I was playing in a game and had a squad of grey hunters in combat with a tyranid prime and carnifex. My GH luckily lived threw the first round of combat. So on my turn I drove a rhino with a RP next to the combat and there was plenty of space for me to Jaws the back of the Carnifexs base. So I jawsed him and he failed his test.

Now what im asking is is this legal? Also when it dies do the GH stay there or pile into the prime?

This honestly seems legal, but completely cheesy.

Potentially Legal, and cheesy. Of course it is, its a PK codex....

There is an implication that, as this is a PSA, you cannot target a unit in combat, and the first model touched by the line IS the target as far as Jaws goes (see the FAQ) - so if you didnt hit anything before the fex, then i would say "no"

They would not pile in, as pile in moves are made after combat, not before, and it wasnt an assault move so no move or defenders react. You sit there waiting to pile in next round, if anything is left alive.

I don't believe that you can do it because as nos said the first model touched is the "target" and you can't "target" models in CC with a shooting attack. Had there been another model in front of it not in CC and you "targeted" it, but the line hits the carnie afterward then I believe it would be legal.

A psychic shooting attack occurs in the shooting phase and is a form of shooting attack. You may not fire into close combat.

With JWW, you could have targeted an enemy unit outside of combat and ensured that the line you drew ran into the enemy in combat, but you targeting a unit in cc with a shooting attack is illegal.

Since the power is classified as a shooting attack, and you can't shoot into melee...

juraigamer wrote:Since the power is classified as a shooting attack, and you can't shoot into melee...

Not true - you cannot *target* a unit in combat, however Jaws works fine passing through combat - its just, I believe, the initial target (the first model touched) that cannot be locked in combat

nosferatu1001 wrote:Potentially Legal, and cheesy. Of course it is, its a PK codex....

A bit offtopic I know but given the consensus I'm going to go ahead briefly, are you seriously suggesting one or both of Ward and Cruddace is better than Kelly?

Yes. Gross internal imbalance and stupid entire-game-design-ignoring rules == kelly.

Eldar - atrocious internal balance. Broke 4th ed royally with flying circus stupidity - even less fun to play against than the worst spam GK army, as at least you could kill something in that game. 1/36 chance of killing a falcon back then.

DE - monstrous imbalance in the codex - why wouldnt you double the number of shots on your cheap transport for only 10pts? cheap elite blaster spam

SW - first way of breaking 5th with spam fest LF and razor spam, and undercosted GH

Orks are probably his best, and even they have some complete nobrainers and complete stinkers of unit choices

For his rules wackyness Ward has at least the concept of internal balance, gives you codexes you can write varied army lists with that are all reasonable - he just got screwed, with GK, by the accountants. The original dex didnt have 'backs or cheap psy ammo, and everything cost a heck of a lot more.

fair enough, I won't get into a discussion here, as mentioned it's not really the place, was just very interested because it really doesn't mesh with my opinion or that of most people in my regular gaming circles.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

juraigamer wrote:Since the power is classified as a shooting attack, and you can't shoot into melee...

Not true - you cannot *target* a unit in combat, however Jaws works fine passing through combat - its just, I believe, the initial target (the first model touched) that cannot be locked in combat

Nonsense, it's still a shooting attack, it's just you don't need to roll to hit (something I'm furious about)

You cannot deliberatly shoot into melee unless given permission, and the only thing that can affect melee (with regard to shooting attacks) is if a weapon that uses scatter dice scatters onto a melee.


With regard to the nonsense of phil kelly:

I'm surprised how much people rant on ward. It doesn't help that most DE players are wych spamming fools and eldar have fallen by the wayside.

That only leaves SW and their stupid cheap, stupid good, stupid spammy and stupid powerfulness.

juraigamer wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

juraigamer wrote:Since the power is classified as a shooting attack, and you can't shoot into melee...

Not true - you cannot *target* a unit in combat, however Jaws works fine passing through combat - its just, I believe, the initial target (the first model touched) that cannot be locked in combat

Nonsense, it's still a shooting attack, it's just you don't need to roll to hit (something I'm furious about)

You cannot deliberatly shoot into melee unless given permission, and the only thing that can affect melee (with regard to shooting attacks) is if a weapon that uses scatter dice scatters onto a melee.

Can you prove that with some quotes? I think you are well wrong. You can shoot into combat so long as you don't target the unit in combat.

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

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jaws targets only the first model that it hits. It doesn't matter where the rest of the models are or what they rae doing just so long as the first is a valid target.

Jurai - again, reread the rules. The restriction is on targetting. Thats it.

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.

So...death rays can hit units in CC...because you never select a target, just 2 points lol

Basimpo wrote:So...death rays can hit units in CC...because you never select a target, just 2 points lol

Arguably yes. Because its a line - similar to JotWW - I'd say that the first unit hit is the target... But after that it's fair game.

rigeld2 wrote:

Basimpo wrote:So...death rays can hit units in CC...because you never select a target, just 2 points lol

Arguably yes. Because its a line - similar to JotWW - I'd say that the first unit hit is the target... But after that it's fair game.

Not to derail this topic onto death rays but i think the deathray rule actually provides a precedence for what it is 'targeting.' IIRC it can choose any one unit that it hits (enemy) to fire its tesla destructor into. That would de-facto be the target for the deathray as well since the vehicle firing can still only choose one 'target.'

So the priest is with a unit of grey hunters and they want to shoot their bolters and jotww a unit thats on the other side of a combat...wouldnt that unit be the 'target'? Any intervening models would just so happen get hit by the jotww effect?

The SW FAQ defines that the first model crossed by the line is Jaws' target.

thanatos67 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Basimpo wrote:So...death rays can hit units in CC...because you never select a target, just 2 points lol

Arguably yes. Because its a line - similar to JotWW - I'd say that the first unit hit is the target... But after that it's fair game.

Not to derail this topic onto death rays but i think the deathray rule actually provides a precedence for what it is 'targeting.' IIRC it can choose any one unit that it hits (enemy) to fire its tesla destructor into. That would de-facto be the target for the deathray as well since the vehicle firing can still only choose one 'target.'

So the priest is with a unit of grey hunters and they want to shoot their bolters and jotww a unit thats on the other side of a combat...wouldnt that unit be the 'target'? Any intervening models would just so happen get hit by the jotww effect?

Not even in the slightest. You MIGHT have a point of precedence, if the SW FAQ didn't specify that the first unit hit by JotWW is the target.

Ah wasnt aware of the FAQ, so in my above description then you cant use jaws through an intervening combat?

Not legal.

I dont play wolves, so this is good to know. I've always thought my above example was correct but didnt realize it had been faq'd.

Also with the new faq regarding shooting attacks etc out of transports I'm guessing you can jotww out of a rhino anymore?

If so...good riddance

thanatos67 wrote:I dont play wolves, so this is good to know. I've always thought my above example was correct but didnt realize it had been faq'd.

Also with the new faq regarding shooting attacks etc out of transports I'm guessing you can jotww out of a rhino anymore?

If so...good riddance

You can cast JOTWW out of any transport as long as you would normally be able to fire a ranged weapon from said transport.

thanatos67 wrote:I dont play wolves, so this is good to know. I've always thought my above example was correct but didnt realize it had been faq'd.

Also with the new faq regarding shooting attacks etc out of transports I'm guessing you can jotww out of a rhino anymore?

If so...good riddance

The FAQ that explicitly allows you to use psychic powers, or shooting attacks, of which Jaws is both?

The FAQ disallows NON-shooting, NON-psychic attacks from using firepoints to draw LOS

Realllyyyy CHEESY when you do it to your Dad's carnifex in a tournament!
JERK!

Not legal and I've seen People DQd at tournaments for this.

@ 666: Do you have a rules backing for it not being legal, other than how to's have decided?

Read the latest SW FAQ. It directly addresses this particular situation.

Is jaws of the world wolf legal? No. Lol but you can't target into combat but it can hi into combat. I hate this spell with a passion.

I should have asked, are you saying drawing the lie so the first target hit is in cc is illegal, or hitting a unit in cc period is illegal?

You cant snipe with it.

You mean this question?

Space Wolves FAQ wrote:
Q. Does Jaws of the World Wolf allow the Rune Priest
to target specific models within squads? (p37)
A. Yes.

-666- wrote:You cant snipe with it.

Yes you can, see the above faq quote. The target ie "the first unit hit by jotww" cannot be in CC but the rest of the models hit can be. Any weapon that allows you to scatter, fire without picking a target etc can hit unit's in CC but they can also hit your own models. JOTWW doesn't affect space wolves though.

-666- wrote:You cant snipe with it.

You cited the FAQ, and you're wrong about that... and you have nothing to back up your "Not legal" statement...

Or am I missing something?

It is a psychic shooting attack - to snipe the FAQ would have to state you could do it.

Which it does, you are allowed to target specific models in the unit.

I disagree with you. If your opponents are silly enough to let you pull that kind of cr@p then I suppose they deserve it.

Shooting cannot target models in assault but no you can target models in assault... right.

Outta here.

There seems to be some confusion here. You are using the word "snipe" to mean "hit models in cc". I use the word "snipe" to mean "target a specific model".

You are right that you cannot target units in cc, but they can still be hit; either by a scattered blast, or a line "template" attack, such as JotWW or the Eldar Vibro Cannon. The difference between, JotWW and the Vibro Cannon, is that JotWW must hit a unit not locked in cc first (as this is the target unit).

-666- wrote:You cant snipe with it.

What do you mean by "snipe"?
Normally, snipe means to take out specific models within squad. This is explicitly allowed to JoTWW.

To reiterate:
First model hit by JotWW is considered target of the power. All normal rules applying to choosing target for shooting apply.
This means:
1) First unit hit by JotWW cannot be in CC.
2) Any other units hit be JotWW can be in CC.

-666- wrote:You cant snipe with it.

Actually you can snipe with it, just not models in close combat unless you are in position that the first model to be affected by the power is not in close combat. As the rule says, any other models are just hit as the line goes through which would incluse models in close combat.

Actually you can snipe with it, just not models in close combat unless you are in position that the first model to be affected by the power is not in close combat. As the rule says, any other models are just hit as the line goes through which would incluse models in close combat.

I'm agreeing with this fully.

I was so addled by how Jaws worked I typed up a blog post about it. With pictures to try to make things clearer. I'm still chopping and changing things about it since I first posted it: I'm wondering if you can fire it at a vehicle squad to hit a character behind it for example. Linky here. To be honest, I'm probably going to wait for 6th to drop before I update it again though hopefully it helps.

@Stormy: of course you can target a vehicle for it to hit someone behind it. Just like you can shoot your plasma cannon at that Land Raider, not that it does anything but hey it might scatter to the guy standing behind it.

Not true, as the "target" for Jaws is the first unit it hits, and it does not hit vehicles.

@Happyjew: I thought you can target a psychic shooting attack at any model that is not in CC unless there is a rule forbidding you to do so. Just like you can target your bolter at the Rhino.

Normally, yes, however, Jaws has a different mechanic, and the FAQ specifies that the target is the first unit that is hit.

I have just re-read the wording of Jaws, it doesn't have a restriction on the unit it targets (you need line of sight, night fighting rule and all that) but not on the unit type. It has the restrictions on which units it affects. Perhaps I am missing something.

Can you not target a unit of which the power doesn't affect?

e.g. you can Fear of Darkness a Fearless unit, not that it does anything.

From the FAQ:

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.

(important part in bold)

Mannahnin wrote:The SW FAQ defines that the first model crossed by the line is Jaws' target.

This is what I was talking about, of course it doesn't help that I think SW are far more broken than GK, but whatever.

And you can snipe with it, as it causes the models of which the line pass over to take the test. You can choose what models you want to try to kill.

@Happyjew: I must be missing something really big. I agree with all the answer so far regarding targeting a model in CC can be done if the first target is a valid target.

Here is my logic: My rune priest put down the line template. My Rune priest is now targeting the Rhino (closest with respect to the template). Anything (non-vehicle, non-jump-infantry) in that template take an initiative test regardless of whether enemy or friendly, in CC or not in CC. Then my squad shoot all the assault weapons at the Rhino and then assault it afterward.

Is this illegal in some way?

A Rhino can shoot a storm bolter at another Rhino even if it doesn't do anything (otherwise, how can you even use searchlight).

leohart wrote:@Happyjew: I must be missing something really big. I agree with all the answer so far regarding targeting a model in CC can be done if the first target is a valid target.

Here is my logic: My rune priest put down the line template. My Rune priest is now targeting the Rhino (closest with respect to the template). Anything (non-vehicle, non-jump-infantry) in that template take an initiative test regardless of whether enemy or friendly, in CC or not in CC. Then my squad shoot all the assault weapons at the Rhino and then assault it afterward.

Is this illegal in some way?

A Rhino can shoot a storm bolter at another Rhino even if it doesn't do anything (otherwise, how can you even use searchlight).

The FAQ shows that the first model affected is the target. The Rhino cannot be affected therefore cannot be the target.

Then how would you use searchlight from a Rhino?

The storm bolter on a Rhino cannot affect another Rhino from the front facing, so it cannot target. Cannot target, cannot searchlight.

Incorrect

Jaws has a *requirement* that the first model AFFECTED is the target. A rhino cannot be affected so CANNOT be the target

In GENERAL shooting has no restrictions on what you can target, regardless of your ability to hurt the target.

The target is the first model affected, not the first model hit. If it can't be affected, it can't be the target.

Edit: Too slow, Ninja'd

leohart wrote:Then how would you use searchlight from a Rhino?

The storm bolter on a Rhino cannot affect another Rhino from the front facing, so it cannot target. Cannot target, cannot searchlight.

As was said, Jaws has a specific statement about how to determine a target.
A Rhino shooting just declares a target.

See the difference?

Getting back to the original question of the thread:

Can JotWW's 'line' be drawn over models locked in combat if the first model crossed by the line is not locked in combat?

The answer is absolutely not.

The rules explicitly prohibit shooting into close combat, not just targeting units in close combat (pg 40). This is why, for example, you are not allowed to place a flamer template over models in close combat even if the target enemy unit itself is not locked in combat.

So therefore when choosing where to draw the line for JotWW it is not allowed to cross over any models locked in combat.

yakface wrote:
Getting back to the original question of the thread:
Can JotWW's 'line' be drawn over models locked in combat if the first model crossed by the line is not locked in combat?
The answer is absolutely not.

I disagree.

yakface wrote:
The rules explicitly prohibit shooting into close combat, not just targeting units in close combat (pg 40). This is why, for example, you are not allowed to place a flamer template over models in close combat even if the target enemy unit itself is not locked in combat.
So therefore when choosing where to draw the line for JotWW it is not allowed to cross over any models locked in combat.

Actually, rules don't prohibit shooting into close combat. They prohibit you from 1) targeting units in close combat and 2) placing template so that it covers models in close combat.
Major distinction.
Rules also prohibit targeting friendly units and placing templates so that they hit friendly models. But I haven't seen anyone argue that you couldn't place JotWW 'line' so that it hit friendlies.

But this doesn't matter, because JotWW is not a template. Restrictions for it are quite clear in FAQ and they only apply to the target model.
"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!"

So can JotWW's 'line' be drawn over models locked in combat if the first model crossed by the line is not locked in combat? Answer is yes.

Guys, check out p.40 - Shooting Into and Out of Close Combat. It is a blanket statement about shooting into assault. No mention of targeting.

Yakface is right.

yakface wrote:
So therefore when choosing where to draw the line for JotWW it is not allowed to cross over any models locked in combat.

Citation needed.

I've read page 40 and it seems clear that you can't directly shoot cc. It reads very like fluff so going back to the section in the shooting phase, we are back to no targetting cc.

Now here is a question:

I have a flamer in my GH squad, there are two ranks of IG from 2 different squads within 2 inches of one another and only 4" from the flamer. The second squad are in cc. The GH shoot at the first squad and the flamer is placed, the template covers some of the 2nd squad and the unit they are in cc with. The wounds are rolled on all the units hit and wounds are resolved.
Is this allowed?

If the above is allowed why is jotww not cool doing the same.

You may never, ever place a blast or template so that it covers any part of a model locked in close combat. Both template and blast rules explicitly mention this. If you can not place a template without hitting a unit in CC, that model may not fire its template weapon.

AFAIK there are 4 "weapons" that use the line "template"

1) Eldar Vibro Cannon: FAQ'd to allow hitting models in cc.
2) Blood Lance (PSA): Specifically says it ignores models in cc.
3) JotWW (PSA): Does not specify one way or the other.
4) Necron Death Ray: Again does not specify one way or the other.

So my question, is can the Death Ray line be placed to hit models locked in cc as well?

While the rule is pretty fluffy, it basically says that deliberately shooting into close combat is not permitted, no exceptions. You can accidentally shoot your models though. (BRB pg. 40).

The targeting rules prevent you from targeting any model in close combat (BRB pg. 16).

In addition:

Q. Does Veil of Tears work against weapons that do not
pick a specific target. For example, if a vibro cannon is
fired so that its line goes through a unit of Harlequins,
do you hit them even if they are out of your spotting
distance? (p48)
A. Yes, the Harlequins are not targeted specifically, so
the Veil of Tears has no effect.
-> Vibro cannons do not pick a target

Q. Does Jaws of the World Wolf allow the Rune Priest
to target specific models within squads? (p37)
A. Yes.
-> JotWW needs to pick a target

Sooo:
1) Yep. It also doesn't seem to target anything at all. Kills friend and foe alike.
2) Really the best defined one of them all, nothing to argue(anymore). Note that it doesn't kill allies either.
3) Considering that JotWW will also kill friendly models if hit, I'd say out of consistency, you can kill models in close combat, too. Targeting limitations disallow the first model being in combat (or friendly) though.
4) Just like the vibro cannon, you do not pick any targets, but points on the board, as well as hitting friend or foe. I see no reason to not simply apply all vibro cannon rules to the death ray, as they are both vehicle-base weapons with the only difference being the direction of the ray.

So the only one really up in the air are secondary hits by JotWW, as if GW like having loop holes for that particular PSA.

I told you you can't shoot into melee. I'm glad yakface straightened you guys out. Major distinction.

-666- wrote:I told you you can't shoot into melee. I'm glad yakface straightened you guys out. Major distinction.

The steps for using a shooting attack start on page 16. It talks about picking a target.

Then, on page 40, it says that commanders may not indiscriminately fire into their own troops in the hope that they will hit enemy models. With JotWW, it isn't indiscriminate and there is no hope - the line of JotWW means that it is impossible to accidentally hit friendly models unless you know for sure that you will (after drawing the line and looking at it).

Then, page 40 says that templates and blast markers (the closest approximation to JotWW in this example question) may accidentally land on friendly troops when you fire them.

So, I would say that 666 is wrong.

By that logic, when gork and mork decide that my warphead will now melta something to death, (roll of 3 on warhead powers), can I shoot a walker locked in combat? It is impossible to hit my own model with it, right?

You're still intentionally targeting a model locked in combat. Same reason why you can't snipe enemy models locked in combat with a blast template by hanging it over from the intended target.

Jidmah wrote:By that logic, when gork and mork decide that my warphead will now melta something to death, (roll of 3 on warhead powers), can I shoot a walker locked in combat? It is impossible to hit my own model with it, right?

Yes, assuming that following conditions are true:
1) You don't need to select Walker as a target of the PSA. If you do, you fail. Exactly same requirement is given for JotWW.
2) It's not a template.
3) It's not a blast.

-666- wrote:You're still intentionally targeting a model locked in combat. Same reason why you can't snipe enemy models locked in combat with a blast template by hanging it over from the intended target.

No, theyre not. they're affecting models in close combat, while targetting a model not locked in combat

The target of JotWW is the FIRST MODEL to be AFFECTED by the power. Thats it

Wrong. You're intentionally targeting models in combat. You can't do that.

Luide wrote:

Jidmah wrote:By that logic, when gork and mork decide that my warphead will now melta something to death, (roll of 3 on warhead powers), can I shoot a walker locked in combat? It is impossible to hit my own model with it, right?

Yes, assuming that following conditions are true:
1) You don't need to select Walker as a target of the PSA. If you do, you fail. Exactly same requirement is given for JotWW.
2) It's not a template.
3) It's not a blast.

Tangent said something different though. By his reasoning, I can shot into combat as long as there no danger of hitting your own unit, which there isn't for an auto-hitting melta shot. He also claims that he can't kill his own models with JotWW, which is also wrong. If nothing prevents you from affecting units locked in close combat, there is nothing preventing you from dropping your space wolves into the chasm either. As long as you picked a legal target, of course.

For clarification, I agree to everything you said. I was just asking rhetorical questions to demonstrate his fault. Of course you can't melta a walker locked in close combat.

Tangent wrote:

-666- wrote:I told you you can't shoot into melee. I'm glad yakface straightened you guys out. Major distinction.

The steps for using a shooting attack start on page 16. It talks about picking a target.

Then, on page 40, it says that commanders may not indiscriminately fire into their own troops in the hope that they will hit enemy models. With JotWW, it isn't indiscriminate and there is no hope - the line of JotWW means that it is impossible to accidentally hit friendly models unless you know for sure that you will (after drawing the line and looking at it).

Then, page 40 says that templates and blast markers (the closest approximation to JotWW in this example question) may accidentally land on friendly troops when you fire them.

So, I would say that 666 is wrong.

Uh, it says that blast/templates can end up over combat when they 'scatter' there.

There is absolutely no scattering involved when choosing where the line is drawn with JotWW, if you draw the line over models locked in combat, you are unequivocally choosing to shoot into combat, which is strictly prohibited.

Exactly. Well said yakface.

-666- wrote:Wrong. You're intentionally targeting models in combat. You can't do that.

How about you quote a rule for once, rather than simply repeating the same thing over and over again?

The only model targeted is the first one you hit. That first model has to be a legal target in every aspect, including not being locked in combat.

All further models hit can be in combat, out of sight, or friendly and still get killed. So by carefully lining up your rune priest you can snipe a model out of close combat - as you hit another model closer to the rune priest first.

Luide wrote:
Actually, rules don't prohibit shooting into close combat. They prohibit you from 1) targeting units in close combat and 2) placing template so that it covers models in close combat.
Major distinction.
Rules also prohibit targeting friendly units and placing templates so that they hit friendly models. But I haven't seen anyone argue that you couldn't place JotWW 'line' so that it hit friendlies.

But this doesn't matter, because JotWW is not a template. Restrictions for it are quite clear in FAQ and they only apply to the target model.
"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!"

So can JotWW's 'line' be drawn over models locked in combat if the first model crossed by the line is not locked in combat? Answer is yes.

No, the reason you can't place a template or blast so that it clips models locked in close combat (even when the target unit isn't locked in combat itself) is because you are not allowed to fire into close combat...targeting has nothing to do with it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jidmah wrote:

-666- wrote:Wrong. You're intentionally targeting models in combat. You can't do that.

How about you quote a rule for once, rather than simply repeating the same thing over and over again?

The only model targeted is the first one you hit. That first model has to be a legal target in every aspect, including not being locked in combat.

All further models hit can be in combat, out of sight, or friendly and still get killed. So by carefully lining up your rune priest you can snipe a model out of close combat - as you hit another model closer to the rune priest first.

Again, pg 40 clearly disallows firing into close combat. Targeting of a unit has nothing to do with anything. You are not allowed to place blast markers or template weapons covering models locked in combat because of this rule.

Is JotWW a shooting attack? Yes.

Are shooting attacks permitted against units locked in combat? Nope (pg 40).

Therefore, you cannot draw a JotWW line over models locked in combat because doing so is performing (an admittedly funky) shooting attack against models locked in combat, which is disallowed.

yakface wrote: you are unequivocally choosing to shoot into combat, which is strictly prohibited.

This is not correct.

yakface wrote:Again, pg 40 clearly disallows firing into close combat.

Again, this is not correct.

The exact wording is (emphasis mine):

"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."

The ONLY THING that the BRB prohibits is firing into combat in such a way that the shots fired have a chance of hitting friendly models. This seems to imply that, were GW to write a rule governing shooting into close combat, the shots may be randomized in some way.

Were I to rule this, I would say that if you hit both friendly and enemy models with the line of JotWW, then this is not allowed because you are not discriminating between friend and foe; you are firing indiscriminately, which as we know from page 40 is not permitted.

However, if you only hit enemy models and, as previous posters have said, the first model (the only model to be actually targeted by the PSA) is not engaged in close combat, then it would be allowed.

The only thing I'm going on is what it says in the BRB - I don't play SW and don't have stock (in fact, this hurts me). But it seems to me that people are adding words into the BRB and/or taking words out (such as the word "indiscriminate") and molding what's left to fit their position. It does not say ANYWHERE that you "cannot shoot into close combat" from what I have read. If it does, quote me a page number.

The actual "rule" is:

"...may wish to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combat s in the hopes of hitting the enemy, this is not permitted"

So, as long as you're not firing indiscriminately, youre allowed to fire into combat.

Tangent wrote:
Again, this is not correct.

The exact wording is (emphasis mine):

"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."

The ONLY THING that the BRB prohibits is firing into combat in such a way that the shots fired have a chance of hitting friendly models. This seems to imply that, were GW to write a rule governing shooting into close combat, the shots may be randomized in some way.

Were I to rule this, I would say that if you hit both friendly and enemy models with the line of JotWW, then this is not allowed because you are not discriminating between friend and foe; you are firing indiscriminately, which as we know from page 40 is not permitted.

However, if you only hit enemy models and, as previous posters have said, the first model (the only model to be actually targeted by the PSA) is not engaged in close combat, then it would be allowed.

The only thing I'm going on is what it says in the BRB - I don't play SW and don't have stock (in fact, this hurts me). But it seems to me that people are adding words into the BRB and/or taking words out (such as the word "indiscriminate") and molding what's left to fit their position. It does not say ANYWHERE that you "cannot shoot into close combat" from what I have read. If it does, quote me a page number.

No, you are not allowed to fire into close combat, which is why you are not allowed to place a template covering enemy models that are locked in combat even if the target of the shooting isn't locked in combat.

Using your incorrect logic, this tactic would be allowed, as a template (or blast) can be placed so as only to cover (and affect) enemy models, with no chance of hitting friendly models. Hell, any 'standard' shooting attack has no chance of hitting friendly models.

The description about firing indiscriminately into close combat is an explanative term as to why you are not allowed to fire into combat, but the guideline is absolute: You are not allowed to fire into close combat, even though you would like to because combat is a swirling mass of bodies so even though it seems like you should be able to hit only the enemy models you'd like, this is just a representation of the combat that is actually happening.

So in game terms, you are not allowed to fire into combat, and the manifestation of that rule prohibits placing blasts, templates or anything else that would knowingly affect models locked in combat.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The actual "rule" is:

"...may wish to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combat s in the hopes of hitting the enemy, this is not permitted"

So, as long as you're not firing indiscriminately, youre allowed to fire into combat.

While we can all agree that this rule in particular is written in a very cinematic fashion (as opposed to being quite literal as it should be), the basic premise of the rule is quite clear: you are not allowed to fire into combats, period. Which again, is precisely why you cannot willingly place a blast and/or template over models locked in combat even if the target of your shooting isn't locked in combat.

If you were actually trying to claim that any type of shooting that wasn't 'indiscriminate' was allowed to fire into combat, then 99% of shooting falls into this category. If I'm firing 10 guys with blotters at an enemy unit there is literally 0% chance of hitting enemy models in the game rules and therefore by your standard this wouldn't be 'indiscriminate' and would totally be allowed?

Clearly the rule has a purpose and its purpose is to prevent players from willingly shooting into combat. Yet again, this is why blasts/templates cannot be placed over models locked in combat even when their target isn't in combat, and is the same reason you cannot have a JotWW line drawn over models locked in combat even when the 'target' of the shooting attack isn't locked in combat himself.

Good job yakface.

Yakface, I see what you're saying and throughout the reading of this thread I am tempted to agree with you and concede the point, but there are two things stopping me. If you can remove these two obstacles, the argument is over. Ok, well, really only point number 2.

1) Nowhere in the rules does it state that ALL shooting of models locked in close combat is disallowed, though I understand we're using a permissive ruleset and so this is less of an issue than number 2...

2) The ability to "accidentally" hit models that are locked in close combat with blast weapons that scatter suggests that it is not the HITTING of models that matters - it is the SHOOTING AT models that matters. This, combined with the "indiscriminate" and "hopes" quotes from the BRB implies that the prohibition is a mental one: commanders cannot willingly and purposely place friendly troops in jeopardy by shooting into close combats in which they are engaged. Clearly, hitting them by accident when you were not SHOOTING AT them is allowed.

And so, since JotWW is not shooting at ANY models other than the first one hit/targeted, the fact that other models are HIT (but not SHOT AT, as the case with scattered blast weapons) is irrelevant as to whether or not they are locked in close combat. The closest approximation to the JotWW situation hitting models OTHER than the one which is targeted is when a blast weapon hits models other than the one which was targeted. Blast weapons are allowed; why not JotWW?

Tangent wrote:Yakface, I see what you're saying and throughout the reading of this thread I am tempted to agree with you and concede the point, but there are two things stopping me. If you can remove these two obstacles, the argument is over.

1) Nowhere in the rules does it state that ALL shooting of models locked in close combat is disallowed.

2) The ability to "accidentally" hit models that are locked in close combat with blast weapons that scatter suggests that it is not the HITTING of models that matters - it is the SHOOTING AT models that matters. This, combined with the "indiscriminate" and "hopes" quotes from the BRB implies that the prohibition is a mental one: commanders cannot willingly and purposely place friendly troops in jeopardy by shooting into close combats in which they are engaged. Clearly, hitting them by accident when you were not SHOOTING AT them is allowed.

And so, since JotWW is not shooting at ANY models other than the first one hit/targeted, the fact that other models are HIT (but not SHOT AT, as the case with scattered blast weapons) is irrelevant as to whether or not they are locked in close combat. The closest approximation to the JotWW situation hitting models OTHER than the one which is targeted is when a blast weapon hits models other than the one which was targeted. Blast weapons are allowed; why not JotWW?

Again, 99% of all shooting has literally no ability to affect enemy models; it is not indiscriminate.

So if I have 10 guys firing blotters that have a 0% chance to affect enemy models with my shooting, I can go ahead and fire at enemy models locked in combat?

The rule is that you are not allowed to fire into combat. This is what prohibits you from targeting units locked in combat with weapons such as bolters. Yes we all know that bolters cannot possibly hit enemy models, but the rule is worded as to express why you cannot fire into combat.

The expression of this rule is why you cannot place templates or blasts so that they cover any model locked in combat, even when the 'target' of the shooting isn't locked in combat itself.

Again, a template weapon has a 0% chance of actually affecting enemy models by the normal rules for placing templates, so again this is just as discriminate as the line from JotWW is.

It DOES NOT MATTER whether or not the target of JotWW is locked in combat or not, any model crossed by that line is being 'shot' by that shooting attack the same way any model covered by a template weapon is being shot by the template weapon regardless of whether or not it is part of the unit being targeted by the shooters.

So the question is, is the straight line from JOWW a template? As per the original question, my Carnifex locked in combat could not be targeted, correct? So my son is paying my entrance fee to the next tourney......
I did not raise him to be a rules lawyer!

LordVonDoom wrote:So the question is, is the straight line from JOWW a template? As per the original question, my Carnifex locked in combat could not be targeted, correct? So my son is paying my entrance fee to the next tourney......
I did not raise him to be a rules lawyer!

No, a JotWW line is not a template, but it is still a shooting attack and therefore cannot be used to willingly affect models locked in combat.

Tangent wrote:

2) The ability to "accidentally" hit models that are locked in close combat with blast weapons that scatter suggests that it is not the HITTING of models that matters - it is the SHOOTING AT models that matters. This, combined with the "indiscriminate" and "hopes" quotes from the BRB implies that the prohibition is a mental one: commanders cannot willingly and purposely place friendly troops in jeopardy by shooting into close combats in which they are engaged. Clearly, hitting them by accident when you were not SHOOTING AT them is allowed.

The reason why you can scatter into melee is you didn't intentionally place it over them. Same reason why when a skimmer goes flat out and immoblizes, the contents die if it was in your movement phase, were as in your opponents shooting phase, the simply bail out.

But if you need the page, it's 40 in the bottom right box.

It states you cannot shoot into or out of melee, and that templates and markers cannot be deliberatly placed so that they could cover ANY models in close combat (meaning you cannot place it next to the unit so it only hits the enemy units in CC)

The argument of being able to ignore allied models for jaws doesn't hold water, since the situation can arise were a blast or template will only hit enemy models in melee, and since both are shooting attacks.

This strikes me as a very liberal interpretation of the rules as written.

So, I shoot a blast template at a target. We work it out, and the blast accidentally covers units locked in close combat. Allowed.

I "shoot" JotWW at a target. We work it out, and the line accidentally covers units locked in close combat. NOT allowed.

In both cases, you're intending to hit targets that are not locked in close combat, but due to the nature of the "shot" you accidentally hit some. Why is situation 1 allowed while situation 2 is not allowed?

Tangent wrote:This strikes me as a very liberal interpretation of the rules as written.

So, I shoot a blast template at a target. We work it out, and the blast accidentally covers units locked in close combat. Allowed.

I "shoot" JotWW at a target. We work it out, and the line accidentally covers units locked in close combat. NOT allowed.

In both cases, you're intending to hit targets that are not locked in close combat, but due to the nature of the "shot" you accidentally hit some. Why is situation 1 allowed while situation 2 is not allowed?

Because there is no 'accidentally' with JotWW. Blasts scatter, and you have no control over that and it is specifically covered in the rules for shooting into/out of combat.

With JotWW, you completely choose where the line goes and can choose precisely where it hits. Again, this is much, much more similar to a template weapon which chooses a 'target' (unit in this case) but then can end up affecting models from other units as well.

But just like JotWW, a template weapon never 'accidentally' hits anything. You choose where it is placed and therefore you cannot willingly choose to fire it so that the template covers models in combat, even if the target of the shot is out of combat.

Since you choose precisely where JotWW is fired, you cannot willingly choose to fire it in a manner that will end up firing into combat.

Tangent wrote:
I "shoot" JotWW at a target. We work it out, and the line accidentally covers units locked in close combat. NOT allowed.

It's a stright 24" line, how do you "accidentally" hit a unit in combat? You can see exactly where the line is heading, there's no guess work or scatter involved.

Exactly - people were saying in this thread it's okay to target enemy units.

grendel083 wrote:

Tangent wrote:
I "shoot" JotWW at a target. We work it out, and the line accidentally covers units locked in close combat. NOT allowed.

It's a stright 24" line, how do you "accidentally" hit a unit in combat? You can see exactly where the line is heading, there's no guess work or scatter involved.

Well if we use Einsteins theory of relativity to postulate that space is curved, then in theory a straight line isn't straight at all.

What what?

OT: Since you "Shoot" jaws, you cannot go into melee purposefully, unless jaws scattered, which would be kinda funny, imagine the rune priest trying to point straight.

Too much Mjod

yakface wrote:
Because there is no 'accidentally' with JotWW.

This is what I thought you would say, and you're right about the "flamer" template being a better analogy to JotWW. You have thus convinced me!

grendel083 wrote:
It's a stright 24" line, how do you "accidentally" hit a unit in combat? You can see exactly where the line is heading, there's no guess work or scatter involved.

Because you don't measure for range until you've declared the shot, there may be a unit that is locked in close combat that you end up accidentally hitting because you thought they were 25" away and is, in reality, only 23". There absolutely is guesswork involved, even if there is no scatter.

Its not accidental at all unless maybe you are blind.

Tangent wrote:

grendel083 wrote:
It's a stright 24" line, how do you "accidentally" hit a unit in combat? You can see exactly where the line is heading, there's no guess work or scatter involved.

Because you don't measure for range until you've declared the shot, there may be a unit that is locked in close combat that you end up accidentally hitting because you thought they were 25" away and is, in reality, only 23". There absolutely is guesswork involved, even if there is no scatter.

You trace a 24" line, if a unit in combat is in the way you reposition the line. There really is no guesswork involved. If you want to treat it like a template then get a 24" long stick.

So since Blood Lance has a random distance, is it allowed to "accidentally" hit CC?

Poor choice, Blood Lance specifically says it "jumps" over models locked in cc.

-666- wrote:Wrong. You're intentionally targeting models in combat. You can't do that.

Wrong.

I am intentionally targeting a model out of close combat and the by product of intentionally targeting said model is that models in close combat are also hit. The same would apply if I were to target a model out of close combat with a blast weapon and it scatters onto a close combat. I targeted the model out of close combat, but due to the mechanics of the weapon, I have hit models in close combat. Same applies to the mechanics of JotWW.

Happyjew wrote:Poor choice, Blood Lance specifically says it "jumps" over models locked in cc.

Wasn't being argumentative, I was asking the question for real
Away from my books. Since BL says that it jumps over, and JotWW doesn't... wouldn't that mean that JotWW hit units in a combat?

It's not targeting at all (except the first unit hit). Just like you are absolutely forbidden from hitting your own models with a template weapon, but Jaws can absolutely hit your own models.

Not a problem,.

Personally I would have used Death Ray, as it is the only other Line "Template" (that I know of anyway) that doesn't specify whether or not it hits models in cc.

yakface wrote:

Tangent wrote:Yakface, I see what you're saying and throughout the reading of this thread I am tempted to agree with you and concede the point, but there are two things stopping me. If you can remove these two obstacles, the argument is over.

1) Nowhere in the rules does it state that ALL shooting of models locked in close combat is disallowed.

2) The ability to "accidentally" hit models that are locked in close combat with blast weapons that scatter suggests that it is not the HITTING of models that matters - it is the SHOOTING AT models that matters. This, combined with the "indiscriminate" and "hopes" quotes from the BRB implies that the prohibition is a mental one: commanders cannot willingly and purposely place friendly troops in jeopardy by shooting into close combats in which they are engaged. Clearly, hitting them by accident when you were not SHOOTING AT them is allowed.

And so, since JotWW is not shooting at ANY models other than the first one hit/targeted, the fact that other models are HIT (but not SHOT AT, as the case with scattered blast weapons) is irrelevant as to whether or not they are locked in close combat. The closest approximation to the JotWW situation hitting models OTHER than the one which is targeted is when a blast weapon hits models other than the one which was targeted. Blast weapons are allowed; why not JotWW?

Again, 99% of all shooting has literally no ability to affect enemy models; it is not indiscriminate.

So if I have 10 guys firing blotters that have a 0% chance to affect enemy models with my shooting, I can go ahead and fire at enemy models locked in combat?

The rule is that you are not allowed to fire into combat. This is what prohibits you from targeting units locked in combat with weapons such as bolters. Yes we all know that bolters cannot possibly hit enemy models, but the rule is worded as to express why you cannot fire into combat.

The expression of this rule is why you cannot place templates or blasts so that they cover any model locked in combat, even when the 'target' of the shooting isn't locked in combat itself.

Again, a template weapon has a 0% chance of actually affecting enemy models by the normal rules for placing templates, so again this is just as discriminate as the line from JotWW is.

It DOES NOT MATTER whether or not the target of JotWW is locked in combat or not, any model crossed by that line is being 'shot' by that shooting attack the same way any model covered by a template weapon is being shot by the template weapon regardless of whether or not it is part of the unit being targeted by the shooters.

One thing that you keep missing Yak is that at no time are you "shooting" at models in close combat. The RAW of JotWW as well as the FAQ are very specific in that the first model affected by the power is considered the target of the PSA. The rule is also very explicit that other models are just hit as the line passes through. Therefore you are NOT shooting into close combat, you are shooting at a model outside of close combat and as the rule for JotWW tells you, the rest are just hit as the line passes through.

As I mentioned, this is akin to firing a blast weapon at an unengaged model and who scatter then takes it onto a unit in close combat. At no time were you shooting at the unit in close combat, you were shooting at the unengaged model, however the mechanics of a blast weapon cause the unit in close combat to be hit. At no time were you shooting JotWW at a unit in close combat, you were shooting it at an unengaged model, however the mechanics of JotWW cause the unit in close combat to be hit as the line passes through.

JotWW is effectively a 24" long line template. So placing it so that it hits models in combat is not allowed. Surely you wouldn't be okay with my placing a flamer template over a model and "accidentally" hitting models locked in close combat?

If it doesn't scatter, what it touches is not accidental. Targeting isn't what is restricted, intentionally shooting into close combat is.

Where do you see permission to hit your own models with JotWW, by the way? It has no exception to shooting friendly models in the text and there is none in the SW GW FAQ.

@Brother Ramses - It's like scattering a blast except that it doesn't scatter and therefore isn't anything like scattering a blast.

By Yak's argument, JotWW can't be used if it's going to hit friendly units either - because doing so is similarly forbidden.

Why is there a clause about hitting friendly units in JotWW then?

rigeld2 wrote:By Yak's argument, JotWW can't be used if it's going to hit friendly units either - because doing so is similarly forbidden.

Why is there a clause about hitting friendly units in JotWW then?

There isn't one. Not in the SW Codex or in the GW FAQ.

jwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:By Yak's argument, JotWW can't be used if it's going to hit friendly units either - because doing so is similarly forbidden.

Why is there a clause about hitting friendly units in JotWW then?

There isn't one. Not in the SW Codex or in the GW FAQ.

Dammit. I could swear there was. I need to stop posting when away from my books.

So you can't cast Jaws if it'll hit your own units either?

jwolf wrote:JotWW is effectively a 24" long line template. So placing it so that it hits models in combat is not allowed. Surely you wouldn't be okay with my placing a flamer template over a model and "accidentally" hitting models locked in close combat?

If it doesn't scatter, what it touches is not accidental. Targeting isn't what is restricted, intentionally shooting into close combat is.

Where do you see permission to hit your own models with JotWW, by the way? It has no exception to shooting friendly models in the text and there is none in the SW GW FAQ.

@Brother Ramses - It's like scattering a blast except that it doesn't scatter and therefore isn't anything like scattering a blast.

Read the actual rule and the accompanying FAQ.

The mechanics of a blast weapon can cause it to hit models in close combat despite originally targeting an unengaged model. The mechanics of JotWW can cause it to hit models in close combat despite it originally targeting an unengaged model. Exactly the same and both legal.

And you can't add words to the rules that do not exist. JotWW is NOT a 24" template. It is not a template weapon at all. To arbitrarily add it to the rules when it doesn't exist to support your argument is being disingenuous.

Of course my constant use of 'Line "Template"' probably does not help, I try not to enforce the idea that the line is a template.

Just out of curiosity, for those who say you cannot place the line so it hits models in cc at all, what about the Necron Death Ray? Or is that exempt since it is a variable line?

rigeld2 wrote:

jwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:By Yak's argument, JotWW can't be used if it's going to hit friendly units either - because doing so is similarly forbidden.

Why is there a clause about hitting friendly units in JotWW then?

There isn't one. Not in the SW Codex or in the GW FAQ.

Dammit. I could swear there was. I need to stop posting when away from my books.

So you can't shoot if it'll hit your own units either?

No, you can easily hit your own units, you just cannot have them be the unit the power targets.

JotWW gives you an exception the the rules for targeting in the form of the FAQ. Beyond that, you still need to follow all the general rules for targeting with a PSA. However, the RAW of JotWW are specific that any other models the line touches after the first model affected are hit as the line passes through. Said other models are not targeted and thus do not follow the general rules for targeting with a PSA. They are JUST hit as the line passes through. There is no limitation on said any other models the line touches as it passes through. It is all inclusive to include both enemy and friendly models.

Brother Ramses wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

jwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:By Yak's argument, JotWW can't be used if it's going to hit friendly units either - because doing so is similarly forbidden.

Why is there a clause about hitting friendly units in JotWW then?

There isn't one. Not in the SW Codex or in the GW FAQ.

Dammit. I could swear there was. I need to stop posting when away from my books.

So you can't shoot if it'll hit your own units either?

No, you can easily hit your own units, you just cannot have them be the unit the power targets.

I was hoping to have 666, yakface, or one of the others that is of the opinion that it cannot fire into CC to answer.
In short, I agree with you.

Pardon me, Brother Ramses, but I did not add a rule, I just gave a convenient way of describing the JotWW line of shooting.

You, on the other hand, are adding rules. You are adding a rule that allows JotWW to shoot into close combat (no such rule exists). You are adding a rule that equates a SCATTER to PLACEMENT OF A LINE, which is not only not equivalent, but makes me question your basic literacy.

A Blast Weapon CAN scatter into combat. A shooting attack CANNOT. JotWW is either best described as a template (which cannot be placed over models in close combat) or is just a psychic shooting attack - which also cannot hit models in close combat. You need explicit written permission to break the explicit written rules, and neither the SW Codex or SW GW FAQ gives either.

That is really quite a stretch there Ramses. Jwolf has given an excellent example of how to visualize JotWW.

jwolf wrote:A Blast Weapon CAN scatter into combat. A shooting attack CANNOT. JotWW is either best described as a template (which cannot be placed over models in close combat) or is just a psychic shooting attack - which also cannot hit models in close combat. You need explicit written permission to break the explicit written rules, and neither the SW Codex or SW GW FAQ gives either.

So you can't hit friendly units with it either?

Why would you be able to hit friendly units with it? Can you normally shoot friendly units except with scatter?

I know your argument will be targeting is prohibited, but that's the general case. JotWW has a specific case which has models besides the singular "target" hit, but shooting friendlies is certainly also generally prohibited; tesla destructors can shoot enemies and then bounce onto friendlies, so there are cases where specific allowances are made. JotWW has no specific allowance for hitting friendlies.

jwolf wrote:Why would you be able to hit friendly units with it? Can you normally shoot friendly units except with scatter?

I've never seen anyone argue against it. I'm bringing it up because of the similarity between the prohibitions for that and CC.
I've also not seen anyone argue against it being able to hit models in CC though, so there's that.

Brother Ramses wrote:

One thing that you keep missing Yak is that at no time are you "shooting" at models in close combat.

Sorry? It's classified as a PSA, and as such you must "shoot" it.

rigeld2 wrote:

jwolf wrote:Why would you be able to hit friendly units with it? Can you normally shoot friendly units except with scatter?

I've never seen anyone argue against it. I'm bringing it up because of the similarity between the prohibitions for that and CC.
I've also not seen anyone argue against it being able to hit models in CC though, so there's that.

You'll find that when there's a RAW argument, I'll actually argue the RAW.

I'm still waiting on an answer to my question about the Death Ray. Can it hit friendly models and/or models locked in cc?

Happyjew wrote:I'm still waiting on an answer to my question about the Death Ray. Can it hit friendly models and/or models locked in cc?

It specifically can hit friendly models in it's rules. It has no exemption to allow it hitting models in combat. It has a line length that is determined before you draw the line, so it does not have a "random" area, so no "accidental" models under the line. I see nothing that allows it to shoot into combat.

jwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

jwolf wrote:Why would you be able to hit friendly units with it? Can you normally shoot friendly units except with scatter?

I've never seen anyone argue against it. I'm bringing it up because of the similarity between the prohibitions for that and CC.
I've also not seen anyone argue against it being able to hit models in CC though, so there's that.

You'll find that when there's a RAW argument, I'll actually argue the RAW.

Thus insinuating that others aren't?
That's kind of insulting.

jwolf wrote:Pardon me, Brother Ramses, but I did not add a rule, I just gave a convenient way of describing the JotWW line of shooting.

You, on the other hand, are adding rules. You are adding a rule that allows JotWW to shoot into close combat (no such rule exists). You are adding a rule that equates a SCATTER to PLACEMENT OF A LINE, which is not only not equivalent, but makes me question your basic literacy.

A Blast Weapon CAN scatter into combat. A shooting attack CANNOT. JotWW is either best described as a template (which cannot be placed over models in close combat) or is just a psychic shooting attack - which also cannot hit models in close combat. You need explicit written permission to break the explicit written rules, and neither the SW Codex or SW GW FAQ gives either.

You are adding rules by saying that JotWW is effectively a template weapon because a template weapon has in-game rules and ramifications.

And I am not equating a scatter to a placement of a line. I am pointing out that the by product of both game mechanics allow for models in close combat to be hit, which is legal in both cases.

You cannot target a unit in close combat. At no time with JotWW are you targeting a unit in close combat. The mechanics of the rule allow for any other model the line touches to be hit as it passes through. That is not targeting the unit in close combat and that is not shooting at the unit in close combat. That is the unit in close combat being hit as the line passes through.

Your argument only works when you liken JotWW to a template weapon, which it isn't, and doing so is being disingenuous.

My argument, Brother Ramses, is that you cannot shoot units locked in combat. Why is that? Because the rules say you cannot. Certainly a regular shooting attack cannot, and the only case in the BRB where we see permission is with an accidental scatter of a blast. JotWW has nothing to do with a scattered blast; you continue to equate the two which is substantially less accurate than treating a weapon which fires an infinitely thin line 24" long as a similar to a template. I do not need the template description to be accepted to be correct; a shooting attack cannot hit units in CC unless given explicit permission to do so, and there is no such permission given to JotWW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

jwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

jwolf wrote:Why would you be able to hit friendly units with it? Can you normally shoot friendly units except with scatter?

I've never seen anyone argue against it. I'm bringing it up because of the similarity between the prohibitions for that and CC.
I've also not seen anyone argue against it being able to hit models in CC though, so there's that.

You'll find that when there's a RAW argument, I'll actually argue the RAW.

Thus insinuating that others aren't?
That's kind of insulting.

I mean no insult, rigeld2. I do mean to unequivocally state that I'm arguing the actual rules and FAQ written, and trying to give permission to JotWW to hit friendly models or those locked in CC requires an interpretation of the FAQ that exceeds the actual written words.

jwolf wrote:My argument, Brother Ramses, is that you cannot shoot units locked in combat. Why is that? Because the rules say you cannot. Certainly a regular shooting attack cannot, and the only case in the BRB where we see permission is with an accidental scatter of a blast. JotWW has nothing to do with a scattered blast; you continue to equate the two which is substantially less accurate than treating a weapon which fires an infinitely thin line 24" long as a similar to a template. I do not need the template description to be accepted to be correct; a shooting attack cannot hit units in CC unless given explicit permission to do so, and there is no such permission given to JotWW.

Shooting requires targeting.
You cannot target units in CC or friendly units.
JotWW explicitly does not target all units it hits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

You'll find that when there's a RAW argument, I'll actually argue the RAW.

Thus insinuating that others aren't?
That's kind of insulting.

I mean no insult, rigeld2. I do mean to unequivocally state that I'm arguing the actual rules and FAQ written, and trying to give permission to JotWW to hit friendly models or those locked in CC requires an interpretation of the FAQ that exceeds the actual written words.

"I'm right and the other side is wrong."

That... doesn't seem polite.

That shooting requires targeting is clearly not true, since JotWW shoots models that it does not target.

juraigamer wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

One thing that you keep missing Yak is that at no time are you "shooting" at models in close combat.

Sorry? It's classified as a PSA, and as such you must "shoot" it.

You might want to brush up on the rulebook on the shooting phase for both weapons and PSA. You target with a PSA. At the time of targeting, the restrictions of eligible and ineligible targets comes into play. With JotWW you place a 24" line. According to the FAQ, the first model to be affected by the power, i.e., the first model the 24" line touches, is in affect the target model. Is that model in close combat? No. Is that model a friendly unit? No.

Targeting has been fulfilled.

Any other model, meaning any other besides the originally target, are hit as the line passes through. Are any of those other models the target? No. Are any of those other models restricted by the rules for targeting? No. They are models that are hit as the line passes through the original target model. At no time were they the target of the PSA and at no time were they under the restrictions for targeting a model with a PSA.

jwolf wrote:Why would you be able to hit friendly units with it? Can you normally shoot friendly units except with scatter?

I know your argument will be targeting is prohibited, but that's the general case. JotWW has a specific case which has models besides the singular "target" hit, but shooting friendlies is certainly also generally prohibited; tesla destructors can shoot enemies and then bounce onto friendlies, so there are cases where specific allowances are made. JotWW has no specific allowance for hitting friendlies.

You are able to hit friendly units with it because JotWW specifically tells you ANY other models the line touches are hit as the line passes through. Any is inclusive of both enemy and friendly models.

rigeld2 wrote:

jwolf wrote:My argument, Brother Ramses, is that you cannot shoot units locked in combat. Why is that? Because the rules say you cannot. Certainly a regular shooting attack cannot, and the only case in the BRB where we see permission is with an accidental scatter of a blast. JotWW has nothing to do with a scattered blast; you continue to equate the two which is substantially less accurate than treating a weapon which fires an infinitely thin line 24" long as a similar to a template. I do not need the template description to be accepted to be correct; a shooting attack cannot hit units in CC unless given explicit permission to do so, and there is no such permission given to JotWW.

Shooting requires targeting.
You cannot target units in CC or friendly units.
JotWW explicitly does not target all units it hits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

You'll find that when there's a RAW argument, I'll actually argue the RAW.

Thus insinuating that others aren't?
That's kind of insulting.

I mean no insult, rigeld2. I do mean to unequivocally state that I'm arguing the actual rules and FAQ written, and trying to give permission to JotWW to hit friendly models or those locked in CC requires an interpretation of the FAQ that exceeds the actual written words.

"I'm right and the other side is wrong."

That... doesn't seem polite.

I am entirely open to having facts brought out that change my opinion. So far there have not been any facts given that dispute my position.

jwolf wrote:That shooting requires targeting is clearly not true, since JotWW shoots models that it does not target.

No, the FAQ makes it quite clear that JotWW does indeed shoot at a specific target model. Said target model is the first model that is affected the the power and must be in LoS. Any other models hit by JotWW were not shot at by the rune priest. Any other models the line touches are HIT as the line passes through. That is the RAW of the rule.

You are trying to say that the rune priest targets both the unengaged model AND the unit locked in close combat behind the unengaged model. You are trying to say that the rune priest shoots his PSA at both the unengaged model AND the unit locked in close combat behind the unengaged model. Neither assumptions are right and neither are they supported by the rules.

The rune priest targets the unengaged model.
The rune priest shoots his PSA at the unengaged model.
The power hits any other models the line passes through, beyond the originally targeted unengaged model.

At no time did the rune priest target the unit locked in close combat. At no time did the rune priest shoot at the unit locked in close combat. The mechanics of the power allowed the unit in close combat to be hit as it passed through the targeted unengaged model. That is it and completely legal.

Well what if we look at similar powers/weapons (her on iout referred to as "weapons")?

a) 1 weapon specifies that it does not affect friendly models.
2 weapons specifies it hits friendly models.
b) 1 weapon says it does not hit models locked in cc.
1 weapon says it hits models locked in cc.

Take what you want from this.

Happyjew wrote:Well what if we look at similar powers/weapons (her on iout referred to as "weapons")?

a) 1 weapon specifies that it does not affect friendly models.
1 weapon specifies that ignores friendly models
1 weapon specifies it hits friendly models.
b) 1 weapon says it does not hit models locked in cc.
1 weapon says it hits models locked in cc.

Take what you want from this.

You missed:

c) 1 weapon says it hits any models.

jwolf wrote:That shooting requires targeting is clearly not true, since JotWW shoots models that it does not target.

Wrong.

It does not shoot models. It hits models. Important distinction.

Brother Ramses wrote:

juraigamer wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

One thing that you keep missing Yak is that at no time are you "shooting" at models in close combat.

Sorry? It's classified as a PSA, and as such you must "shoot" it.

You might want to brush up on the rulebook on the shooting phase for both weapons and PSA. You target with a PSA. At the time of targeting, the restrictions of eligible and ineligible targets comes into play. With JotWW you place a 24" line. According to the FAQ, the first model to be affected by the power, i.e., the first model the 24" line touches, is in affect the target model. Is that model in close combat? No. Is that model a friendly unit? No.

Targeting has been fulfilled.

Any other model, meaning any other besides the originally target, are hit as the line passes through. Are any of those other models the target? No. Are any of those other models restricted by the rules for targeting? No. They are models that are hit as the line passes through the original target model. At no time were they the target of the PSA and at no time were they under the restrictions for targeting a model with a PSA.

jwolf wrote:Why would you be able to hit friendly units with it? Can you normally shoot friendly units except with scatter?

I know your argument will be targeting is prohibited, but that's the general case. JotWW has a specific case which has models besides the singular "target" hit, but shooting friendlies is certainly also generally prohibited; tesla destructors can shoot enemies and then bounce onto friendlies, so there are cases where specific allowances are made. JotWW has no specific allowance for hitting friendlies.

You are able to hit friendly units with it because JotWW specifically tells you ANY other models the line touches are hit as the line passes through. Any is inclusive of both enemy and friendly models.

Your argument is that the word "any" is explicit permission to ignore all restrictions for shooting? In all other cases of permission to hit friendlies or into combat, it says so in so many words. Perhaps you're right, but I'm certainly not convinced.

rigeld2 wrote:

jwolf wrote:That shooting requires targeting is clearly not true, since JotWW shoots models that it does not target.

Wrong.

It does not shoot models. It hits models. Important distinction.

A case of people not following the vernacular that is the used in the World of Warhammer 40k which causes arguments just like this one.

BR, I messed up on Death Ray, and fixed it.
Death Ray says it hits any model, just like the Vibro Cannon (which was FAQd to allow hitting in cc. Based on that precedence, I think Death Ray hits models in cc as well.

So we have two weapons that literally hit any models that the line passes over, and one which specifies that it only hits enemy models not locked in cc.

rigeld2 wrote:

jwolf wrote:That shooting requires targeting is clearly not true, since JotWW shoots models that it does not target.

Wrong.

It does not shoot models. It hits models. Important distinction.

How else does a shooting attack affect models if not by shooting them? Targeting <> shooting.

jwolf wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

juraigamer wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

One thing that you keep missing Yak is that at no time are you "shooting" at models in close combat.

Sorry? It's classified as a PSA, and as such you must "shoot" it.

You might want to brush up on the rulebook on the shooting phase for both weapons and PSA. You target with a PSA. At the time of targeting, the restrictions of eligible and ineligible targets comes into play. With JotWW you place a 24" line. According to the FAQ, the first model to be affected by the power, i.e., the first model the 24" line touches, is in affect the target model. Is that model in close combat? No. Is that model a friendly unit? No.

Targeting has been fulfilled.

Any other model, meaning any other besides the originally target, are hit as the line passes through. Are any of those other models the target? No. Are any of those other models restricted by the rules for targeting? No. They are models that are hit as the line passes through the original target model. At no time were they the target of the PSA and at no time were they under the restrictions for targeting a model with a PSA.

jwolf wrote:Why would you be able to hit friendly units with it? Can you normally shoot friendly units except with scatter?

I know your argument will be targeting is prohibited, but that's the general case. JotWW has a specific case which has models besides the singular "target" hit, but shooting friendlies is certainly also generally prohibited; tesla destructors can shoot enemies and then bounce onto friendlies, so there are cases where specific allowances are made. JotWW has no specific allowance for hitting friendlies.

You are able to hit friendly units with it because JotWW specifically tells you ANY other models the line touches are hit as the line passes through. Any is inclusive of both enemy and friendly models.

Your argument is that the word "any" is explicit permission to ignore all restrictions for shooting? In all other cases of permission to hit friendlies or into combat, it says so in so many words. Perhaps you're right, but I'm certainly not convinced.

By all means then define ANY other then ANY.

Seriously? If the rule tells you that any blue models are dead are you going to argue that blue models with bolters are not dead because it does not specify blue models with bolters?

No, but if it says "any" I am going to assume that it means "any legal" unless it says otherwise.

jwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

jwolf wrote:That shooting requires targeting is clearly not true, since JotWW shoots models that it does not target.

Wrong.

It does not shoot models. It hits models. Important distinction.

How else does a shooting attack affect models if not by shooting them?

By hitting them.

Shooting has a specific sequence on page 15. There's a process to follow. One of the steps in that process is check line of sight and pick a target (in fact, it's the first step).

Jaws breaks that rule by determining the target AFTER the power is cast and the line is drawn. It then hits the target model.
It also hits every other model in a 24" line. It skips to step 3 for every other model after the first. Meaning it doesn't target them.

Again, shooting <> targeting. Blood Lance doesn't target models that it certainly shoots. A Tesla Destructor can shoot models it doesn't target. Hitting things in the shooting phase is shooting them. Targeting is an entirely different thing than shooting.

jwolf wrote:Again, shooting <> targeting. Blood Lance doesn't target models that it certainly shoots. A Tesla Destructor can shoot models it doesn't target. Hitting things in the shooting phase is shooting them. Targeting is an entirely different thing than shooting.

Shooting requires targeting.
The JotWW FAQ states, unequivocally, that the targeted model is the first one hit.
Where are you getting permission to target secondary units?
Because without targeting you cannot shoot. Please read page 15.

Obviously you can shoot models that you didn't target. Hitting things with bullets or shooting attacks is shooting them. Yes you TARGET one model, which is required for shooting to occur, but that doesn't mean that your shooting attack only shoots that target - it shoots anything that it hits. So Targeting <> Shooting = Hitting.

No one is arguing that shooting doesn't require targeting. And no one is demonstrating that targeting is equivalent to shooting (because it isn't).

We all know that shooting requires targeting. We all know that JotWW requires the first model hit to be targeted and in LOS. Those are unrelated to what models might be shot (other than the first model) by JotWW.

Eating requires food. That doesn't mean that food = eating.

And the word "ANY" is not used ANYWHERE in the description of JotWW in the SW Codex or the SW GW FAQ. I apologize for assuming that the rules were correctly quoted and not looking them up earlier.

jwolf wrote:Obviously you can shoot models that you didn't target. Hitting things with bullets or shooting attacks is shooting them. Yes you TARGET one model, which is required for shooting to occur, but that doesn't mean that your shooting attack only shoots that target - it shoots anything that it hits. So Targeting <> Shooting = Hitting.

No one is arguing that shooting doesn't require targeting. And no one is demonstrating that targeting is equivalent to shooting (because it isn't).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We all know that shooting requires targeting. We all know that JotWW requires the first model hit to be targeted and in LOS. Those are unrelated to what models might be shot (other than the first model) by JotWW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eating requires food. That doesn't mean that food = eating.

And you continue to fail at understanding how the rules in this game are written and how they work

Targeting is defined in the rulebook.
Shooting is defined in the rulebook.
Hitting is defined in the rulebook.

If something is hit in the shooting phase, that is not indicative that it was targeted and shot at. You keep attempting to say that because a unit in in close combat is hit by JotWW it was targeted and shot at by the rune priest which is completely false. That is not how the rules are written and not how they are played.

jwolf wrote:
And the word "ANY" is not used ANYWHERE in the description of JotWW in the SW Codex or the SW GW FAQ. I apologize for assuming that the rules were correctly quoted and not looking them up earlier.

I just double checked as well your right "any" isn't listed.

relevant quotes:

codex:
"Monstours creatures, beasts, cavalry, bikes, and infantry models that are touched by this line..."

faq:
"...the power just happens to hit everybody else on its way through!"

No matter what is said its a fact that here people are arguing it is okay to target an enemy unit locked in combat. Next thing you know someone will claim JotWW works against jump infantry.

So with JotWW, you draw your line and then later determin the target (first model affected).
But what is it that allows you to place that line over models in close combat? Blasts and templates aren't allowed to (deliberately) do so. Is it purely because no target was selected when the line was drawn?

My argument is based on precedence - Eldar Vibro Cannon.

Jaws of the World Wolf: "May trace a straight line...from the Rune Priest and ending X" away. ..Monstrous creatures, beasts, cavalry, bikes and infantry models touched must take an Initiative test."
Vibro Cannon: "If any of the Vibro Cannons hit, draw a single X" straight line from one Vibro Cannon in any direction. Any unit the line passes through suffers X hits..."

Since the two work similarly (and this is the reason I argued that Blood Lance and Jaws required a To Hit roll pre-FAQ), the Eldar FAQ can be used as a precedence, and thus, Jaws can hit models locked in cc.

-666- wrote:No matter what is said its a fact that here people are arguing it is okay to target an enemy unit locked in combat. Next thing you know someone will claim JotWW works against jump infantry.

No one is claiming that. People are claiming that the line placed by JotWW can AFFECT an enemy unit locked in combat. Those units are NOT TARGETED - only the first unit hit is targeted. You have contributed nothing to this debate other than cheerleading Yakface, haven't quoted any rules, and aren't reading other people's posts.

The rules don't work that way dude. You don't buy one codex for rules how to play another... Seriously.

So then only a Baal predator can use Smoke Launchers in the Scout phase?

There are a number of rulings that apply to multiple armies, but listed in only one armies FAQ.

What else can/could ?

All right, better example. According to you only the Baal Predator can move Flat-out for the Scout move.

Brother Ramses wrote:

jwolf wrote:Obviously you can shoot models that you didn't target. Hitting things with bullets or shooting attacks is shooting them. Yes you TARGET one model, which is required for shooting to occur, but that doesn't mean that your shooting attack only shoots that target - it shoots anything that it hits. So Targeting <> Shooting = Hitting.

No one is arguing that shooting doesn't require targeting. And no one is demonstrating that targeting is equivalent to shooting (because it isn't).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We all know that shooting requires targeting. We all know that JotWW requires the first model hit to be targeted and in LOS. Those are unrelated to what models might be shot (other than the first model) by JotWW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eating requires food. That doesn't mean that food = eating.

And you continue to fail at understanding how the rules in this game are written and how they work

Targeting is defined in the rulebook.
Shooting is defined in the rulebook.
Hitting is defined in the rulebook.

If something is hit in the shooting phase, that is not indicative that it was targeted and shot at. You keep attempting to say that because a unit in in close combat is hit by JotWW it was targeted and shot at by the rune priest which is completely false. That is not how the rules are written and not how they are played.

And you continue to equate targeting to shooting, which is patently inaccurate. SHOOTING AT a model is not the same as SHOOTING a model, which is the same thing as HITTING a model with a SHOOTING attack. You target models you want to shoot at; you hit models that you actually shoot. You cannot shoot into close combat. This means you cannot hit models in close combat unless you have an explicit ability to do so. In every case (other than, in your claim, JotWW) permission to hit models in close combat is explicitly given (example, scattering blasts) is given if the power or attack can hit models in close combat. EXPLICITLY, as in the phrase "may hit models in close combat." No such phrase exists in this case. Nor is your previous position of "ANY" valid, as that term is not used in the description of JotWW or the "targeting" FAQ answer. Arguing that laying a line down so that it lies over a model in close combat, or a friendly model, or whatever is somehow "unintentional" or "accidental" is at best disingenuous, and I don't believe you are being disingenuous.

Also please provide the definitions of targeting, shooting, and hitting as given in the rule book, as per your assertion above. A definition looks like this:

Definition - A description or clarification of a term or phrase, used to remove ambiguity.

I'm having trouble finding them.

-666- wrote:What else can/could ?

Scout Sentinels and StormTroopers in a Chimera are the first ones that spring to mind.

Also, GK 'Grand Strategy' special ability can give 'Scouts' to any unit.

grendel083 wrote:

-666- wrote:What else can/could ?

Scout Sentinels and StormTroopers in a Chimera are the first ones that spring to mind.

But the gist is its only useful for the Baal. Correct ?

since its not a hit per say but actually just a test wouldn't it just have to pass the unit type test?
so basically my train of though its:
Is the model a Monsterous creature, beast, cavalry, bike and/or infantry? if yes take test if no then ignore.

We're getting way off on tangents here. Let's focus back to the one premise that is being bandied about as to why it would be allowed to affect models in combat with JotWW as long as the target isn't in combat itself:

The premise that the models affected after the first are not being 'shot' at.

The flaw with this premise is that it presumes that only units that are targeted are the ones that can be fired at, which is patently false. The easiest example to debunk this myth is the standard template weapon. That weapon chooses a target, but can then end up covering and affecting models from other units besides the 'target' one.

Would anyone here try to claim that a template which affects a unit besides the target has not been shot by the flamer weapon? And if so, by what rationale?


While it is absolutely true that JotWW is not a template weapon, the exact same premise and conclusion apply. It has a 'target' (the first model the line crosses) but then can still affect other models after that target. However all those models are being shot by the shooting attack that is JotWW, the exact same way that a template weapon can end up shooting other units besides its target and the same is true with a blast weapon.

With some shooting attacks the 'target' of a weapon's shooting is not the only thing that gets shot by it, and the game has many instances of that, with JotWW being just one.



----


Now let's look at the next premise that is being bandied about, that the rules for not firing into combat specify ONLY blast and template weapons not being able to be placed over any models in combat, and since JotWW is neither of these, it is not bound by the same rule.

To debunk this myth, you need to look at what the actual crazy rules say in this case:

(pg 40) wrote:"...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. The events in a close combat move too quickly and the warriors themselves will be understandably hesitant about firing on their comrades."

And:

(pg 40) wrote:"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 then hit any models they touch (friends and foes!)."

The important thing to note about this rule is that the first part is all there is in the rules preventing units from firing into combat. So while the rule is most certainly written in a generally descriptive way (rather than specifically quoting what you can or cannot do), the message is clear: even though you as a player would like to fire into combat, your are not permitted to do so.

Now, some have used the description and tried to claim that it only applies to indiscriminate shooting. Unfortunately, the vast majority of shooting is discriminate. When I fire a squad of 10 bolter marines, I have absolutely no chance of ever hitting friendly models with this shooting, so if we are to try to claim that this rule only applies to indiscriminate weapons (weapons that can potentially affect friendly models, I guess is what is trying to be claimed) then that means there are literally no rules in the game then preventing me from opening fire against an enemy unit locked in combat with, say 10 bolter marines, because they are not firing indiscriminately; they are very discriminately firing at the enemy models locked in combat.

So hopefully we can all agree that the rule in general is saying that you are not allowed to fire into combat, period. And note here that there is absolutely no mention of 'targeting' an enemy unit locked in combat, it simply says that you, as a player are not permitted to fire into close combat even though you would like to.

Why would they not simply say 'you cannot choose an enemy unit locked in combat as the target of shooting'? Because that would leave the big loophole for any type of shooting weapon that is able to affect other enemy units besides its stated target to go ahead and shoot into combats as long as its target isn't locked in combat itself.

So the 2nd quote above is the reference about flamers and blast weapons, which is expressing how the first rule (not being able to fire into combat) applies to blast and template weapons, because those are the only two types of weapons in the main rulebook that are able to affect units besides their stated target.

However the first quote is the rule...you are not allowed to fire into combat...and then the 2nd quote is the expression of how that rule affects blasts & templates. But the first rule applies to all types of shooting exactly the same way it does for templates and blasts, because the 2nd quote is *not* the actual rule (merely just the expression of how the rule is applied to blasts and templates).


----



So again, the rules prohibit you from firing into combat. JotWW is a psychic shooting attack, so any model killed by it has been killed by a psychic shooting attack. As you are not permitted to fire into combat, drawing a line through combat would mean you have fired into combat and therefore is not permitted.

So the only things that can "shoot" into cc are:
1. Errant scattering of blast markers and templates (though how a template scatters is beyond me)
2. Vibro Cannon
3. Doom of Malan'tai Spirit Leech ability
4. Any others?

Happyjew wrote:So the only things that can "shoot" into cc are:
1. Errant scattering of blast markers and templates (though how a template scatters is beyond me)
2. Vibro Cannon
3. Doom of Malan'tai Spirit Leech ability
4. Any others?

Basically the key is anything that is randomly generated. I don't know what the exhaustive list is, but you basically cannot willingly shoot into combat. If the shooting attack has a completely random ability associated with it, then it can end up affecting models locked in combat, but you cannot choose to do so yourself even though you would like to.

Yakface,
since your objection to jaws having an effect on any model in cc might I try this way of looking at it.

1. The issue on page 40 is intentional indiscriminate shooting into ccw?
2. Jotww is discriminate in who it effects as it does not effect SW (FAQ)?
3. JOTww is not indiscriminate in who it effects and as such is not bound by that part of page 40

More seriously, since a Rune Priest is often attached to a squad, when they fire, he has to hit the same unit. So if the unit he has to shoot at is infront of a bit CC fight, can he not fire?

yakface wrote:
Would anyone here try to claim that a template which affects a unit besides the target has not been shot by the flamer weapon? And if so, by what rationale?

To be shot means someone was shooting at you. Shooting in 40k is a defined procedure. Models hit that are not the target cannot have followed this procedure.
Therefore not all models that were hit have been shot at as defined in 40k.

So hopefully we can all agree that the rule in general is saying that you are not allowed to fire into combat, period. And note here that there is absolutely no mention of 'targeting' an enemy unit locked in combat, it simply says that you, as a player are not permitted to fire into close combat even though you would like to.

This is the most convincing part of the rules, but I'm still not 100% sure.

The only two units I know that have written rules that allow you to shoot into close combat are both from the GK codex - Vindicare assassin and Karmazov (sp?).

And the Vibro Cannon, and Spirit Leech.

liturgies of blood wrote:Yakface,
since your objection to jaws having an effect on any model in cc might I try this way of looking at it.

1. The issue on page 40 is intentional indiscriminate shooting into ccw?
2. Jotww is discriminate in who it effects as it does not effect SW (FAQ)?
3. JOTww is not indiscriminate in who it effects and as such is not bound by that part of page 40

More seriously, since a Rune Priest is often attached to a squad, when they fire, he has to hit the same unit. So if the unit he has to shoot at is infront of a bit CC fight, can he not fire?

Bolter fire is also discriminate (it has no chance of hitting friendly models). So can I fire Bolters at an enemy unit locked in combat? If no, why would that be disallowed when JotWW isn't? Both are equally discriminate.

rigeld2 wrote:

yakface wrote:
Would anyone here try to claim that a template which affects a unit besides the target has not been shot by the flamer weapon? And if so, by what rationale?

To be shot means someone was shooting at you. Shooting in 40k is a defined procedure. Models hit that are not the target cannot have followed this procedure.
Therefore not all models that were hit have been shot at as defined in 40k.

Good to hear! So when a template covers models outside of the target unit, those units don't suffer any damage because they're not being shot at, correct?

This is a logical fallacy as the rules present the basic way that shooting is resolved but do not cover the variety of specialty shooting that can and does occur. As I've pointed out, you actually won't find in the rules specific examples explaining that when a template covers models from two or more different units that each of those units are affected separately...that's simply inferred by the rules.

But still, when a 2nd unit is hit by a blast or template you still follow the rules for shooting that apply in that instance. You still roll to wound, you still make armor saves and you still remove casualties even though the 2nd unit was not the 'target' of the shooting. They have still been shot, they were just not the target.

yakface wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

yakface wrote:
Would anyone here try to claim that a template which affects a unit besides the target has not been shot by the flamer weapon? And if so, by what rationale?

To be shot means someone was shooting at you. Shooting in 40k is a defined procedure. Models hit that are not the target cannot have followed this procedure.
Therefore not all models that were hit have been shot at as defined in 40k.

Good to hear! So when a template covers models outside of the target unit, those units don't suffer any damage because they're not being shot at, correct?

I never said anything of the kind. Models can absolutely be hit when their unit was not the target. Hits cause damage (by turning into wounds) but hits are not only caused by being shot.

This is a logical fallacy as the rules present the basic way that shooting is resolved but do not cover the variety of specialty shooting that can and does occur. As I've pointed out, you actually won't find in the rules specific examples explaining that when a template covers models from two or more different units that each of those units are affected separately...that's simply inferred by the rules.

Yes, each unit is affected separately. I haven't said otherwise. But being hit does not require being shot.
There are PSAs that cause hits without shooting. There are abilities that cause hits without shooting.
Or does Spirit Leech need to roll to hit, as it's evidently shooting?

But still, when a 2nd unit is hit by a blast or template you still follow the rules for shooting that apply in that instance. You still roll to wound, you still make armor saves and you still remove casualties even though the 2nd unit was not the 'target' of the shooting. They have still been shot, they were just not the target.

False. They were hit, and follow the rules for being hit.
Being shot implies the rules on page 15 for shooting were used against you. That's demonstrably false in the case of a template weapon covering multiple units.

@Yakface:
On everything I can find that can affect units locked in cc; the only "random" one is blast markers scattering.

@-666- there are no rules that allow the Vindicare to shoot in cc. Additionally, Karamazov is only given permission to drop his orbital bombardment on friendly models.

I never expected this question to start such a war on here!

Thanks for everyone who has replied so far! After reading these past few pages Im still stuck!!
I now understand that what I did was illegal, but now the argument is that I cant hit anything in close combat correct?
If that's so, then wouldnt the FAQ which says :

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!

Now if I target unit X with a Plasma Cannon and it scatters onto unit Y that is allowed.
Now if I Jaws unit X, they are now considered the target, and it hits unit Y also, they are just affected the same way as Unit Y would be from the blast weapon.
So wouldn't this be allowed? Im not saying its a blast weapon but by the wording of the FAQ it would make it seem like it is, for the same reason a blast weapon would be allowed.

Unfortunately you are not going to get an agreement here, and I have a feeling if this comes up at the next INAT meeting it will be ruled that it cannot hit models locked in cc.

I claim it does affect them based on the precedence of the Vibro Cannon FAQ. The counter-argument is you cannot hit anything in cc with a shooting-like attack unless it specifically says so, which means there are only 4 things that can hit in cc (for the purposes of this discussion, I am not counting attacks used in the assault phase). Of those 4 things, 2 of them were FAQ' d to hit cc models.

Why would the Inquistor be given a rule that allows him to hit friendly models while dropping orbital bombardment ?

Specifically it only affects the Orbital Strike Relay. It gives permission to centre the blast on friendly model even one locked in cc. He can do this because (fluff-wise) allies are expendable.

rigeld2 wrote:

yakface wrote:
Would anyone here try to claim that a template which affects a unit besides the target has not been shot by the flamer weapon? And if so, by what rationale?

To be shot means someone was shooting at you. Shooting in 40k is a defined procedure. Models hit that are not the target cannot have followed this procedure.
Therefore not all models that were hit have been shot at as defined in 40k.

Being shot at is a product of being targeted. Being shot is usually related to being shot at, but not always. We agree on this, but I think it proves the opposite of what you'd like it to prove.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

yakface wrote:]But still, when a 2nd unit is hit by a blast or template you still follow the rules for shooting that apply in that instance. You still roll to wound, you still make armor saves and you still remove casualties even though the 2nd unit was not the 'target' of the shooting. They have still been shot, they were just not the target.

False. They were hit, and follow the rules for being hit.
Being shot implies the rules on page 15 for shooting were used against you. That's demonstrably false in the case of a template weapon covering multiple unit.

No, being shot means you were shot, being SHOT AT means the rules for shooting was used against you. Being SHOT means that you were HIT by a weapon or ability that shoots.

jwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

yakface wrote:
Would anyone here try to claim that a template which affects a unit besides the target has not been shot by the flamer weapon? And if so, by what rationale?

To be shot means someone was shooting at you. Shooting in 40k is a defined procedure. Models hit that are not the target cannot have followed this procedure.
Therefore not all models that were hit have been shot at as defined in 40k.

Being shot at is a product of being targeted. Being shot is usually related to being shot at, but not always. We agree on this, but I think it proves the opposite of what you'd like it to prove.

Explain how you can be shot if the other party is not following the rules for shooting please.

rigeld2 wrote:

yakface wrote:]But still, when a 2nd unit is hit by a blast or template you still follow the rules for shooting that apply in that instance. You still roll to wound, you still make armor saves and you still remove casualties even though the 2nd unit was not the 'target' of the shooting. They have still been shot, they were just not the target.

False. They were hit, and follow the rules for being hit.
Being shot implies the rules on page 15 for shooting were used against you. That's demonstrably false in the case of a template weapon covering multiple unit.

No, being shot means you were shot, being SHOT AT means the rules for shooting was used against you. Being SHOT means that you were HIT by a weapon or ability that shoots.

No, being hit means you were hit. It's a 40k defined term. For always arguing RAW you keep misusing terms that are defined in the rules.

rigeld2, you are shot when a shot hits you. The shooting party follows the shooting rules to target and shoot at some target (or their own special rules in some cases). But targeting and shooting at something doesn't mean the model/unit targeted will be shot, nor does not being targeted and shot at mean that you will not be shot. I'm not misusing any defined terms, and acting as if being shot with a lascannon is somehow different from being hit with a shooting attack from a lascannon seems patently absurd to me. When a shooting attack hits you you are shot - how could this be otherwise?

Because shooting/being shot is defined in the rules. It's a process. Part of that process is to select a target.

Which means that if you are not a target you were not shot.
You simply take hits.

This does not line up with English definitions of words, which is what you're using.

That simply isn't true. If you're not targeted you are not shot at. Being shot isn't defined, but I think we can safely agree that being hit with a shooting attack is being shot - surely we can use words to mean what they mean if they are not defined otherwise in the rules?

You can be "Shot" and not have been targeted.

Take Blast markers for example.

you target unit A, the Blast Marker scatters 8 inches, and the Blast Marker hits Unit B that is out of range and LoS.

Unit B was not shot at (Targeted), but it was hit.

Shot it not a defined term in the BRB. Hit is, Target is.

You can be hit without being the target of the "Shot"

rigeld2 wrote:
There are PSAs that cause hits without shooting. There are abilities that cause hits without shooting.
Or does Spirit Leech need to roll to hit, as it's evidently shooting?

One thing I'd like to point out here. Spirit Leech is not a shooting attack, much like a command barge's sweep attack is not a close-combat attack. It is a special rule that falls outside the scope of a shooting attack.

I will try to put Jwolf's argument in my own words, although I am not sure it will help, it may.

The rules do not define the passive verb "to be shot." They define a process of shooting, or a process of what to "shoot at" but not the phrase "been shot" or "shot."

It is possible for a unit to be "Shot At (one would say Targeted)" using the 40k definition in the rules, and not hit, while with the same shooting action (usually a scattering blast) "hits" (the 40k term) a unit that is not "targeted (or shot at, as above)."

In the English language, given the tone of the game, this unit that was "hit" without being "targeted" was still "shot." We are compelled to conclude this because the term "was shot / to be shot" is not a 40k-defined term, and we must use the basic English interpretation.

Units in close combat are not allowed to be "targeted," yes, but they are also not allowed to be "shot" excepting very specific circumstances, which all are quite explicit.

Jaws is fully capable of "hitting" a unit that was not "targeted," therefore conforming with the definition of having "shot" that unit, above.

Since one cannot shoot into close combat, then one is not allowed to have shot into close combat, either.

Using the only definition of "shot" available to us (that of Standard English), we can conclude that a unit in close combat cannot be hit by Jaws of the World Wolf, as this would violate the rule that prevents a unit in close combat from being shot.

The rules do not say units in cc cannot be hit, they say you can not shoot at a unit in cc. In order to shoot at a unit in cc, you must target the unit in cc. If the first model hit is not in cc, then Jaws did not target a unit in cc, and therefore did not shoot at a unit in cc.

Happyjew wrote:The rules do not say units in cc cannot be hit, they say you can not shoot at a unit in cc. In order to shoot at a unit in cc, you must target the unit in cc. If the first model hit is not in cc, then Jaws did not target a unit in cc, and therefore did not shoot at a unit in cc.

You're right, but you missed the ENTIRE POINT of my post.

A unit in CC cannot be "shot" according to Page 40. Since this term is not defined in 40k, we must use the colloquial English definition which best fits the circumstance, i.e. "being hit with a shooting weapon" is being "shot."

So a unit in CC cannot be hit by a shooting weapon, because being hit by a shooting weapon is synonymous with being shot, and per page 40, a unit in CC cannot be shot.

EDIT: Except for specific, explicit cases which do not include JotWW.

The first listed definition of "shoot" as per Dictionary.com is:

"to hit, wound, damage, kill, or destroy with a missile discharged from a weapon."

"Shot" is the "Past tense and past participle of shoot."

So, hitting something with a missile discharged from a weapon is equivalent to shooting it. I think the only argument remaining is whether 40K uses different definitions for words than the English language does.

For what it's worth, Yakface essentially convinced me of his position due to the following:

yakface wrote:The easiest example to debunk this myth is the standard template weapon. That weapon chooses a target, but can then end up covering and affecting models from other units besides the 'target' one.

I just can't find a more similar rule (even the Vibro Cannon is less similar, in my opinion) to set a precedent.

I'm with Yak. If your shooting attack strikes/affects a unit, it has shot that unit, whether or not that unit was targeted.

Page 40 puts a blanket prohibition on shooting into combat, independent of targeting.

Shot is the past tense of shoot.
To shoot in 40k you must have targeted a unit - page 15.
Jaws does not target every unit it hits - SW FAQ.
Therefore Jaws does not shoot every unit it hits.

To say that every unit hit is shot means that you can assault something you did not target. Page 33 says "can only assault the unit that it shot at".
So you can Jaws a Carnifex right in front of you, then assault the unit of Warriors just behind it after the Carnifex dies? What about if the Carnifex is still alive?

The same goes for Template weapons - if that's all you fire and you tag multiple units, you're allowed to pick any of them?

rigeld2 wrote:Shot is the past tense of shoot.
To shoot in 40k you must have targeted a unit - page 15.
Jaws does not target every unit it hits - SW FAQ.
Therefore Jaws does not shoot every unit it hits.

To say that every unit hit is shot means that you can assault something you did not target. Page 33 says "can only assault the unit that it shot at".
So you can Jaws a Carnifex right in front of you, then assault the unit of Warriors just behind it after the Carnifex dies? What about if the Carnifex is still alive?

The same goes for Template weapons - if that's all you fire and you tag multiple units, you're allowed to pick any of them?

And again you treat SHOOTING AT a unit as the same thing as SHOOTING a unit, which emphatically is not the case. Yes, to SHOOT AT a unit you generally must TARGET it. But to SHOOT a unit only requires that you HIT it. Targeting is still not the same thing as shooting which is the same thing as hitting. Targeting a unit is generally the same thing as shooting at a unit, but it isn't always even that (EX: Doom targets a unit, Guide targets a unit, neither shoots anything).

No one is arguing the TARGETING of a single model with JotWW, and continuing to act as if your incorrect assertion that SHOOTING = TARGETING (which is absolutely incorrect, both in the rules and in the vernacular) does nothing to help your case.

I have always read it as yakface states.
Still do.

Also, this:

jy2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
There are PSAs that cause hits without shooting. There are abilities that cause hits without shooting.
Or does Spirit Leech need to roll to hit, as it's evidently shooting?

One thing I'd like to point out here. Spirit Leech is not a shooting attack, much like a command barge's sweep attack is not a close-combat attack. It is a special rule that falls outside the scope of a shooting attack.

Thank you, jy2.

Jwolf, to shoot and to shoot at are synonyms in the British Isles. I shot and I shot at are the same. It is contextual to an extent. "I shot my bolter" for when you fired but both "I shot the eldar" and "I shot at the eldar" are perfectly useable and mean the same thing unless qualified by context. I think you are trying to conflate an extra definintion in there that is not. Hiting is not the same as shooting in 40k, shooting is a process while hitting is a result of the first roll of that process(if not the 2nd due to night fighting).
The last thing is hitting is not the same as effecting, the rules for Jotww says any model under the line is effected. The rule says nothign about hitting.

The rulebook does tend to use some colloquial use of the queens english so they made it clear in the rule book.
To shoot, you must declare a target, if the weapon scatters and lands on something else that is hit. Targets must be valid and the rulebook gives a lis of them and excludes targetting cc.
Since Jaws has been faq'd to say that the target is only the first model hit, it stands to reason that you only have to ensure that the first model is a valid target. The fact that jaws is also stated to only effect enemy models seems to lend credence to the RAW that only the first model matters for declaring a valid shooting of the PSA.

rigeld2 wrote:Shot is the past tense of shoot.
To shoot in 40k you must have targeted a unit - page 15.
Jaws does not target every unit it hits - SW FAQ.
Therefore Jaws does not shoot every unit it hits.

The definition of "shoot" is "to hit." As per the definition of the word, shooting is hitting. Hitting is shooting. If you hit something, you shoot it. I'm following your reasoning in your posts and I see what you're saying, but I think you're claiming that 40K uses different definitions for the words than the dictionary, and therefore common usage, does.

liturgies of blood wrote:
Since Jaws has been faq'd to say that the target is only the first model hit, it stands to reason that you only have to ensure that the first model is a valid target.

This is a really good point, though.

jwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Shot is the past tense of shoot.
To shoot in 40k you must have targeted a unit - page 15.
Jaws does not target every unit it hits - SW FAQ.
Therefore Jaws does not shoot every unit it hits.

To say that every unit hit is shot means that you can assault something you did not target. Page 33 says "can only assault the unit that it shot at".
So you can Jaws a Carnifex right in front of you, then assault the unit of Warriors just behind it after the Carnifex dies? What about if the Carnifex is still alive?

The same goes for Template weapons - if that's all you fire and you tag multiple units, you're allowed to pick any of them?

And again you treat SHOOTING AT a unit as the same thing as SHOOTING a unit, which emphatically is not the case. Yes, to SHOOT AT a unit you generally must TARGET it. But to SHOOT a unit only requires that you HIT it. Targeting is still not the same thing as shooting which is the same thing as hitting. Targeting a unit is generally the same thing as shooting at a unit, but it isn't always even that (EX: Doom targets a unit, Guide targets a unit, neither shoots anything).

You're misrepresenting my argument.
To shoot requires a target.
Not everything that targets is a shot. I've never said that.
So you are absolutely for a unit being able to charge multiple units if template hits them? Or if a blast scatters onto another nearby unit instead of the intended one?

Also, if hits mean shots, then a blast that scatters onto a cc is shooting them, which the rules expressly forbid.

No one is arguing the TARGETING of a single model with JotWW, and continuing to act as if your incorrect assertion that SHOOTING = TARGETING (which is absolutely incorrect, both in the rules and in the vernacular) does nothing to help your case.

That is not my case. It is what you're arguing against, but it is not what I've said. I've said that shooting requires targeting, as page 15 states.
I've said that to be shot is the past tense of shooting.
Therefore to be shot requires a target to have been chosen.
Jaws explicitly does not target anything beyond the first model.
Without a target there can be no shooting.

@liturgies of blood - I doubt that the army would agree with your assessment of shooting and shooting at being the same thing in the British Isles, as they are distinguished as different in military reporting. AT is a qualifying preposition in the context of shooting, so we agree that "shooting" and "shooting at" are different because "shooting at" is contextually qualified. Hitting is shooting in 40K for the purposes of shooting attacks, targeting is generally required to shoot at things, but targeting is not at all required for shooting/hitting things. The restriction isn't targeting things in close combat, it is shooting things in close combat.

And where is Jaws stated to only effect enemy models? Not in the SW Codex or in their GW FAQ. The only place that makes it clear that Jaws cannot hit friendly models is in the basic rules for shooting attacks, which Jaws never has an explict permission to ignore.

Cool, so if a blast scatters onto another nearby unit but the rest of my guns slaughter my target, I can just assault the other unit.

Happy accident.
Or if a template weapon covers multiple units.

rigeld2 wrote:

jwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Shot is the past tense of shoot.
To shoot in 40k you must have targeted a unit - page 15.
Jaws does not target every unit it hits - SW FAQ.
Therefore Jaws does not shoot every unit it hits.

To say that every unit hit is shot means that you can assault something you did not target. Page 33 says "can only assault the unit that it shot at".
So you can Jaws a Carnifex right in front of you, then assault the unit of Warriors just behind it after the Carnifex dies? What about if the Carnifex is still alive?

The same goes for Template weapons - if that's all you fire and you tag multiple units, you're allowed to pick any of them?

And again you treat SHOOTING AT a unit as the same thing as SHOOTING a unit, which emphatically is not the case. Yes, to SHOOT AT a unit you generally must TARGET it. But to SHOOT a unit only requires that you HIT it. Targeting is still not the same thing as shooting which is the same thing as hitting. Targeting a unit is generally the same thing as shooting at a unit, but it isn't always even that (EX: Doom targets a unit, Guide targets a unit, neither shoots anything).

You're misrepresenting my argument.
To shoot requires a target.
Not everything that targets is a shot. I've never said that.
So you are absolutely for a unit being able to charge multiple units if template hits them? Or if a blast scatters onto another nearby unit instead of the intended one?

Also, if hits mean shots, then a blast that scatters onto a cc is shooting them, which the rules expressly forbid.

No one is arguing the TARGETING of a single model with JotWW, and continuing to act as if your incorrect assertion that SHOOTING = TARGETING (which is absolutely incorrect, both in the rules and in the vernacular) does nothing to help your case.

That is not my case. It is what you're arguing against, but it is not what I've said. I've said that shooting requires targeting, as page 15 states.
I've said that to be shot is the past tense of shooting.
Therefore to be shot requires a target to have been chosen.
Jaws explicitly does not target anything beyond the first model.
Without a target there can be no shooting.

Of course you have to charge the unit you SHOT AT, not any unit you SHOT. Why, because that's what the rules say, explicity. "can only assault the unit they SHOT AT" (P.33, my emphasis). The general rule for shooting is that you choose a target, we agree on that and it's never been in dispute. A unit or model does not have to be targeted to be shot, however. So shooting at requires targeting, but shooting does not. Blast weapons have EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION to scatter into combat or onto friendly units, so they can do so. (P.30) Jaws, on the other hand does not - the entire argument of Jaws hitting "any" model under the line has been demonstrated to be based on assumed and not actual wording.
Really this isn't hard. SHOOTING AT is what requires targeting. SHOOTING requires hitting. SHOOTING is what you are not allowed to do to models in CC (or friendly units), unless you have express written permission to do so. (P.40) Jaws no where has such permission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:Cool, so if a blast scatters onto another nearby unit but the rest of my guns slaughter my target, I can just assault the other unit.

Happy accident.
Or if a template weapon covers multiple units.

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

Tangent wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:
Since Jaws has been faq'd to say that the target is only the first model hit, it stands to reason that you only have to ensure that the first model is a valid target.

This is a really good point, though.

Thanks

@ Jwolf my mistake it is thunderclap that is enemy only. Talking about how the amry does things is not the vernacular language that gw uses. When I say heavy percipitation, you may think I mean rain but if I am a chemist I mean a solid crashing out of solution. Using formal language that is outside the scope of the everyday is not the way to read the rules.

Brb pg 16 "A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in combat as its target, and may not split its fire among different targets."
Jaws has clear rules on what it's target is. Please explain how the above quote works in your logic. RAW is that the first model the power touches must be a valid target and one it can effect. Then ever other model under the line is effected after that. Even if the rest of the line is under cc where is the break in the rules? I am yet to be convinced of the rest.

I fail to see how "to shoot" and "to shoot at" are synonyms.

It's entirely possible to show the distinction with one sentence:

"I shot at Lady Gaga, but I missed and shot Jay Leno instead."

In that situation, in 40k, you could still only assault Lady Gaga, even though the only casualty you caused was Jay Leno.

Unit1126PLL wrote:I fail to see how "to shoot" and "to shoot at" are synonyms.

It's entirely possible to show the distinction with one sentence:

"I shot at Lady Gaga, but I missed and shot Jay Leno instead."

In that situation, in 40k, you could still only assault Lady Gaga, even though the only casualty you caused was Jay Leno.

I don't think that "to shoot" and "to shoot at" are synonyms, either, but I do think that "shot" and "hit" are. The implication here is that if a unit has been "hit" by JotWW then it has been "shot" by JotWW.

liturgies of blood wrote:

Tangent wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:
Since Jaws has been faq'd to say that the target is only the first model hit, it stands to reason that you only have to ensure that the first model is a valid target.

This is a really good point, though.

Thanks, the other thing is that it is internally consistant with Jotww rules, as you can have a SW under the line and they are not effected, so you can cut across three squads and so long as the first squad is a valid target the line goes on.
In fact jaws is the only shooting attack that springs to mind that allows you to shoot through your own squads with no penalties.

Please point out where Jaws has been FAQed not to effect Space Wolf models, as I seem unable to find it.

@Jwolf see above.

Tangent wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:I fail to see how "to shoot" and "to shoot at" are synonyms.

It's entirely possible to show the distinction with one sentence:

"I shot at Lady Gaga, but I missed and shot Jay Leno instead."

In that situation, in 40k, you could still only assault Lady Gaga, even though the only casualty you caused was Jay Leno.

I don't think that "to shoot" and "to shoot at" are synonyms, either, but I do think that "shot" and "hit" are. The implication here is that if a unit has been "hit" by JotWW then it has been "shot" by JotWW.

Precisely, and because of the restriction on being shot while in Close Combat, you cannot be hit while in Close Combat either, except for a very few explicit situations (scattering blasts, Vibro Cannons, etc.).

SO does page 16 matter at all? You guys are quoting a very very fluff filled paragraph in page 40. Page 16 uses rules and says you cannot target cc.
In 40k, you can't shoot until you pick a target.
Then you shoot and see if you hit.
Then other stuff happens depending on if you hit and what you hit with.
I can shoot cc by your definition since I can hit cc with blast weapons but didn't target them.

I shoot jaws, it targets a model, pass the psyker test and the 24" line is dropped. It turns out it hits models in cc. How is this intentionally shooting cc?
Is page 16 broken, has a unit in cc been targeted?

You are intentionally hitting models in close combat because you know exactly where your line is, regardless of your target; this has been covered ad nauseum.

Yes, blast weapons can shoot models in close combat - BECAUSE THE HAVE THE EXPLICIT PERMISSION IN SO MANY WORDS TO DO SO. That Blast weapons can scatter into close combat and have an exception to hit models in close combat only weakens the case that Jaws can hit models in close combat, as it has no explicit permission to do so, and it does not "accidentally" hit anything - the line goes 24" from the Priest's base when cast, so when you target the first model the line is laid out over that model and whatever other models are along the line; if that line is over friendly models or models in close combat the shot is not allowed because of the basic shooting rules.

Shoot and hit are not synonyms in 40k.
To shoot you roll to hit. To be hit means you have been shot but you can shoot and miss.

All hits come from shots but not all shots are hits.

liturgies of blood wrote:Shoot and hit are not synonyms in 40k.
To shoot you roll to hit. To be hit means you have been shot but you can shoot and miss.

All hits come from shots but not all shots are hits.

We completely agree. To shoot at something you target it, but targeting and shooting at something doesn't mean you hit it. But anything that is hit has been shot (talking of shooting attacks). This has been my position from the beginning.

liturgies of blood wrote:Shoot and hit are not synonyms in 40k.
To shoot you roll to hit. To be hit means you have been shot but you can shoot and miss.

All hits come from shots but not all shots are hits.

So if all hits come from shots, and you hit a model in close combat, have you shot into close combat?

jwolf wrote:You are intentionally hitting models in close combat because you know exactly where your line is, regardless of your target; this has been covered ad nauseum.

Yes, blast weapons can shoot models in close combat - BECAUSE THE HAVE THE EXPLICIT PERMISSION IN SO MANY WORDS TO DO SO. That Blast weapons can scatter into close combat and have an exception to hit models in close combat only weakens the case that Jaws can hit models in close combat, as it has no explicit permission to do so, and it does not "accidentally" hit anything - the line goes 24" from the Priest's base when cast, so when you target the first model the line is laid out over that model and whatever other models are along the line; if that line is over friendly models or models in close combat the shot is not allowed because of the basic shooting rules.

The power has the power to effect all models of the type listed in the rule. The basic shooting rules only apply to the first model, from there on the rest of the models under the line just take the initiative test. Can you give me rules that show a power cannot effect cc?

How do you know where the line is before you declare your target? The only thing that has been covered is the quotation of page 40 which is at best fluff.
Do you place the line before you declare a target? If so you are doing it wrong and that is the only way you can know that you are effecting models in cc, you are shooting and effecting evreything under the line having targeted a specific valid target.

Blat weapons cannot shoot models in cc they can only scatter onto them. There is a massive difference between shooting a unit and scattering fire onto a unit, because the first under page 16 is a not allowed while the second under page 16 is.

/

liturgies of blood wrote:How do you know where the line is before you declare your target?

Have you read the power?

No I was hoping someone would quote it, I am too cheap to buy a codex.

Have you read the psa rules, did they give you permission to not declare a target before you put down the tape?

Well then check the FAQ.
The target is the first model affected, which necessarily requires the line to have been placed - deliberately.

I can't believe people are still arguing for this.

You're saying using a psychic shooting attack to cause casualties during the shooting phase to models that cannot be intentionally shot is legal? Yes, you're intentionally shooting them because the line is a set range, can't miss, or scatter.

Imagine this after the effect. Your friend (or judge) walks by the table and asks "whered that carnifex go?"

"It died to jaws"
"A casualty of a psychic shooting attack?"
"Yup"
"During the shooting phase?"
"Yup"
"Even tho he was locked in combat and couldn't be shot?"
"Yup..."

Any TO's following this thread that would allow it?

kirsanth wrote:Well then check the FAQ.
The target is the first model affected, which necessarily requires the line to have been placed - deliberately.

Do you know anyone that placys a rune priest out on his own in the board?
Cos when I shoot mine he is in a squad of grey hunters, that requires a target to be declared. Since all shots are at the same time from a squad I would lvoe to be able to premeasure but I m sure you'd call me on that.
If the priest was on his own woiuld you let me find the optimum path, by checking the perfect direction? In my flgc the convention is to point at the model you are going for as the target, test and drop the line. The tracing of the line in the rules is to differeciate it from a shooting attacks range value.

I'm a TO. Obviously I wouldn't allow it.

@liturgies of blood - Wow, you're arguing a RAW issue without having the text? And you think that a Battlecannon that scatters onto models in close combat has not shot them? It has not SHOT AT them, but it most certainly has shot them; I still cannot fathom where the confusion comes from here. Things hit with shooting weapons are shot by the shooting weapons (or by a Psychic Shooting Attacks). Arguing that they are not is absurd.

liturgies of blood wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Well then check the FAQ.
The target is the first model affected, which necessarily requires the line to have been placed - deliberately.

Do you know anyone that placys a rune priest out on his own in the board?
Cos when I shoot mine he is in a squad of grey hunters, that requires a target to be declared. Since all shots are at the same time from a squad I would lvoe to be able to premeasure but I m sure you'd call me on that.
If the priest was on his own woiuld you let me find the optimum path, by checking the perfect direction? In my flgc the convention is to point at the model you are going for as the target, test and drop the line. The tracing of the line in the rules is to differeciate it from a shooting attacks range value.

How I would play it is thusly:

1) Select a target enemy unit
2) Fire handheld weapons
3) Use JotWW and take psychic test
4) Place JotWW Line, ensuring that it is legal.
4a) If it is not legal (i.e. hits models in close combat) then step 4 must be redone until a legal line is placed.
5) Resolve hits, etc.

jwolf wrote:I'm a TO. Obviously I wouldn't allow it.

@liturgies of blood - Wow, you're arguing a RAW issue without having the text? And you think that a Battlecannon that scatters onto models in close combat has not shot them? It has not SHOT AT them, but it most certainly has shot them; I still cannot fathom where the confusion comes from here. Things hit with shooting weapons are shot by the shooting weapons (or by a Psychic Shooting Attacks). Arguing that they are not is absurd.

Jwolf, that was sarcasm. I am looking at the codex right now, the 4th word in Jaws is implores.
Shooting a unit is the process of the shooting phase(targeting, los, hitting) and is unrelated to shots or hits as I call them. A hit comes from a shot but both are outcomes of "shooting".
So "shooting" cannot shoot at cc but a shot can still effect cc if you understand me?
So jaws is "shooting" the first model but hits the rest? Do you follow where I am comming from?

@Unit I get what you are saying and I see where you are coming from but I have heard long arguements about the RAW vs RAI of not declaring a target or path for the power.
Would there be a 4b) if no legal placement ignore?

No, it is SHOOTING AT the first model and SHOOTING every model it hits. Surely you understand that this is not the same thing and are just being intentionally obtuse; that is the only place you could be coming that makes sense.

A shot can hit close combat if and only if it is given explicit permission to do so. Jaws has no such explicit permission.

Interestingly enough:
1. Shooting attacks are not allowed to target into combat.
2. You draw the line then determine who the target of that shooting attack is.

So, you cannot draw the line over a combat because you cannot know that the target will not be in that combat until after you chose to allow for this potentially illegal action to occur.

Much like saying "I am allowed to place blast markers over CC because it may scatter off" is also incorrect.

I might have missed it, but I doubt it. Has anyone answered my question on whether or not the Necron Death Ray can hit models locked in cc?

Happyjew wrote:I might have missed it, but I doubt it. Has anyone answered my question on whether or not the Necron Death Ray can hit models locked in cc?

I'm lurking waiting for an outcome here too, Happyjew. Semantic hairsplitting aside, it comes down to whether you're disallowed to *target* a CC or *shoot* a CC participant.

To date consensus has been *target*, which has allowed the Death Ray to fire into CC. But the argument here (Yak, jwolf, etc.) is broader and would imply that you can NOT fire into CC with the Death Ray, because there's no "involuntary" element.

I haven't seen any arguments yet to make me change my mind.

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

I think it's a valid argument, though it is a matter of intepretation. I don't care, as long as it's consistent. And really, that's the best argument in favor of the more restrictive interpretation - consistency.

I do enjoy swiping a pile of enemies clumped up in melee with a Death Ray, though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

liturgies of blood wrote:

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

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

I was the first one to identify this is illegal.

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

-666- wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:

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

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

I was the first one to identify this is illegal.

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

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

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

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

I hope that makes you feel better.

rigeld2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rigel2, you're wrong.

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

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

Page 40 forbids firing into close combat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/sarcasm off.

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

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

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

Mannahnin wrote:Rigel2, you're wrong.

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

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

Page 40 forbids firing into close combat.

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

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

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

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I haven't ignored it at all.

It is not permitted to fire into a CC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happyjew wrote:So the only things that can "shoot" into cc are:
1. Errant scattering of blast markers and templates (though how a template scatters is beyond me)
2. Vibro Cannon
3. Doom of Malan'tai Spirit Leech ability
4. Any others?

CSM psy power nurgles rot (which I think was FAQ'ed to a PSA) simply hits stuff in 6 inches, there is no target.

I don't think there is anything else that allows you to use anything classified as a shooting attack into melee.


Firmly planted in the camp of " A shooting attack cannot deliberately fire into melee without having a special rule that allows for it. "

juraigamer wrote:

Happyjew wrote:So the only things that can "shoot" into cc are:
1. Errant scattering of blast markers and templates (though how a template scatters is beyond me)
2. Vibro Cannon
3. Doom of Malan'tai Spirit Leech ability
4. Any others?

CSM psy power nurgles rot (which I think was FAQ'ed to a PSA) simply hits stuff in 6 inches, there is no target.

I don't think there is anything else that allows you to use anything classified as a shooting attack into melee.


Firmly planted in the camp of " A shooting attack cannot deliberately fire into melee without having a special rule that allows for it. "

You realize that you just contradicted yourself.
You're saying a PSA that doesn't have a target can hit units in CC, but you're firmly against Jaws hitting a unit in CC... Even though it doesn't target those units.

Unless Nurgles Rot specifies it can hit CC - in which case I just seem like an ass. :-)

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

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

Haven't we covered this many times? Shooting at things requires targeting, shooting does not.

jwolf wrote:Haven't we covered this many times? Shooting at things requires targeting, shooting does not.

Haven't we covered this many times? You still haven't shown a rule saying that.

Grey elder wrote:
So everybody is hit, but not everybody is shot.

Pure nonsense. Not everyone was shot at, which is what targeting does.

Grey elder wrote:
Leno is hit with jaws effects not shooting, and since its not a template or blast it does follow thne restrictikons to hit as clearly proven it the great ROLL TO HIT 2011 debate for jaws.
So this leaves us with 1 person shot(Gaga) and 2 people hit Gaga and Leno.
Leno was never the intended target, he just happened to get hit, which is allowed since it is neither a template or a blast, its a shot with special rules.

So shooting attacks that are neither templates nor blasts can hit models in close combat as a general rule? Because Jaws certainly has no specific rule that allows it to do so. More nonsense.

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

Demonstrate a rule that allows you to hit models in close combat with a shooting attack that is explicitly applied to Jaws of the World Wolf and you would have a case. But you don't have a case, because there is no such rule. The targeting FAQ for Jaws contains no such rule, and since the general rules prohibit targeting/hitting/shooting models (I don't even care about the language anymore, it's a blanket proscription if you take all the rules we've all quoted and misquoted in this thread), you cannot place your 24" long line over friendly models or models in close combat, as that would hit models that you are not allowed to hit with Jaws.

jwolf wrote:Demonstrate a rule that allows you to hit models in close combat with a shooting attack that is explicitly applied to Jaws of the World Wolf and you would have a case. But you don't have a case, because there is no such rule. The targeting FAQ for Jaws contains no such rule, and since the general rules prohibit targeting/hitting/shooting models (I don't even care about the language anymore, it's a blanket proscription if you take all the rules we've all quoted and misquoted in this thread), you cannot place your 24" long line over friendly models or models in close combat, as that would hit models that you are not allowed to hit with Jaws.

Using every rule quoted, you're prohibited from targeting a unit in CC. There's simply no other restriction in place.
Please cite one if you think there is. If you can find one, you'd have a case. But you can't because there isn't one.
Not caring about the language is why you disagree - the language absolutely matters in a RAW argument.

The general fluff on page 40 prohibits firing into CC.
By itself it means nothing. The rules supporting this fluff are on page 16.
Those rules (actual rules, not fluff) prohibit targeting a unit in CC.
Placing the Jaws line does not target anything after the first model.

The opposition is trying to argue intent. Not that intent isn't important to consider, but you should recognize that Inge t only applies if people agree and/or if the rules are unclear. I don't see how the rules covering this are anything but perfectly clear.

If you want to continue arguing, please address one of the 4 Italic lines with a disagreement based on rules.
If you want to discuss intent fine, but please say so.

By your own words you're intentionally shooting an enemy model locked in combat which is clearly and has been spelled out as not legal. Do you at least agree you're doing it intentionally?

-666- wrote:By your own words you're intentionally shooting an enemy model locked in combat which is clearly and has been spelled out as not legal. Do you at least agree you're doing it intentionally?

No, I'm not shooting an enemy model. I'm hitting an enemy model. Shooting it requires selecting it as a target. Jaws does not target models after the first one it hits.
Intention is irrelevant, really. Partially because my intent might have been to snipe one model out of CC or it might have been to get this onedudeoitof my face.

It's a shooting attack - you're trying to use semantics to circumvent the rules.

@rigeld2 - You claim that page 40 of the rules is fluff. I state that it is actually rules - you know, because it is rules. You are not permitted to fire into close combat. Yes, there is a lot of flowery language there, but it does boil down to a blanket prohibition on shooting into close combat. Jaws is a psychic shooting, which means that using it counts as using a ranged weapon (all psychic shooting attacks count as using a ranged weapon unless otherwise specified; Jaws is not otherwise specified).

There is a mechanism by which ranged weapons that are templates or blasts can hit models in close combat - they can scatter there. Other ranged weapons cannot hit models in close combat unless they have explicit permission to do so. Jaws acts as a ranged weapon and has no permission to hit models in close combat. There is no grey area here at all.

rigeld2 wrote:
Unless Nurgles Rot specifies it can hit CC - in which case I just seem like an ass. :-)

Heh no worries man, it's not a power people use often... well I do, but anyway,

It states that the power may be used even if the caster is in melee, and the targets may be in melee.

-666- wrote:It's a shooting attack - you're trying to use semantics to circumvent the rules.

He's not really. He's saying that the word "shooting" does NOT mean what the dictionary says it means. Instead, "shooting" is a term invented by the 40K rulebook to mean something specific, and this "something specific" is that "shooting" is, as described and defined by the rules of the game, a process that necessarily includes "targeting" as one of it's steps. Thus, if you are not "targeting" then you are not "shooting," no matter what the English dictionary says or what anyone else wants that word to mean.

It's a psychic shooting attack and that doesn't morph into anything else after it passes through the first target.