BlackTalos wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
A scattered blast template did not Fire at the invisible unit, it scattered on to them after it received permission to fire somewhere else. Invisibility is a denial of permission to Fire. That is why the blast gets around invis when WoD doesn't. They are different situations and as such you can't use one to justify the other.

I would really like you to point to me where the Invisibility rule states the part i highlighted.

Ok... here you go

"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..."

chanceafs wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
A scattered blast template did not Fire at the invisible unit, it scattered on to them after it received permission to fire somewhere else. Invisibility is a denial of permission to Fire. That is why the blast gets around invis when WoD doesn't. They are different situations and as such you can't use one to justify the other.

I would really like you to point to me where the Invisibility rule states the part i highlighted.

Ok... here you go

"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..."

No, that's a requirement to snapshot, not a denial to fire.. WoD overrides snapshots.

chanceafs wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
A scattered blast template did not Fire at the invisible unit, it scattered on to them after it received permission to fire somewhere else. Invisibility is a denial of permission to Fire. That is why the blast gets around invis when WoD doesn't. They are different situations and as such you can't use one to justify the other.

I would really like you to point to me where the Invisibility rule states the part i highlighted.

Ok... here you go

"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..."

WoD is permission to fire when only snap shots can fire. WoD is a specific special rule, Snap shots, invis are general rules. WoD trumps invis. Even if it did not trump invis, the permission to fire during a time when you can only fire snap shots is still permission to fire during a time when you can only fire snap shots. During overwatch what only can you fire? snap shots. WoD does what during this time? Fires even if its not a snap shot. Snap shot is a basic rule. WoD is a special rule WoD has specific permission to trumps snap shots general rule during the instance of overwatch.

 jreilly89 wrote:

chanceafs wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
A scattered blast template did not Fire at the invisible unit, it scattered on to them after it received permission to fire somewhere else. Invisibility is a denial of permission to Fire. That is why the blast gets around invis when WoD doesn't. They are different situations and as such you can't use one to justify the other.

I would really like you to point to me where the Invisibility rule states the part i highlighted.

Ok... here you go

"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..."

No, that's a requirement to snapshot, not a denial to fire.. WoD overrides snapshots.

It says the only permission to fire is snap shots. Which denies permission for anything else to fire. And WoD overrides the OVERWATCH requirement for snapshots... not snapshots as a whole. If two rules place a restriction, anything attempting to override that restriction needs to call out both sources in order to be successful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:

chanceafs wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
A scattered blast template did not Fire at the invisible unit, it scattered on to them after it received permission to fire somewhere else. Invisibility is a denial of permission to Fire. That is why the blast gets around invis when WoD doesn't. They are different situations and as such you can't use one to justify the other.

I would really like you to point to me where the Invisibility rule states the part i highlighted.

Ok... here you go

"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..."

WoD is permission to fire when only snap shots can fire. WoD is a specific special rule, Snap shots, invis are general rules. WoD trumps invis. Even if it did not trump invis, the permission to fire during a time when you can only fire snap shots is still permission to fire during a time when you can only fire snap shots. During overwatch what only can you fire? snap shots. WoD does what during this time? Fires even if its not a snap shot. Snap shot is a basic rule. WoD is a special rule WoD has specific permission to trumps snap shots general rule during the instance of overwatch.

No... WoD is permission to fire DURING OVERWATCH. And overrides the normal snapshot restriction of overwatch. Invisibility places a second restriction that WoD does not specifically address, and there for does not superceed. Overwatch is the general rule, WoD and Invis are both specific rules that change the situation. And since neither immediately address the other... CAN'T trumps CAN.

chanceafs wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

chanceafs wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
A scattered blast template did not Fire at the invisible unit, it scattered on to them after it received permission to fire somewhere else. Invisibility is a denial of permission to Fire. That is why the blast gets around invis when WoD doesn't. They are different situations and as such you can't use one to justify the other.

I would really like you to point to me where the Invisibility rule states the part i highlighted.

Ok... here you go

"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..."

No, that's a requirement to snapshot, not a denial to fire.. WoD overrides snapshots.

It says the only permission to fire is snap shots. Which denies permission for anything else to fire. And WoD overrides the OVERWATCH requirement for snapshots... not snapshots as a whole. If two rules place a restriction, anything attempting to override that restriction needs to call out both sources in order to be successful.

So if I jink and I get a Crew Shaken result, do I have to roll a 6 twice to hit? No, snapshots don't stack. This is a double snapshot, which reduces down to just snapshotting, which WoD overrides.

 jreilly89 wrote:

chanceafs wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

chanceafs wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
A scattered blast template did not Fire at the invisible unit, it scattered on to them after it received permission to fire somewhere else. Invisibility is a denial of permission to Fire. That is why the blast gets around invis when WoD doesn't. They are different situations and as such you can't use one to justify the other.

I would really like you to point to me where the Invisibility rule states the part i highlighted.

Ok... here you go

"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..."

No, that's a requirement to snapshot, not a denial to fire.. WoD overrides snapshots.

It says the only permission to fire is snap shots. Which denies permission for anything else to fire. And WoD overrides the OVERWATCH requirement for snapshots... not snapshots as a whole. If two rules place a restriction, anything attempting to override that restriction needs to call out both sources in order to be successful.

So if I jink and I get a Crew Shaken result, do I have to roll a 6 twice to hit? No, snapshots don't stack. This is a double snapshot, which reduces down to just snapshotting, which WoD overrides.

No, if you Jink and get a crew shaken... and you have a special rule that says you can fire at full BS even if you Jink, You are still crew shaken and still have to fire snap shots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Similarly if you arrive from reserves and disembark from a vehicle, you have two reasons why you can't charge in the assault phase. If you disembark from an Assault vehicle, you still can't assault because the arriving from reserves rule is still limiting you.

the arriving from reserves is a terrible analogy.

disembarking - general rule

disembarking from assault vehicle- general rule

arriving from reserves- general rule

compared to

Invisibility- general rule

Snap shots- general rule

WoD- special rule

blaktoof wrote:
the arriving from reserves is a terrible analogy.

disembarking - general rule

disembarking from assault vehicle- general rule

arriving from reserves- general rule

compared to

Invisibility- general rule

Snap shots- general rule

WoD- special rule

Incorrect, as Assault Vehicle is a special rule.

WoD overrides the necessity to fire as snap shots during overwatch part of the assault phase. it actually does not state it overrides the restriction of snap shots from overwatch. It states that they can fire over watch, even though they cannot fire snap shots. Which is permission to fire during overwatch, even if normally only snap shots may be fired

If you can find where it says that it overrides the restriction to fire snap shots FROM overwatch. Or where it states that it only applies to snap shots from overwatch.

Otherwise as it reads, it is a special rule that trumps basic rules (snap shots, invis) and is given permission to fire during overwatch, even though it cannot fire snap shots. Instead it automatically inflicts d3 hits on the charging unit.

During overwatch does an unit require to be hit by only snap shots? yes

During overwatch does an invisible unit require to be hit by only snap shots? Yes

WoD gives specific permission during this time to fire even though it cannot snap shot, and instead cause automatic d3 hits.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

chanceafs wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
the arriving from reserves is a terrible analogy.

disembarking - general rule

disembarking from assault vehicle- general rule

arriving from reserves- general rule

compared to

Invisibility- general rule

Snap shots- general rule

WoD- special rule

Incorrect, as Assault Vehicle is a special rule.

you are correct, however this is clarified under the special rule for assault vehicles "unless they arrived from reserve" Unlike in WoD which does not state "unless they are firing snap shots because the target unit is invisible"

Aside from all the other valid WoD works points expressed, look at the shooting rules:
A: "Any shots fired as Overwatch can only be fired as Snap Shots"
Wall of death says:
B: "Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit,"

So WoD is not a conventional shooting attack (ala Necron lightning guy, vector strikers, stomps, and the untargeted but scattering blasts) and simply triggers d3 hits.

The BRB says Basic<Advanced.
"Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon" and " The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry."
So WoD is an advanced rule, because a template weapon carried by a model is part of its Army List Entry on your list. (psychic template may be debatable but lets set that aside).

Invisibility is not listed in the advanced rules section, it is not part of an Army List Entry and it fails to meet the explicit criteria in the above sections to be an advanced rule. Invisibility interacts with basic rules, all of which are subservient to the advanced rules. WoD >>Invisibility.

Q.E.D.

Until there is something in Invisibility that lets it ignore automatic hits outside of close combat, I don't see what basis you have for saying they ignore it, other than really wanting it to work that way.

I really want my ThunderFire Cannon artillery piece to be able to move and shoot, but even though Artillery lost the move or fire verbiage, it is still a Heavy blast weapon so it can't.

So, despite WoD NOT being a snapshot, and explicitly so, you will fire it, despite
Only being allowed to fire snapshots?

Interesting.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, despite WoD NOT being a snapshot, and explicitly so, you will fire it, despite
Only being allowed to fire snapshots?

Interesting.

Me? No I would congratulate the other player on his win and not play them again, because I don't play cheaters.

As I just pointed out, nothing in Invisibility meets the criteria for an advanced rule by RAW in the book, whereas WoD does meet that criteria. Feel free to read the post and check your own book.

WoD>>Invisibility.

No, WoD is not noted in the army list entry. Page and graph if you contend otherwise.

WoD is not firing as a snapshot, and as such you csnnot fire at invisible units

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, despite WoD NOT being a snapshot, and explicitly so, you will fire it, despite
Only being allowed to fire snapshots?

Interesting.

Yes, because the WoD rule says instead of firing snap shots...

it is the more specific rule and trumps invisibility.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, WoD is not noted in the army list entry. Page and graph if you contend otherwise.

I already quoted them above. Search your digital version for the quotes I put up and you can find your own "pages".
All template weapons have wall of death, per the WoD rule.
A flamer, etc is a template weapon.
The weapon is on your list for the model carrying it and that is the Army List Entry.

If you have a flamer in your list, that model has a template weapon, and thus the advanced rule WoD, which trumps invisibility which is NOT, RAW, an advanced rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, despite WoD NOT being a snapshot, and explicitly so, you will fire it, despite
Only being allowed to fire snapshots?

Interesting.

Yes, because the WoD rule says instead of firing snap shots...

it is the more specific rule and trumps invisibility.

No, again, this is made up.

Is WoD a snapshot? No. What does invisibility restrict you to doing when firing? Snapshots only.

How is WoD more specific? It only lifts one restriction - smapshot when over watch. It doesn't let you snapshot at other times

You gave stated rules with no rules back up. Retract it, or cite page and para

Rawrai- nope, it's not listed in the army list entry. It is a general, basic rule. Don't repeat that assertion again.

WoD is a special rule not a basic rule, and is found in the section on special rules, because it its a special rule.

This makes WoD more specific as invisibility and snap shots are basic rules, not special rules.

WoD gives permission to fire during overwatch, despite it not being a snap shot. So during a time when snap shots are reqiured you have a special rule that grants specific permission to ignore a basic rule- snap shots.

I do not think anyone is suggesting it lets you snap shot outside of overwatch.

It lifts the restriction that over watch must be fired as snapshot.

Does it lift ANY restriction on snapshots from other sources, or just the one it SPECIFICALLY covers - over watch's requirement?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Rawrai- nope, it's not listed in the army list entry. It is a general, basic rule. Don't repeat that assertion again.

You don't list what special weapons your model take in your list? If I take a flamer, I indicate it in my list. That makes it part of my Army List Entry.
That gives the unit the ability to invoke Wall of Death, because it is part of the weapon's rules.
WoD is a special rule and that trumps the basic rule related to snapshots, as has already been pointed out. Repeatedly.
I'll continue to assert it is a special rule because it is a special rule.

I think you need to show where Invisibility is classified as a special/advanced rule if you want to argue precedence levels any more. Otherwise all people hear who disagree is "nyah nyah" and you will only be preaching to your choir.

Sigh.

WoD is never listed in the units entry. The flamer is, but not WoD. Your premise fails on this point.

Invisibility is a specific restriction. Fire snapshots. You can override one restriction, but have no permission - absolutely none - to override ANY requirement on firing as snapshots

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It lifts the restriction that over watch must be fired as snapshot.

Does it lift ANY restriction on snapshots from other sources, or just the one it SPECIFICALLY covers - over watch's requirement?

it actually does not specifically cover over watch's requirement.

it says it may fire during overwatch, even though it cannot snap shot. It doesn't state that other things that require snap shot prevent it from firing- such as "assault vehicles" and disembarking to assault from reserves being called out.

So when it covers the over watch requirement, specifically, it isn't talking about over watch?

Interesting.

It covers shooting during overwatch, if an invisible unit is charging a model with a template weapon there is an overwatch phase.

The basic rule of invisibility calls out that the unit can only be fired at with snap shots.

the basic rule of overwatch calls out the unit can only be fired at with snap shots.

As there is no such thing as "double snap shots" or "snap shots +1" then the unit can only be fired at with snap shots total.

the special rule of WoD gives you permission to fire during this time as a template weapon, even though its not a snap shot. This is permission to fire despite needing snap shots. You instead inflict d3 hits.

If you can find where it says "specifically the snap shot from overwatch" pleace cite it, page and para.

Ah, so in 6th you could assault having disembarked from a land raider, despite having arrived from reserve that turn?

After all, there is no "may not assault +1" .

Or, when told you may on,y fire snapshots, and WoD overrides (by referencing over watch) the requirement in overmatch to fire snapshots, this still means you aren't firing snapshots and so the more specific rule wins out.

Invisibility.
again, only one restriction has been lifted by WoD. Just because it is a similar one, you don't get to ignore it

Oh, and don't use quote marks when you aren't quoting.

I don't know if this has been mentioned. Because I refuse to read every post on this.

If you have two units. Unit A and unit B

Unit A is invisible
Unit B is targeted with a large blast.

The large blast scatters 12 inches over to unit A.

Does unit A get hit?

Yes, as the weapon wasn't fired at the invisible unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, as the weapon wasn't fired at the invisible unit.

Then I don't see why WoD can't auto hit an invisible unit

I suppose this case to be too minor for such a long discussion. I may be wrong but here are my ideas.
"Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots". I guess it's a general permission. Is there anything preventing ordinary overwatch? - No. Then you CAN fire overwatch and as far as you have permission for template weapons overwatch you may use it.
All in all, only a dead-hard invis deathstar powergamer can deny that.

Johnnytorrance wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, as the weapon wasn't fired at the invisible unit.

Then I don't see why WoD can't auto hit an invisible unit

Because the template WAS fired at the invisible unit. The situation is explicitly not comparable - in one the unit was targeted, the other it wasn't. In one the unit falls under the restriction of invis, the other it doesn't.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Johnnytorrance wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, as the weapon wasn't fired at the invisible unit.

Then I don't see why WoD can't auto hit an invisible unit

Because the template WAS fired at the invisible unit. The situation is explicitly not comparable - in one the unit was targeted, the other it wasn't. In one the unit falls under the restriction of invis, the other it doesn't.

Not necessarily.

The unit with WoD wasn't targeting either. The charging unit is running into their flaming goo

The shooting rules require differently. again, provably incomparable situations.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, despite WoD NOT being a snapshot, and explicitly so, you will fire it, despite
Only being allowed to fire snapshots?

Interesting.

Yes, because the WoD rule says instead of firing snap shots...

it is the more specific rule and trumps invisibility.

No, again, this is made up.

It really is not made up, there are actual rules that state instead of snap shots, template weapons generate auto hits when firing Overwatch, because template weapons can not snap shot.

So do vector strikes- attacks treated as close combat attacks that automatically hit- have to roll 6s to hit invisible units too?

If you say yes, you're wrong. If you say no, then Wall of Death works too because its worded pretty much the exact same way. They are automatic hits using the S and AP profiles of the user / user's flamer.

Are the two models in CC when they are hit by Vector Strikes? If the answer is no they are still hit. You are also speaking about what amounts to two entirely separate rules. Per the shooting section you can't even fire at them unless you snap fire. If you are in CC then you only hit on 6's, therefor you are allowed to swing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What people are saying by saying that WoD meets the criteria for all Snap Shot requirements is that I can use it to wound fliers. It then bypasses the Snap Shot requirement for shooting at a flyer.... Does that sound right to you?

How would you use WOD against fliers since it only happens in overwatch and fliers cant assault?

Gravmyr wrote:
Are the two models in CC when they are hit by Vector Strikes? If the answer is no they are still hit. You are also speaking about what amounts to two entirely separate rules. Per the shooting section you can't even fire at them unless you snap fire. If you are in CC then you only hit on 6's, therefor you are allowed to swing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What people are saying by saying that WoD meets the criteria for all Snap Shot requirements is that I can use it to wound fliers. It then bypasses the Snap Shot requirement for shooting at a flyer.... Does that sound right to you?

If you had a flyer that could assault and activate overwatch, then yes. That unit doesn't exist though.

That unit doesn't exist... currently. Assaulting vehicles never had a skimmer either.... In the end if you want to play that way good luck but I wouldn't expect it to work like that in a tourney nor to be faqed that way...

 BlackTalos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Blog - before you get to automatically hit, you MUST have fired as a snapshot.

Is WoD a snapshot? No need for WoText, just a yes of no.

Instead of a long-winding argument, this is basically the premise "against".

Is a scattered Blast a Snap Shot?
Is a Terror from the Deep (Mawloc) a Snap Shot?
Is a Death Ray (fired at another unit, but clipping them) a Snap Shot?
Is a Total Collapse a Snap Shot?

We can both agree that the answer to those 4 and your first is: No, none of them are a snap shot. (You can't fire Blasts or Death Rays as Snap Shots, nor ever can Templates)

Crux Question:
For all 5 of the above situations, is the Unit involved (Invisible) immune to Hits generated?

I also require a simple Yes/No, just as i replied "No" to Nosferatu's simple break down of the "against" position.

The answer to this is very simple. None of these attacks are FIRING AT the invisible unit. Key words being FIRING and AT. Invisibility requires us to FIRE AT the invisible unit in order for the snap shot restriction to take effect. Now read the first sentence of WoD. It clearly states that it is FIRING.

Gravmyr wrote:
That unit doesn't exist... currently. Assaulting vehicles never had a skimmer either.... In the end if you want to play that way good luck but I wouldn't expect it to work like that in a tourney nor to be faqed that way...

I would also suspect that if such a unit did exist, it would have to be in hover mode to assault, much like a FMC needing to be in glide mode to declare an assault.

So WoD would absolutely apply as a hovering flyer is not a zooming flyer.

Which would be a completely different question then the one I asked now wouldn't it?

Gravmyr wrote:
Which would be a completely different question then the one I asked now wouldn't it?

No, because only zooming flyers have the hard to hit rule, and a flyer that could assault would not be zooming.

Again. Currently.

Gravmyr wrote:
Again. Currently.

And in the future.

Just like they do not allow Swooping FMC's to assault.

If we are going by what is likely the again what about my question about charging in sixth? Isn't it likely that if you have two restrictions and a single permission just like that use to be that the current discussion would be ruled the same?

Well since WoD is the more specific rule, it trumps invis.

The specific vs general existed in 6th as well and yet you know exactly how that was ruled. Also, it is more specific in your opinion.

Gravmyr wrote:
The specific vs general existed in 6th as well and yet you know exactly how that was ruled. Also, it is more specific in your opinion.

All units fire snap shots at invisible units.

All units fire snap shots on overwatch

WoD is not a snap shot, instead it autohits when firing at a unit in Overwatch.

Not my opinion, it is fact that WoD is more specific, as I have illustrated.

P.S. specific vs General is a function of the permissive ruleset. you can also call it basic vs advanced.

Glad you called it general vs advanced. General rules are defined as being the sections dealing with movement, shooting, moral and close combat, the standard rules for infantry. Everything else is defined as advanced.

Edit: Clarity

Gravmyr wrote:
What people are saying by saying that WoD meets the criteria for all Snap Shot requirements is that I can use it to wound fliers. It then bypasses the Snap Shot requirement for shooting at a flyer.... Does that sound right to you?

 BlackTalos wrote:
In a way, a BS 4 model is restricted to Snap Firing in Overwatch, and restricted to Snap Firing at Invis targets, and restricted to Snap Firing at Swooping MC, etc.
If a Swooping MC, with Invisibility charged a Unit that is Crew Shaken and Jinked last turn, then what is that Units' restriction?

There is no roll To Hit with Wall of Death. If i am restricted to <Snap Shots>, why is it of any relevance? I have permission to fire the weapon, and i am restricted to Snap Shots (both by Overwatch + Invisibility), what rule am i breaking? My model could be BS 0 and still i would have the Wall of Death Persmission to fire the weapon. (Can a BS0 Model Vector Strike? Can he "terror from the Deep"?)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

The answer to this is very simple. None of these attacks are FIRING AT the invisible unit. Key words being FIRING and AT. Invisibility requires us to FIRE AT the invisible unit in order for the snap shot restriction to take effect. Now read the first sentence of WoD. It clearly states that it is FIRING.

Not really a Yes/No answer... But how do you resolve Total Collapse on a Unit?

I personally use Steps 5 onwards from the shooting Sequence....
Now what does the BrB define as "Fire Overwatch"? Follow the Shooting Sequence.
My Template weapon is given permission to "Fire Overwatch", with RaW: D3 Auto-Hits. How do i resolve that?

I use Steps 5 Onwards after i rolled a D3. Steps 1, 2 and 3 are not a choice if you decided (1+) of your models will be Overwatching with a Template.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well since WoD is the more specific rule, it trumps invis.

In your opinion.

Given it never mentions invis, and specifically states it is NOT a snapshot, your opinion is factually wrong .

Invis requires you to fire as a snapshot. WoD lets you fire over watch despite not firing snapshots. You cannot meet the requirement on invis, so cannot fire.

 BlackTalos wrote:
There is no roll To Hit with Wall of Death. If i am restricted to <Snap Shots>, why is it of any relevance? I have permission to fire the weapon, and i am restricted to Snap Shots (both by Overwatch + Invisibility), what rule am i breaking? My model could be BS 0 and still i would have the Wall of Death Persmission to fire the weapon. (Can a BS0 Model Vector Strike? Can he "terror from the Deep"?)

I think you should reread through the shooting steps again, particularly page 32. BS0 means you cannot fire. While snap fire does alter the units BS it is no consequence if the model cannot fire the weapon you would like to.

In a permissive ruleset restriction will trump allowances most times. The exceptions to that are when they have a specific allowance to ignore that restriction. Again look back at Drop Pods.

Also if you have not selected the Flamer as a weapon, step 3 in shooting, you cannot roll to wound so by skipping that step you are not even allowed to fire. Now that I have access to my book I would have to say that the restriction from flamers, about not being able to Snap Shot, would prevent you from being able to select it as a weapon at all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well since WoD is the more specific rule, it trumps invis.

In your opinion.

Given it never mentions invis, and specifically states it is NOT a snapshot, your opinion is factually wrong .

Invis requires you to fire as a snapshot. WoD lets you fire over watch despite not firing snapshots. You cannot meet the requirement on invis, so cannot fire.

I am not at all incorrect.

Overwatch is resolved as a snap shot, and we have permission to use the template with Overwatch even though it can not snap shot.

You already can not meet the requirement of snap shots on Overwatch, so instead you inflict hits automatically.

Firing at a unit with invis is less specific than firing overwatch at a unit with invis, which is less specific than firing with a template weapon on overwatch at a unit with invis.

Which again is still not how any of that works per the General vs Advanced section there are only two levels. I gave you the breakdown above.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
What people are saying by saying that WoD meets the criteria for all Snap Shot requirements is that I can use it to wound fliers. It then bypasses the Snap Shot requirement for shooting at a flyer.... Does that sound right to you?

 BlackTalos wrote:
In a way, a BS 4 model is restricted to Snap Firing in Overwatch, and restricted to Snap Firing at Invis targets, and restricted to Snap Firing at Swooping MC, etc.
If a Swooping MC, with Invisibility charged a Unit that is Crew Shaken and Jinked last turn, then what is that Units' restriction?

There is no roll To Hit with Wall of Death. If i am restricted to <Snap Shots>, why is it of any relevance? I have permission to fire the weapon, and i am restricted to Snap Shots (both by Overwatch + Invisibility), what rule am i breaking? My model could be BS 0 and still i would have the Wall of Death Persmission to fire the weapon. (Can a BS0 Model Vector Strike? Can he "terror from the Deep"?)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

The answer to this is very simple. None of these attacks are FIRING AT the invisible unit. Key words being FIRING and AT. Invisibility requires us to FIRE AT the invisible unit in order for the snap shot restriction to take effect. Now read the first sentence of WoD. It clearly states that it is FIRING.

Not really a Yes/No answer... But how do you resolve Total Collapse on a Unit?

I personally use Steps 5 onwards from the shooting Sequence....
Now what does the BrB define as "Fire Overwatch"? Follow the Shooting Sequence.
My Template weapon is given permission to "Fire Overwatch", with RaW: D3 Auto-Hits. How do i resolve that?

I use Steps 5 Onwards after i rolled a D3. Steps 1, 2 and 3 are not a choice if you decided (1+) of your models will be Overwatching with a Template.

Total collapse is not related is it is in no way shooting or firing a weapon. There is nothing in the rules that tells you to use the rules for shooting to resolve total collapse. That is your own house rule, and you are trying to resolve WoD based on that?

What you are failing to see here is that the restriction that Ivisibility puts forth requires us to FIRE snap shots. The only way to FIRE a snap shot is to roll to hit. If you can not roll to hit, but FIRE the weapon anyway, you are breaking the rules. So even when steps 1, 2, and 3 are skipped, WoD is still firing, and it is still not a snap shot.

Firing overwatch is less specific than firing WoD as overwatch, which is less specific than firing WoD as overwatch at a unit with invis.

Basing an argument on how you compose a sentence is not the way to change minds. As you can see above Invis can make it more specific. Which is more likely to be in a game template weapons or Invis? Wouldn't that make it a more specific occurrence then?

 extremefreak17 wrote:

Total collapse is not related is it is in no way shooting or firing a weapon. There is nothing in the rules that tells you to use the rules for shooting to resolve total collapse.

Ditto with WoD. It doesn't roll to hit. It automatically hits.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

Total collapse is not related is it is in no way shooting or firing a weapon. There is nothing in the rules that tells you to use the rules for shooting to resolve total collapse.

Ditto with WoD. It doesn't roll to hit. It automatically hits.

Wow you are completely missing the point. Collapse does not interact differently with Invisibility because it is NOT FIRING. The fact that WoD is FIRING is the reason why it doesnt work on invisible units. It has nothing to do with the auto hits. If collapse had text defining it as "FIRING" then it would be relevant. As it has no such text, it is not bound by the restriction of snap shots.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well since WoD is the more specific rule, it trumps invis.

In your opinion.

Given it never mentions invis, and specifically states it is NOT a snapshot, your opinion is factually wrong .

Invis requires you to fire as a snapshot. WoD lets you fire over watch despite not firing snapshots. You cannot meet the requirement on invis, so cannot fire.

I am not at all incorrect.

Overwatch is resolved as a snap shot, and we have permission to use the template with Overwatch even though it can not snap shot.

You already can not meet the requirement of snap shots on Overwatch, so instead you inflict hits automatically.

Firing at a unit with invis is less specific than firing overwatch at a unit with invis, which is less specific than firing with a template weapon on overwatch at a unit with invis.

Nope, still no rules reference.

I tell you: you can only snapshot
You say: I can't snapshot, so instead....

I point out, correctly, that you cannot meet my requirement, so cannot fire. You have NO ANSWER to this. None

Is WoD a snapshot? Simple yes of no. Once you answer no, take a step back and ponder on his you can fire when you MUSTZ snapshot

At the risk of getting yelled at. Do any of the people who think you can't use WoD on invisible units think you SHOULDN'T be able to do it? It seems to be a good way of balancing the preponderance of invisible units and another excuse to put more flamers on the table. Everyone loves flamers.

 OldSkoolGoff wrote:
At the risk of getting yelled at. Do any of the people who think you can't use WoD on invisible units think you SHOULDN'T be able to do it? It seems to be a good way of balancing the preponderance of invisible units and another excuse to put more flamers on the table. Everyone loves flamers.

Hard to say really. Invis is pretty strong for sure. However, it is not reliable to base a strategy around it due to random power generation, and the increased difficulty in casting successfully in 7th edition. Most of the top tourney armnies dont bother with it.

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 OldSkoolGoff wrote:
At the risk of getting yelled at. Do any of the people who think you can't use WoD on invisible units think you SHOULDN'T be able to do it? It seems to be a good way of balancing the preponderance of invisible units and another excuse to put more flamers on the table. Everyone loves flamers.

Hard to say really. Invis is pretty strong for sure. However, it is not reliable to base a strategy around it due to random power generation, and the increased difficulty in casting successfully in 7th edition. Most of the top tourney armnies dont bother with it.

Two level 3 Psykers (or 1 a single L3 with rerolls like Tigurious ) gets (5/6)^6 =.33 chance to NOT get it. So you can have a 67% chance TO get it for less than 200 points. An Eldar Spirit Seer (5xL2 Psykers) can also pretty much guarantee it for 350. The top tier tournament players may not take it, but I think that's because they face a more diverse potential pool of opponents with the same list than you see in a local shop game where someone generally knows which army they'll be facing since most players only have an army or two. I tend to take the same 1 vindi 2 TFC list, occasionally swapping the extra TFC for another vindi.

When the strength of a power is mitigated mostly by randomness in building around it, anything that reduces that randomness really buffs the power disproportionately. I think Orks will be interesting when they get more practice on the field. "Da FInkin' Kap" gives you an additional warlord trait. Battle forged gives you a reroll. That gives you 4 chances to pick up infiltration+outflank for 3 units, which is better than 50-50 odds. That same table has a number of other good options (Stealth ruins w/move through cover, reserve manip), and really only has 1 which is weak. Even 90 infiltrating/outflanking slugga boys is super effective tool against most armies. Given that since the infantry unit gets the rule and the rule conveys to the DT, you can also run triple Meganobz in battlewagons if that rocks your boat. Either way you have a high likelihood of being in CC T2 after infiltrating, or T3 without being exposed to fire in T1.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 OldSkoolGoff wrote:
At the risk of getting yelled at. Do any of the people who think you can't use WoD on invisible units think you SHOULDN'T be able to do it? It seems to be a good way of balancing the preponderance of invisible units and another excuse to put more flamers on the table. Everyone loves flamers.

Hard to say really. Invis is pretty strong for sure. However, it is not reliable to base a strategy around it due to random power generation, and the increased difficulty in casting successfully in 7th edition. Most of the top tourney armnies dont bother with it.

Two level 3 Psykers (or 1 a single L3 with rerolls like Tigurious ) gets (5/6)^6 =.33 chance to NOT get it. So you can have a 67% chance TO get it for less than 200 points. An Eldar Spirit Seer (5xL2 Psykers) can also pretty much guarantee it for 350. The top tier tournament players may not take it, but I think that's because they face a more diverse potential pool of opponents with the same list than you see in a local shop game where someone generally knows which army they'll be facing since most players only have an army or two. I tend to take the same 1 vindi 2 TFC list, occasionally swapping the extra TFC for another vindi.

When the strength of a power is mitigated mostly by randomness in building around it, anything that reduces that randomness really buffs the power disproportionately. I think Orks will be interesting when they get more practice on the field. "Da FInkin' Kap" gives you an additional warlord trait. Battle forged gives you a reroll. That gives you 4 chances to pick up infiltration+outflank for 3 units, which is better than 50-50 odds. That same table has a number of other good options (Stealth ruins w/move through cover, reserve manip), and really only has 1 which is weak. Even 90 infiltrating/outflanking slugga boys is super effective tool against most armies. Given that since the infantry unit gets the rule and the rule conveys to the DT, you can also run triple Meganobz in battlewagons if that rocks your boat. Either way you have a high likelihood of being in CC T2 after infiltrating, or T3 without being exposed to fire in T1.

Generating the power is the easy part. Actually casting it can be difficult.

There's a whole load of variables to take into consideration with possible match ups and opponents warp charges etc to get actual statistic data. But yes, getting the power you want, casting the power you want (& avoiding perils) when you want it and not being denied all boil down to low probability without stacking more and more points, you'll probably want double that to have a better chance of casting 1 power on 1 unit for the 1 turn you want so it can take down 1 other unit.

Basically, its not very economical in terms of strategy, its not consistent and to make it viable you have to put a lot of points into it, for the points needed, you could just take a unit to shoot down the threat that has a much better statistical chance of doing so.

Powers are great, but much luck is involved. you can get lucky and it's amazing, or you can get unlucky and lose horribly.

I play Nids and from 6>7th I saw myself taking far more warp charges and getting much less success on actually landing any powers. It's why Deamon summoning factories are not actually as good as everyone thought they were. Hitting a lucky streak they seem bad, but when they draw on their probabilities they can't produce enough meaningful units, the powers are much better used stomping me down than trying to get more.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 OldSkoolGoff wrote:
At the risk of getting yelled at. Do any of the people who think you can't use WoD on invisible units think you SHOULDN'T be able to do it? It seems to be a good way of balancing the preponderance of invisible units and another excuse to put more flamers on the table. Everyone loves flamers.

Hard to say really. Invis is pretty strong for sure. However, it is not reliable to base a strategy around it due to random power generation, and the increased difficulty in casting successfully in 7th edition. Most of the top tourney armnies dont bother with it.

Two level 3 Psykers (or 1 a single L3 with rerolls like Tigurious ) gets (5/6)^6 =.33 chance to NOT get it. So you can have a 67% chance TO get it for less than 200 points. An Eldar Spirit Seer (5xL2 Psykers) can also pretty much guarantee it for 350. The top tier tournament players may not take it, but I think that's because they face a more diverse potential pool of opponents with the same list than you see in a local shop game where someone generally knows which army they'll be facing since most players only have an army or two. I tend to take the same 1 vindi 2 TFC list, occasionally swapping the extra TFC for another vindi.

When the strength of a power is mitigated mostly by randomness in building around it, anything that reduces that randomness really buffs the power disproportionately. I think Orks will be interesting when they get more practice on the field. "Da FInkin' Kap" gives you an additional warlord trait. Battle forged gives you a reroll. That gives you 4 chances to pick up infiltration+outflank for 3 units, which is better than 50-50 odds. That same table has a number of other good options (Stealth ruins w/move through cover, reserve manip), and really only has 1 which is weak. Even 90 infiltrating/outflanking slugga boys is super effective tool against most armies. Given that since the infantry unit gets the rule and the rule conveys to the DT, you can also run triple Meganobz in battlewagons if that rocks your boat. Either way you have a high likelihood of being in CC T2 after infiltrating, or T3 without being exposed to fire in T1.

Your numbers are wrong.

It's 50% for a single ML3 psyker, 75% for two.

And Tigurius is a special case, he gets 75% alone.

Either way the rest is correct, people who whine about Invisibility have no clue how many points it costs and how unreliable it is.



And for the discussion at hand, clearly invisibility supersedes overwatch, being less general.

Actually I believe no one got the probabilities right so far. Don't overdo the math! Randomly selecting 3 out of 6 powers you have 50% change of getting the one you want.

Supporting this with math:

P(not getting power X) = P(not getting it roll 1) * P(not getting it roll 2) * P(not getting it roll 3)
P(not getting power X) = (5/6) * (4/5) * (3/4) = 0.5

Adding a second lvl 3 or getting one with re-rolls will both square that number, so P(not getting power X) = 0.5^2 = 0.25 or 25% if you prefer.

My bad.

Dead thread I know but here.

2 1/2 years is a long time...

Perhaps best to bring this up somewhere more relevant?

Thanks!