4 on page 15 tell us the default most basic procedure to determine of a shot hits, and what to do if a shot hits.

Been busy so not been able to check on the amusing path this thread has taken nor been able to fully sit down and get back into the mix.

As per the course of a RAW argument, this one has taken the predictable course of redefining the World of Warhammer 40k definitions to make an argument work to what is now the fluff versus rules debate. Addressing the page 40 nonsense first:

Page 40, BRB: 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.

Semantics aside over what is fluff and what is rules, you only need to look at the damn title as to see what you are talking about and where you need to look for reference in the BRB. Small hint, SHOOTING into & out of close combat. You can try and argue exactly what "fire indiscriminately" means, but the very title references the World of Warhammer 40k defined rule of shooting. Considering the reference of the above page 40 entry, the only conclusion that can be drawn from it is that it only reinforces that which is already present in the rules for shooting on page 15/16 of the BRB as well as clarifying specific situations that occur in regard to template and blast weapons. Therefore it is old news that,

You cannot shoot into close combat.

However, page 40 is referencing a defined process in the World of Warhammer 40k, shooting. If everyone would turn their books to page 15, "THE SHOOTING SEQUENCE" is a defined process. This is of course the default general rules for shooting of which PSA are to follow unless a codex exception to the general rules for shooting a psychic power exists. However, it is this shooting sequence that page 40 is reinforcing;

Page 15, BRB: DISALLOWED SHOOTING:

Certain situations prevent a unit from firing. The most common are;

Units that are locking in close combat with a foe.

......

And then you find on on the following page of the BRB;

Page 18, BRB: CHECK LINE OF SIGHT & PICK A TARGET:

A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in close combat as its target, and many not split its fire among different targets.....

You must note that in both instances above the word "fire" or "firing" have been used in describing actions taken during the shooting sequence which ties it intrinsically to the page 40 entry of, "to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combat." Therefore, "to fire indiscriminately" into close combat specifically means that you are prohibited as per the rules as described on page 15 and 16 of the BRB; being disallowed from shooting if locked in close combat and from choosing a single enemy unit locked in combat as its target.

Summary of page 40 nonsense;

Page 40 only reinforces that firing into close combat is prohibited as already defined by the shooting rules on page 16 of which it clearly states, "A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that it not locked in combat as its target...".

How this then applies to JotWW when the power targets a model outside of close combat and the line then runs through models in close combat is simple reading comprehension;

Did JotWW choose a single enemy unit that was not locked in combat as its target?

Yes, and therefore per the defined rules of page 16 and page 40 it did not "fire" into close combat.

The second issue that has come up in the last page or two now addresses where does JotWW get permission to hit models in close combat with the example given of other types of shooting attacks (scattering templates) as well as other psychic shooting attacks (Nurgle's Rot) that give explicit permission.

Now I originally quoted the SW FAQ wrong to which JWolf was happy to jump on however he then obviously decided that the actual wording was just as devastating to his argument as my mistake. The FAQ entry is as follows;

SW FAQ VERSION 1.2, JANUARY 2012:

Q. Does Jaws of the World Wolf require line of sight?
Does it ignore terrain that blocks line of sight (i.e.,
impassable terrain)? (p37)
A. As a psychic shooting attack, Jaws of the World Wolf
requires line of sight. The Rune Priest must have line of
sight to the first model that the power affects – in
effect he is treated as the target model; the power just
happens to hit everybody else on its way through!

Embolden part by myself as this is specific in who else, OTHER then the target model can be affected by the power. If you missed it, it says,

EVERYBODY ELSE!

Now my initial post regarding this was using the word "any", however the word "everybody" is just as applicable to include every eligible unit type the line touches after the initial target model is affected, will be affected. So to those asking for the permissive rule that allows the power to affect units in close combat behind the initial unengaged target model; they would be included in, "the power just happens to hit everybody else on its way through!"

zeshin wrote:Wouldn't that situation be the same as declaring a shot with a flamer, laying the template down on the target unit, and discovering that there is nowhere to place the template that doesn't cover a friendly model or a nearby close combat? It would become an illegal shot. It's not random, it is a just risky target choice.

The similarity between JotWW and the flamer template (and how the flamer template is resolved) as presented by Yakface is essentially what convinced me. The flame template is the closest analogy to JotWW and seems to set a precedent, in my opinion.

And the Vibro Cannon (and how the Vibro Cannon is resolved) is even more similar than a template.
In fact, under the template rules, it specifically says that they are indiscriminate weapons. On page 40, it says they can hit models in cc, it just cannot initially be placed to do so, but must scatter into them.

Mannahnin wrote:Page 15 and 16 discuss picking out a target. Right up front they tell you that you can't pick a unit in HtH. Later in the rules, in a section specifically devoted to it, they go into greater detail and expand on that.

What expansion? The only extra rules they give are for templates and blasts. Everything else refers to the rules on page 15, 16, etc. Is JotWW a template or blast?
You'd think that the rules on targeting would be on the section specifically devoted to, I don't know... shooting and targeting?

Steps 3 & 4 on page 15 tell us the default most basic procedure to determine of a shot hits, and what to do if a shot hits.

A) that doesn't show equivalency.
B) shot in step 3 is synonymous with bullet or the past tense of shooting - neither of which is being used interchangeably with hit
C) shot in step 4 is referring to step 3 - you have to hit to roll to wound.

Those basic steps are a summary. If you go look at blast or template weapons you see that models underneath them are hit. They reference "the shot" a lot which, in context, can only mean the current shooting process resolution, not that the unit was shot.

Happyjew wrote:And the Vibro Cannon (and how the Vibro Cannon is resolved) is even more similar than a template.
In fact, under the template rules, it specifically says that they are indiscriminate weapons. On page 40, it says they can hit models in cc, it just cannot initially be placed to do so, but must scatter into them.

I'm not referring to the blast templates, I'm referring to the flame template. And yeah, since that template is indiscriminate, and you're not allowed to fire indiscriminately into close combat, you cannot fire the flame template into close combat. So, if you choose a target and then place the template, and the template covers models in close combat, you cannot fire it because you would be firing indiscriminately into close combat.

Tangent wrote:

Happyjew wrote:And the Vibro Cannon (and how the Vibro Cannon is resolved) is even more similar than a template.
In fact, under the template rules, it specifically says that they are indiscriminate weapons. On page 40, it says they can hit models in cc, it just cannot initially be placed to do so, but must scatter into them.

I'm not referring to the blast templates, I'm referring to the flame template.

It's blast markers and templates - there is no blast template. The rule on page 40 says that a template could scatter into CC. Obviously none of the current templates can scatter, but the rule is there to provide for the future.

I always get confused as to what they are called. The template that you normally use when you fire a flamer is just referred to as a "template," right? That's the one I'm talking about.

Tangent wrote:I always get confused as to what they are called. The template that you normally use when you fire a flamer is just referred to as a "template," right? That's the one I'm talking about.

Correct.
That doesn't change what page 40 says

There is no way to know that a model in CC is not targeted until you draw a deliberate line over the CC which is disallowed in shooting rules (that disallow targeting units in CC).

If you assume you do not break a rule because of some other outcome, you are (potentially) breaking a rule by (potentially) shooting into CC at a targeted unit.

As soon as you do that, you are deliberately attempting to break the rules.

editing to add:
This is really just being pedantic, as I think the others have posted actually valid reasons why this is disallowed.

kirsanth wrote:There is no way to know that a model in CC is not targeted until you draw a deliberate line over the CC which is disallowed in shooting rules (that disallow targeting units in CC).

Jaws draws the line, then asserts a target. Drawing the line is absolutely allowed. You then see which model is touched first by the line.

What your'e trying to say is that a target must be declared before the line is drawn - that's against the rules for Jaws.
The shooting rules say that you must target a unit that is not locked in CC - touching a model that is not in CC with the line makes that model the target. Anything after that is not targeted, and can never be considered to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:editing to add:
This is really just being pedantic, as I think the others have posted actually valid reasons why this is disallowed.

Intent, maybe.
RAW, I disagree (obviously). There's nothing except preventing the targeting of a unit in CC. Jaws explicitly doesn't do that (as long as the first model touched is not locked in combat)

Why dont you just it in your sig so you dont have to keep repeatedly typing it over and over again?

rigeld2 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:There is no way to know that a model in CC is not targeted until you draw a deliberate line over the CC which is disallowed in shooting rules (that disallow targeting units in CC).

Jaws explicitly doesn't do that (as long as the first model touched is not locked in combat)

See above. Doesn't the FAQ says the first model affected, which you cannot determine yet?

Only one model is targeted, Kirsanth. Doesn't change what models are shot, and shooting into close combat is prohibited on page 40. Targeting is prohibited on page 16, but targeting restrictions only matter on the first model with Jaws.

It would be awesome if the rules were well written, but they are not. There is enough grey area for an extremely slanted view to justify Jaws firing into close combat, and there are obviously plenty of people who are willing to go there. It doesn't matter if all other shooting attacks that can hit models in close combat spell it out, or that shooting into close combat is prohibited in a blanket statement (in a fairly poorly written section of what should be precise rules), or really anything; if one is really committed to claiming the RAW allows Jaws to hit models in close combat, the justification has been amply given ad nauseum in this thread. The proponents think that no specific allowance needs to be made because Jaws is a shooting attack that targets one model and just happens to hit other models, and (even though the rules prohibit "just hitting other models" in close combat with those basic weapons that can hit models besides the one targeted, with specific exceptions) Jaws is not defined as anything other than a shooting attack, so it is exempt not only from the direct shooting into combat rules (which restrict things like bolters that have only discreet "bullets" via the rules on p.16) but also the "incidental" shooting into combat rules that limit blasts and templates. Since Jaws isn't defined as any of those, it gets to follow (according to rigeld2 et al) the least restrictive portion of rules rather than the entire set of rules governing shooting and hitting models in close combat.

I personally think that the justification is garbage and ignores inconvenient rules - I have said that ad nauseum as well. Using all the rules as written I find no valid justification for allowing a ranged attack to hit models in close combat without specific allowance, and Jaws has no such provision.

Regardless of your personal reading of the rules, reading this thread is nearly useless. Neither side will budge an inch; I believe that this is because my reading is correct and my opponents have invested their egos into being right and cannot now admit their error. Likely they have a similar, if opposite, opinion.

Edits to make it clear that I am of good humor about the whole thing.

kirsanth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:There is no way to know that a model in CC is not targeted until you draw a deliberate line over the CC which is disallowed in shooting rules (that disallow targeting units in CC).

Jaws explicitly doesn't do that (as long as the first model touched is not locked in combat)

See above. Doesn't the FAQ says the first model affected, which you cannot determine yet?

So really you're objecting based on the fact that it's possible to place something in an illegal position? But you don't know if it'll be an illegal position until the line is drawn.

You can't draw the line because of the potential to be in an illegal position, but you can't know if it's in an illegal position until you draw the line.
That's what you're saying.

jwolf wrote:Only one model is targeted, Kirsanth. Doesn't change what models are shot, and shooting into close combat is prohibited on page 40. Targeting is prohibited on page 16, but targeting restrictions only matter on the first model with Jaws.

This though, is the silliness I am pointing out. Getting shot while in combat is ok. Getting targeted is not. Shooting "indiscriminately" into combat is also disallowed, but apparently that is neither here nor there.

Regardless, there is no way to know you did not target a unit in combat until you try to have tried to draw the line into combat - this is why the rules disallow it without needing to REstate it.
Target is decided after the power works - the fact that you deliberately made a CC unit a potential option is the problem, not how I read the rules.

All that said, I repeat this is simply being pedantic and somewhat silly - the rules have been covered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:You can't draw the line because of the potential to be in an illegal position, but you can't know if it's in an illegal position until you draw the line.
That's what you're saying.

Yes. You are not allowed to create a paradox or it is your problem.

The rules disallow one of your options from being legal, you cannot then say "Well, it may not happen so it's ok."

jwolf wrote:or that shooting into close combat is prohibited in a blanket statement

If only it was...

Mannahin, jwolf, etc.,

I understand your viewpoint and agree that the intent of the rules is likely that things like this shouldn't be permitted. I don't think it's perfectly clear, and in the absence of clarity we should go with the exact RAW.

I've tried to remain civil throughout this debate, and hope there's no ill will felt towards me - as I don't feel that way about any of you.

With that, I'm tired of repeating myself ad nauseum, and with the release of 6th so close I'm not really sure I care about this in the one - maybe two - more games I'm going to get to play before then.

If you're ever in the Houston area, hit me up if you'd like to play.

jwolf wrote:Only one model is targeted, Kirsanth. Doesn't change what models are shot, and shooting into close combat is prohibited on page 40. Targeting is prohibited on page 16, but targeting restrictions only matter on the first model with Jaws.

It would be awesome if the rules were well written, but they are not. There is enough grey area for an extremely slanted view to justify Jaws firing into close combat, and there are obviously plenty of people who are willing to go there. It doesn't matter if all other shooting attacks that can hit models in close combat spell it out, or that shooting into close combat is prohibited in a blanket statement (in a fairly poorly written section of what should be precise rules), or really anything; if one is really committed to claiming the RAW allows Jaws to hit models in close combat, the justification has been amply given ad nauseum in this thread. The proponents think that no specific allowance needs to be made because Jaws is a shooting attack that targets one model and just happens to hit other models, and (even though the rules prohibit "just hitting other models" in close combat with those basic weapons that can hit models besides the one targeted, with specific exceptions) Jaws is not defined as anything other than a shooting attack, so it is exempt not only from the direct shooting into combat rules (which restrict things like bolters that have only discreet "bullets" via the rules on p.16) but also the "incidental" shooting into combat rules that limit blasts and templates. Since Jaws isn't defined as any of those, it gets to follow (according to rigeld2 et al) the least restrictive portion of rules rather than the entire set of rules governing shooting and hitting models in close combat.

I personally think that the justification is garbage and ignores inconvenient rules - I have said that ad nauseum as well. Using all the rules as written I find no valid justification for allowing a ranged attack to hit models in close combat without specific allowance, and Jaws has no such provision.

Regardless of your personal reading of the rules, reading this thread is nearly useless. Neither side will budge an inch; I believe that this is because my reading is correct and my opponents have invested their egos into being right and cannot now admit their error. Likely they have a similar, if opposite, opinion.

Edits to make it clear that I am of good humor about the whole thing.

Welcome to YMDC because this post makes it seem like this is your first foray into these forums.

rigeld2 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:There is no way to know that a model in CC is not targeted until you draw a deliberate line over the CC which is disallowed in shooting rules (that disallow targeting units in CC).

Jaws explicitly doesn't do that (as long as the first model touched is not locked in combat)

See above. Doesn't the FAQ says the first model affected, which you cannot determine yet?

So really you're objecting based on the fact that it's possible to place something in an illegal position? But you don't know if it'll be an illegal position until the line is drawn.

You can't draw the line because of the potential to be in an illegal position, but you can't know if it's in an illegal position until you draw the line.
That's what you're saying.

He's not saying that, rigeld2. This is why we can't have nice things, because you love putting words in everyone elses' mouths. You declare your target, shoot, and if the line is illegal, the shot is illegal and cannot happen. I wonder, if you're shooting blast weapons at a unit next to a close combat, do you declare the exact location of the blast? When I do it, I say "I fire my blast at that unit, targeting that model, in such a way as to not be over the models in close combat near it," which seems like the simplest and best way to do it. I don't give an exact location on the board and then measure to see if that location is legal. Do you shoot a template near combat and give and angle then check to see of it's illegal, or do you adjust the placement to make sure it is legal? Granted, Jaws is a bit harder to fiddle with, but if your "target" is 1" from the Rune Priest you could draw a lot of VERY different lines at 24" away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

jwolf wrote:or that shooting into close combat is prohibited in a blanket statement

If only it was...

Mannahin, jwolf, etc.,

I understand your viewpoint and agree that the intent of the rules is likely that things like this shouldn't be permitted. I don't think it's perfectly clear, and in the absence of clarity we should go with the exact RAW.

I've tried to remain civil throughout this debate, and hope there's no ill will felt towards me - as I don't feel that way about any of you.

With that, I'm tired of repeating myself ad nauseum, and with the release of 6th so close I'm not really sure I care about this in the one - maybe two - more games I'm going to get to play before then.

If you're ever in the Houston area, hit me up if you'd like to play.

Come play with us later this month, we have sort of a big event happening. I hate you badly, and might go all naked cannibal on you, but that's the bath salts talking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:

jwolf wrote:Only one model is targeted, Kirsanth. Doesn't change what models are shot, and shooting into close combat is prohibited on page 40. Targeting is prohibited on page 16, but targeting restrictions only matter on the first model with Jaws.

It would be awesome if the rules were well written, but they are not. There is enough grey area for an extremely slanted view to justify Jaws firing into close combat, and there are obviously plenty of people who are willing to go there. It doesn't matter if all other shooting attacks that can hit models in close combat spell it out, or that shooting into close combat is prohibited in a blanket statement (in a fairly poorly written section of what should be precise rules), or really anything; if one is really committed to claiming the RAW allows Jaws to hit models in close combat, the justification has been amply given ad nauseum in this thread. The proponents think that no specific allowance needs to be made because Jaws is a shooting attack that targets one model and just happens to hit other models, and (even though the rules prohibit "just hitting other models" in close combat with those basic weapons that can hit models besides the one targeted, with specific exceptions) Jaws is not defined as anything other than a shooting attack, so it is exempt not only from the direct shooting into combat rules (which restrict things like bolters that have only discreet "bullets" via the rules on p.16) but also the "incidental" shooting into combat rules that limit blasts and templates. Since Jaws isn't defined as any of those, it gets to follow (according to rigeld2 et al) the least restrictive portion of rules rather than the entire set of rules governing shooting and hitting models in close combat.

I personally think that the justification is garbage and ignores inconvenient rules - I have said that ad nauseum as well. Using all the rules as written I find no valid justification for allowing a ranged attack to hit models in close combat without specific allowance, and Jaws has no such provision.

Regardless of your personal reading of the rules, reading this thread is nearly useless. Neither side will budge an inch; I believe that this is because my reading is correct and my opponents have invested their egos into being right and cannot now admit their error. Likely they have a similar, if opposite, opinion.

Edits to make it clear that I am of good humor about the whole thing.

Welcome to YMDC because this post makes it seem like this is your first foray into these forums.

Far from my first foray, and far from the first time people without rules support have stood firm against my perfect logic and flawless rules knowledge. I do think at a certain point one simply calls the game a stalemate, though.

jwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:There is no way to know that a model in CC is not targeted until you draw a deliberate line over the CC which is disallowed in shooting rules (that disallow targeting units in CC).

Jaws explicitly doesn't do that (as long as the first model touched is not locked in combat)

See above. Doesn't the FAQ says the first model affected, which you cannot determine yet?

So really you're objecting based on the fact that it's possible to place something in an illegal position? But you don't know if it'll be an illegal position until the line is drawn.

You can't draw the line because of the potential to be in an illegal position, but you can't know if it's in an illegal position until you draw the line.
That's what you're saying.

He's not saying that, rigeld2. This is why we can't have nice things, because you love putting words in everyone elses' mouths.

It's not intentional - it's how I read what you're writing.

You declare your target, shoot, and if the line is illegal, the shot is illegal and cannot happen.

That's not how Jaws works.
You draw the line and only then do you have a target. So you cannot have a target until after the line is declared. And if you can't draw the line for fear of hitting the combat...

I wonder, if you're shooting blast weapons at a unit next to a close combat, do you declare the exact location of the blast? When I do it, I say "I fire my blast at that unit, targeting that model, in such a way as to not be over the models in close combat near it," which seems like the simplest and best way to do it.

I normally walk over with the blast marker and pick a model to put the hole over. I don't adjust it after that because the rules don't allow for it. I then measure to make sure I'm in range and resolve the hits.

I don't give an exact location on the board and then measure to see if that location is legal.

But... that's what the rules say to do. You place the marker, then measure.

Do you shoot a template near combat and give and angle then check to see of it's illegal, or do you adjust the placement to make sure it is legal? Granted, Jaws is a bit harder to fiddle with, but if your "target" is 1" from the Rune Priest you could draw a lot of VERY different lines at 24" away.

I think I've used a template weapon... 3 times? in the past year. But when I do use them I adjust as required to get the most models in the target unit - as the rules require. (they don't say to adjust, but they do say to get the most models in the unit... and there's no way to guarantee that without the possibility to adjust)

To be clear, how then do you know you are not targeting a unit in combat when you deliberately and indiscriminately draw a line over a unit in combat while shooting with JotWW to determine who is the target?

My assertion is that you do not, so you cannot.

If you somehow know that the first model AFFECTED will be the same before looking at the results of the use of the power - which may include illegal models that are ignored - then you are probably running into other issues. Like assuming it worked on a potentially illegal target.

You are allowing for a potential illegal action to occur, this is where the problem starts. The fact that you are then looking for a resolution to a problem that is disallowed from happening is simply weird.

jwolf wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

jwolf wrote:Only one model is targeted, Kirsanth. Doesn't change what models are shot, and shooting into close combat is prohibited on page 40. Targeting is prohibited on page 16, but targeting restrictions only matter on the first model with Jaws.

It would be awesome if the rules were well written, but they are not. There is enough grey area for an extremely slanted view to justify Jaws firing into close combat, and there are obviously plenty of people who are willing to go there. It doesn't matter if all other shooting attacks that can hit models in close combat spell it out, or that shooting into close combat is prohibited in a blanket statement (in a fairly poorly written section of what should be precise rules), or really anything; if one is really committed to claiming the RAW allows Jaws to hit models in close combat, the justification has been amply given ad nauseum in this thread. The proponents think that no specific allowance needs to be made because Jaws is a shooting attack that targets one model and just happens to hit other models, and (even though the rules prohibit "just hitting other models" in close combat with those basic weapons that can hit models besides the one targeted, with specific exceptions) Jaws is not defined as anything other than a shooting attack, so it is exempt not only from the direct shooting into combat rules (which restrict things like bolters that have only discreet "bullets" via the rules on p.16) but also the "incidental" shooting into combat rules that limit blasts and templates. Since Jaws isn't defined as any of those, it gets to follow (according to rigeld2 et al) the least restrictive portion of rules rather than the entire set of rules governing shooting and hitting models in close combat.

I personally think that the justification is garbage and ignores inconvenient rules - I have said that ad nauseum as well. Using all the rules as written I find no valid justification for allowing a ranged attack to hit models in close combat without specific allowance, and Jaws has no such provision.

Regardless of your personal reading of the rules, reading this thread is nearly useless. Neither side will budge an inch; I believe that this is because my reading is correct and my opponents have invested their egos into being right and cannot now admit their error. Likely they have a similar, if opposite, opinion.

Edits to make it clear that I am of good humor about the whole thing.

Welcome to YMDC because this post makes it seem like this is your first foray into these forums.

Far from my first foray, and far from the first time people without rules support have stood firm against my perfect logic and flawless rules knowledge. I do think at a certain point one simply calls the game a stalemate, though.

Guess you missed this one considering that it addresses every RAI point you have tried to play off as RAW, with cited rules support.

Brother Ramses wrote:Been busy so not been able to check on the amusing path this thread has taken nor been able to fully sit down and get back into the mix.

As per the course of a RAW argument, this one has taken the predictable course of redefining the World of Warhammer 40k definitions to make an argument work to what is now the fluff versus rules debate. Addressing the page 40 nonsense first:

Page 40, BRB: 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.

Semantics aside over what is fluff and what is rules, you only need to look at the damn title as to see what you are talking about and where you need to look for reference in the BRB. Small hint, SHOOTING into & out of close combat. You can try and argue exactly what "fire indiscriminately" means, but the very title references the World of Warhammer 40k defined rule of shooting. Considering the reference of the above page 40 entry, the only conclusion that can be drawn from it is that it only reinforces that which is already present in the rules for shooting on page 15/16 of the BRB as well as clarifying specific situations that occur in regard to template and blast weapons. Therefore it is old news that,

You cannot shoot into close combat.

However, page 40 is referencing a defined process in the World of Warhammer 40k, shooting. If everyone would turn their books to page 15, "THE SHOOTING SEQUENCE" is a defined process. This is of course the default general rules for shooting of which PSA are to follow unless a codex exception to the general rules for shooting a psychic power exists. However, it is this shooting sequence that page 40 is reinforcing;

Page 15, BRB: DISALLOWED SHOOTING:

Certain situations prevent a unit from firing. The most common are;

Units that are locking in close combat with a foe.

......

And then you find on on the following page of the BRB;

Page 18, BRB: CHECK LINE OF SIGHT & PICK A TARGET:

A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in close combat as its target, and many not split its fire among different targets.....

You must note that in both instances above the word "fire" or "firing" have been used in describing actions taken during the shooting sequence which ties it intrinsically to the page 40 entry of, "to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combat." Therefore, "to fire indiscriminately" into close combat specifically means that you are prohibited as per the rules as described on page 15 and 16 of the BRB; being disallowed from shooting if locked in close combat and from choosing a single enemy unit locked in combat as its target.

Summary of page 40 nonsense;

Page 40 only reinforces that firing into close combat is prohibited as already defined by the shooting rules on page 16 of which it clearly states, "A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that it not locked in combat as its target...".

How this then applies to JotWW when the power targets a model outside of close combat and the line then runs through models in close combat is simple reading comprehension;

Did JotWW choose a single enemy unit that was not locked in combat as its target?

Yes, and therefore per the defined rules of page 16 and page 40 it did not "fire" into close combat.

The second issue that has come up in the last page or two now addresses where does JotWW get permission to hit models in close combat with the example given of other types of shooting attacks (scattering templates) as well as other psychic shooting attacks (Nurgle's Rot) that give explicit permission.

Now I originally quoted the SW FAQ wrong to which JWolf was happy to jump on however he then obviously decided that the actual wording was just as devastating to his argument as my mistake. The FAQ entry is as follows;

SW FAQ VERSION 1.2, JANUARY 2012:

Q. Does Jaws of the World Wolf require line of sight?
Does it ignore terrain that blocks line of sight (i.e.,
impassable terrain)? (p37)
A. As a psychic shooting attack, Jaws of the World Wolf
requires line of sight. The Rune Priest must have line of
sight to the first model that the power affects – in
effect he is treated as the target model; the power just
happens to hit everybody else on its way through!

Embolden part by myself as this is specific in who else, OTHER then the target model can be affected by the power. If you missed it, it says,

EVERYBODY ELSE!

Now my initial post regarding this was using the word "any", however the word "everybody" is just as applicable to include every eligible unit type the line touches after the initial target model is affected, will be affected. So to those asking for the permissive rule that allows the power to affect units in close combat behind the initial unengaged target model; they would be included in, "the power just happens to hit everybody else on its way through!"

kirsanth wrote:To be clear, how then do you know you are not targeting a unit in combat when you deliberately and indiscriminately draw a line over a unit in combat while shooting with JotWW to determine who is the target? My assertion is that you do not, so you cannot.

So you can't draw the line because you can't figure out the target because you can't draw the line?

If you somehow know that the first model AFFECTED will be the same before looking at the results of the use of the power - which may include illegal models that are ignored - then you are probably running into other issues. Like assuming it worked on a potentially illegal target.

I'm not following this. Can you try and explain what you mean differently?

You are allowing for a potential illegal action to occur, this is where the problem starts.

No. I'm following the rules as written for Jaws of the World Wolf. Those rules tell me to draw a line. You're saying I'm unable to draw a line because it's possible that it will create an illegal act - but I can't determine that until I draw the line.

It could be the top of turn one with no CCs anywhere on the board, and your assertion would still prevent me from drawing the line. Because (according to you) you cannot know if the first model touched is in a combat before drawing the line, and you can't verify that until after you draw a line, and you can't draw the line if it has the potential to touch an illegal target, but you can't know if it's an illegal target until you've drawn the line... What rules are you actually following to draw the line? Unless you have a rules basis for premeasuring the 24" to see if there's a combat or friendly unit in the path.

@ jwolf - don't feed the trolls... for all we know it could be a twelve year old with too much time on their hands.

@ Brother Ramses - Like I said, if you pretend that page 40 is only a reference to page 16 (it doesn't reference it) instead of a blanket proscription in and of itself, and you ignore that every other instance of hitting models in combat gives explicit permission to do so (using some variation of "including models locked in assault" in the permission), you can justify your permission.

I think I'll read EVEYBODY ELSE to mean "everybody else who is a legal target of a shooting attack," as that is much more in keeping with the rules than reading it as literally the rules. "Everybody else" to me is as descriptive as "soulless commanders" and "fire indiscriminately" from page 40 - sometimes the guys at GW forget that we're looking for actual rules, not cute turns of phrase, and we can either pretend that the cute phrases are literally accurate (so a commander with a soul could fire into close combat, especially if he was doing so in a discriminate fashion) or we can not worry about it and read the parts that make sense as rules as rules, and let the colorful phrases just be wasted ink.

But your mileage may vary. And thanks for the insults; I was worried that you were too simple-minded to get some digs in before we walk away!

jwolf wrote:@ Brother Ramses - Like I said, if you pretend that page 40 is only a reference to page 16 (it doesn't reference it) instead of a blanket proscription in and of itself, and you ignore that every other instance of hitting models in combat gives explicit permission to do so (using some variation of "including models locked in assault" in the permission), you can justify your permission.

It absolutely references it.

Or are you trying to use the english definition for a word that has a 40k definition?
How are you defining the word "fire" in the sentence that keeps getting referred to here?

-666- wrote:@ jwolf - don't feed the trolls... for all we know it could be a twelve year old with too much time on their hands.

I hope you are not referring to rigeld. As Randall can verify rigeld is not a 12 year old kid but in fact nosferatu. The fact that nos only showed up briefly is a testament to this fact.

@Randall, just joking around. You've come quite a ways from your first few posts.

I actually don't need the book to understand what firing a weapon means, and there is no conflict between my definition and the basic usage on page 16. There is a targeting process for firing a weapon described on page 16, but this targeting process is for the general case, and specific types of firing ranged weapons deviate from this case. I think we can both agree that Jaws has a unique firing profile that is not addressed in the general case (which applies to discreet shots such as bolters). Alas, Jaws does not have a special section detailing how it is to be treated when fired - in form, Jaws most resembles a template, but in performance it has some aspects that resemble a Exitus Rifle (it targets a specific model, not a unit). Treating the weapon as if only the restriction on page 16 apply to it is wrongheaded; the weapon may target only one model, but if it hits other models then it (according to you many pages back and numerous times) shot at them, and shooting at things locked in combat is not allowed unless you have specific permission to do so.
I don't agree with your position that have to shoot at things to hit them with non-scattering weapons, but I also don't think that you can shoot, intentionally or otherwise into close combat without express permission.

jwolf wrote:I actually don't need the book to understand what firing a weapon means

But you do to understand what firing a weapon in the game of 40k means.

and there is no conflict between my definition and the basic usage on page 16.

15 actually, but that's nitpicking

in form, Jaws most resembles a template, but in performance it has some aspects that resemble a Exitus Rifle (it targets a specific model, not a unit). Treating the weapon as if only the restriction on page 16 apply to it is wrongheaded; the weapon may target only one model, but if it hits other models then it (according to you many pages back and numerous times) shot at them, and shooting at things locked in combat is not allowed unless you have specific permission to do so.

No - I haven't agreed (or didn't intend to) that hit and shot are synonymous in the 40k rules. I've asked for a rule showing they are, I was assured that they are used interchangeably throughout the shooting section, but not once has anyone shown me where. Hit is a defined term in 40k. If you're trying to say a 40k defined term is synonymous with something else, there needs to be rules support - using the words interchangeably (as they do with to fire and to shoot) is rules support. A dictionary is not.
And the prohibition for firing into CC on page 40 is referencing the shooting rules - which say you can't target them.
Also - it doesn't most resemble a template. It most resembles a line weapon like the VibroCannon. Something that was in existence before the 5th ed rulebook. This means that if they wanted to assign the same restriction to it that was assigned to templates and blasts, they could've said so. I'm not attempting to say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence - but you can't just say "Well, it's not defined so lets apply the template rules."

I don't agree with your position that have to shoot at things to hit them with non-scattering weapons, but I also don't think that you can shoot, intentionally or otherwise into close combat without express permission.

I've given up the shoot == shoot at because a) it's irrelevant, b) it's probably just a cultural difference. No biggie.

I have gone back and forth on this numerous times over last couple days. The Problem is the sentence on pg. 40 reads alot like fluff and for the most part is. But if you notice alot of rules in the book have sentences that read as fluff to begin with. But at the end of these sentences there is a comma. After the comma always comes the actual rule. The comma divides the fluff part of the sentence from the rule part of the sentence. So after noticing that if you read pg 40 it would prevent you from using Jaws into a combat. Even though it is not targeting the combat it is technically shooting into the combat.

BigDogg82 wrote:Even though it is not targeting the combat it is technically shooting into the combat.

What definition of "shooting" are you using? The 40k one or the plain English one?

Because if it's not targeting, checking line of sight, hitting, wounding, saving, removing casualties... I don't see how it's doing anything in the 40k rules for shooting.
And it doesn't do any of that for any model after the first one.

rigeld2 wrote:

You are allowing for a potential illegal action to occur, this is where the problem starts.

No. I'm following the rules as written for Jaws of the World Wolf. Those rules tell me to draw a line. You're saying I'm unable to draw a line because it's possible that it will create an illegal act - but I can't determine that until I draw the line.

So do not draw the line where it can potentially cause you to make it illegally drawn. Since you know the order of operations, why are you making a potentially illegal move?

Akin to placing blast markers over models in CC.

Yes, there are rules about how this can and cannot happen, but without them it simply cannot.
Thus the issue I am stating.

Also, the bold is your assumption that these are the only rules that matter. This is not true.
You cannot perform actions that are otherwise disallowed without explicit permission.

"All models" is more literally read as "All legal models" as it is generally assumed that you cannot have broken a rule to get to this point. If you can break a rule to get to this point, the error is prior to the discussion.

This is still silly though.

(Also, I think other have said it better. I am simply nitpicking to the degree that has been shown to be relevant - or at least brought up.)

rigeld2 wrote:

Tangent wrote:I always get confused as to what they are called. The template that you normally use when you fire a flamer is just referred to as a "template," right? That's the one I'm talking about.

Correct.
That doesn't change what page 40 says

Oh, I agree, I just happen to think that the best way to handle this particular issue is through rules by interpretation instead of rules as written.

rigeld2 wrote:

BigDogg82 wrote:Even though it is not targeting the combat it is technically shooting into the combat.

What definition of "shooting" are you using? The 40k one or the plain English one?

Because if it's not targeting, checking line of sight, hitting, wounding, saving, removing casualties... I don't see how it's doing anything in the 40k rules for shooting.
And it doesn't do any of that for any model after the first one.

I am using the fact that in the rules for Jaws it says as a psychic SHOOTING attack. And while it only targets the first model it attacks all of the models under the line otherwise it would not effect them. All of the rules for Jaws are a psychic shooting attack. It does not say Jaws is a psychic shooting attack only against the first model. It just says in the FAQ to treat that model as the target.

kirsanth wrote:So do not draw the line where it can potentially cause you to make it illegally drawn.

Except, according to you, I can't tell if the line is legal to draw without drawing it.
Similar to pre-measuring, I can't draw a 24" inch line, make sure it's legal, then say I'm casting Jaws.
And if your response is "It's possible for it to be obvious" I'll respond with "It's also possible for it to be obvious that I'll have a legal target in front of the CC."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BigDogg82 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

BigDogg82 wrote:Even though it is not targeting the combat it is technically shooting into the combat.

What definition of "shooting" are you using? The 40k one or the plain English one?

Because if it's not targeting, checking line of sight, hitting, wounding, saving, removing casualties... I don't see how it's doing anything in the 40k rules for shooting.
And it doesn't do any of that for any model after the first one.

I am using the fact that in the rules for Jaws it says as a psychic SHOOTING attack. And while it only targets the first model it attacks all of the models under the line otherwise it would not effect them. All of the rules for Jaws are a psychic shooting attack. It does not say Jaws is a psychic shooting attack only against the first model. It just says in the FAQ to treat that model as the target.

So you're trying to use plain english to equate the two?
Yes, Jaws uses the PSA rules. The line on page 40 refers to the shooting rules. The shooting rules prevent you from targeting a model in CC. Jaws does not target models after the first.

So according to you any shooting attack that does not follow all of the shooting steps on pg. 15 and is not specifically stated as not being able to shoot into combat can shoot into combat since it is not technically a shooting attack if its special rules allow it to skip or change any of the steps on pg. 15

BigDogg82 wrote:So according to you any shooting attack that does not follow all of the shooting steps on pg. 15 and is not specifically stated as not being able to shoot into combat can shoot into combat since it is not technically a shooting attack if its special rules allow it to skip or change any of the steps on pg. 15

No. That's not what I'm saying.
A shooting attack that doesn't have a target doesn't need an exception to shoot into CC. That's what I'm asserting.

rigeld2 wrote:

BigDogg82 wrote:So according to you any shooting attack that does not follow all of the shooting steps on pg. 15 and is not specifically stated as not being able to shoot into combat can shoot into combat since it is not technically a shooting attack if its special rules allow it to skip or change any of the steps on pg. 15

No. That's not what I'm saying.
A shooting attack that doesn't have a target doesn't need an exception to shoot into CC. That's what I'm asserting.

Show me the rule that says only shooting attacks with a target may not shoot into close combat

We know that Nurgle's Rot is explicitly given permission to target enemy models locked in melee which is not the case for JotWW.

Happyjew wrote:

-666- wrote:@ jwolf - don't feed the trolls... for all we know it could be a twelve year old with too much time on their hands.

I hope you are not referring to rigeld. As Randall can verify rigeld is not a 12 year old kid but in fact nosferatu. The fact that nos only showed up briefly is a testament to this fact.

That explains a lot... and nos could be a twelve year old for all we know. I dont mean that in a critical way either - just as a general observation. He comes across as always wanting the last word.

: )

BigDogg82 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

BigDogg82 wrote:So according to you any shooting attack that does not follow all of the shooting steps on pg. 15 and is not specifically stated as not being able to shoot into combat can shoot into combat since it is not technically a shooting attack if its special rules allow it to skip or change any of the steps on pg. 15

No. That's not what I'm saying.
A shooting attack that doesn't have a target doesn't need an exception to shoot into CC. That's what I'm asserting.

Show me the rule that says only shooting attacks with a target may not shoot into close combat

Page 16 says that you cannot target units in a close combat.
Page 40 references page 16.
I have permission to place the line.
You now need to find a way to deny that permission. I'm not targeting a unit in CC, so that can't be what denies the permission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

-666- wrote:We know that Nurgle's Rot is explicitly given permission to target enemy models locked in melee which is not the case for JotWW.

Because GW never prints redundant words. And Nurgle's Rot targets, JotWW doesn't (after the first model).

That explains a lot... and nos could be a twelve year old for all we know. I dont mean that in a critical way either - just as a general observation. He comes across as always wanting the last word.

Yeah, I'm totally the only one keeping this thread going.

pg 40 prevents shooting into CC it says nothing about targeting. I already answered your question about the beginning of the sentence being fluff. It says shooting into combat is not permitted not just targeting. So Jaws is a psychic shooting attack as defined in its rules so no need to bring up the process or the definition as defined by 40k or the English language. So Jaws is a Psychic Shooting attack. Pg 40 clearly states shooting into a combat is not permitted. So unless it gets permission from somewhere else shooting into not just targeting a combat is not permitted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also pg 40 does not reference pg 16. No where does it refer you to pg. 16, mention pg.16, or allude to even the existence of a pg. 16. If you did not read pg. 16 and refer yourself there pg. 40 would give you no indication to look for a pg. 16.

ref·er·ence   [ref-er-uhns, ref-ruhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ref·er·enced, ref·er·enc·ing.
noun
1.
an act or instance of referring.
2.
a mention; allusion.
3.
something for which a name or designation stands; denotation.
4.
a direction in a book or writing to some other book, passage, etc.
5.
a book, passage, etc., to which one is directed.

jwolf wrote:@ Brother Ramses - Like I said, if you pretend that page 40 is only a reference to page 16 (it doesn't reference it) instead of a blanket proscription in and of itself, and you ignore that every other instance of hitting models in combat gives explicit permission to do so (using some variation of "including models locked in assault" in the permission), you can justify your permission.

I think I'll read EVEYBODY ELSE to mean "everybody else who is a legal target of a shooting attack," as that is much more in keeping with the rules than reading it as literally the rules. "Everybody else" to me is as descriptive as "soulless commanders" and "fire indiscriminately" from page 40 - sometimes the guys at GW forget that we're looking for actual rules, not cute turns of phrase, and we can either pretend that the cute phrases are literally accurate (so a commander with a soul could fire into close combat, especially if he was doing so in a discriminate fashion) or we can not worry about it and read the parts that make sense as rules as rules, and let the colorful phrases just be wasted ink.

But your mileage may vary. And thanks for the insults; I was worried that you were too simple-minded to get some digs in before we walk away!

Ok so now you have made it crystal clear that what the RAW of the rules say does not matter, or the rulebook, because you will interpret the rules based on your bias, not based on the actual defined process. In addition you will arbitrarily add words to existing rules as is the case in adding a qualifier to"everybody else" to make your flawed argument appear valid.

Why didn't you just tell us from the beginning that you interpret rules based on personal opinion, not the RAW and that you will add qualifiers to rules based on your own opinion and not the RAW? Would have saved us probably 10 pages by just putting you on ignore. Remember the tenets of YMDC are what is the RAW of the rule. You have shown that you actually have no intention of arguing the RAW of the rule, but instead the RAI accodring to Jwolf.

Its getting rather flamey in here all of a sudden.

BigDogg82 wrote:pg 40 prevents shooting into CC it says nothing about targeting.

Actually, it says that "Likewise ... to fire ... into ... close combats ... is not permitted." so nothing about shooting. I've picked out the only words that can be used as rules - the other ~75% of the sentence is useless (but the word shooting never appears in that sentence)
"to fire" in 40k rules must refer to the shooting rules. There's no other way to define it.
So, "Likewise to follow the shooting process into close combats is not permitted."
Why is it not permitted? Oh, page 16 says you can't target a unit in close combat.
Well, Jaws doesn't target any model after the first.

So Jaws is a Psychic Shooting attack. Pg 40 clearly states shooting into a combat is not permitted.

Please quote the rule on page 40 that "clearly states shooting into a combat is not permitted."

rigeld2 wrote:

BigDogg82 wrote:pg 40 prevents shooting into CC it says nothing about targeting.

Actually, it says that "Likewise ... to fire ... into ... close combats ... is not permitted." so nothing about shooting. I've picked out the only words that can be used as rules - the other ~75% of the sentence is useless (but the word shooting never appears in that sentence)
"to fire" in 40k rules must refer to the shooting rules. There's no other way to define it.
So, "Likewise to follow the shooting process into close combats is not permitted."
Why is it not permitted? Oh, page 16 says you can't target a unit in close combat.
Well, Jaws doesn't target any model after the first.

So Jaws is a Psychic Shooting attack. Pg 40 clearly states shooting into a combat is not permitted.

Please quote the rule on page 40 that "clearly states shooting into a combat is not permitted."

Fire is the same as shoot in the BRB look in the weapon section almost all of the weapons talk about firing shots or when fired upon. Otherwise none of them would be considered shooting but firing so could ignore the shooting process

So if fire and shoot are the same based on the BRB then "Likewise ... to fire ... into ... close combats ... is not permitted." means the same as if it said "Likewise ... to shoot ... into ... close combats ... is not permitted."

BigDogg82 wrote:Also pg 40 does not reference pg 16. No where does it refer you to pg. 16, mention pg.16, or allude to even the existence of a pg. 16. If you did not read pg. 16 and refer yourself there pg. 40 would give you no indication to look for a pg. 16.

The dictionary definition was cute, I'll give you that.
Page 40 absolutely references page 16. (well, 15 really but the relevant rule is on 16)
It does so by using the word "fire" which, in 40k rules, is synonymous with "shooting".
When you see a word that's defined in 40k, you have to use the 40k definition of that word. Guess where the definition of "shooting" is in the BRB?

You are over-simplying the matter now.

BigDogg82 wrote:Fire is the same as shoot in the BRB look in the weapon section almost all of the weapons talk about firing shots or when fired upon. Otherwise none of them would be considered shooting but firing so could ignore the shooting process

Correct.
Now, define the word "shooting" as required by the 40k rules. Are you thinking of anything other than page 15+ where the shooting rules are? Then you're wrong.

There are numerous shooting attacks in the game that let you skip certain steps in the process of shooting. Or changes the way they use the process all together. This does not make them exempt from the other aspects of the shooting rules unless specifically stated. The reason Jaws needs a defined target for part of the attack is for instances where things that happen after it happens are affected by it. As in you may only assault unit you shot at. This way you can not shoot something and then assault something else. Or if he is with a unit they must fire on same unit as the first model he hits since they may not target other units.

BigDogg82 wrote:There are numerous shooting attacks in the game that let you skip certain steps in the process of shooting. Or changes the way they use the process all together. This does not make them exempt from the other aspects of the shooting rules unless specifically stated. The reason Jaws needs a defined target for part of the attack is for instances where things that happen after it happens are affected by it. As in you may only assault unit you shot at. This way you can not shoot something and then assault something else. Or if he is with a unit they must fire on same unit as the first model he hits since they may not target other units.

Correct.
I haven't said otherwise.
I've said that you're forbidden from targeting a unit that is locked in CC.
Jaws explicitly does not target any model/unit after the first one the line touches.
Therefore, if the Jaws line touches a legal target before touching the CC, it is not targeting a unit/model in CC.
Therefore there's no rule stopping the line from being placed there. At least, not one that's been put forth yet.

rigeld2 wrote:

BigDogg82 wrote:There are numerous shooting attacks in the game that let you skip certain steps in the process of shooting. Or changes the way they use the process all together. This does not make them exempt from the other aspects of the shooting rules unless specifically stated. The reason Jaws needs a defined target for part of the attack is for instances where things that happen after it happens are affected by it. As in you may only assault unit you shot at. This way you can not shoot something and then assault something else. Or if he is with a unit they must fire on same unit as the first model he hits since they may not target other units.

Correct.
I haven't said otherwise.
I've said that you're forbidden from targeting a unit that is locked in CC.
Jaws explicitly does not target any model/unit after the first one the line touches.
Therefore, if the Jaws line touches a legal target before touching the CC, it is not targeting a unit/model in CC.
Therefore there's no rule stopping the line from being placed there. At least, not one that's been put forth yet.

Actually they have numerous times. You just continue to ignore it. pg. 40 says you can't fire into CC. It is more clearly defining the mention of it on pg. 16.

Pg. 16 are the generic base shooting rules which are explained in multiple other sections with changes and clarification for the type of shooting and what is being shot at. And in all those cases anything that specifically states an exception or slight difference takes precedence over the generic. This is the same with all the generic rules in the game.

-666- wrote:@ jwolf - don't feed the trolls... for all we know it could be a twelve year old with too much time on their hands.

If you can't discuss the rules without reaching for derogatory terms for other posters, you're not going to be allowed to discuss the rules.

Regardless, this thread can die now.