The wall of death lets you fire flame throwers on overwatch, does not say it ignores snap shots, just "even though they cannot snap fire"
Invisibility says you can only snapfire shots against invisible units.
Snapfire specifies that shooting attacks that auto hit cannot be used on snap fire.
So the core question does it override both snapshot requirements or only one? If it does override only 1 then can you even use the flamer on overwatch when firing at an invisible target?
Wall of Death isn't a snap shot. It's a special attack that you're allowed to make with template weapons at a specific time when you would normally only be able to fire snap shots.
It does nothing to over ride the Invisibility restriction to only fire snap shots.
So no, you can't fire wall of death shots at Invisible targets, although IMO you should be able to.
Fired as overwatch, when you can only snapfire.
Invisibility, you can only snapfire.
I charge, causing overwatch attack.
Therefore I fire wall of death as per the rules, at a time and target that I can only snapfire at.
Invisibility is broken enough. It doesn't need more help.
Wall of Death isn't a snap shot. It's a special attack that you're allowed to make with template weapons at a specific time when you would normally only be able to fire snap shots.
Invisibility forces you to snap shoot, but you are already snap shooting when firing Overwatch.
So you just follow the rules for Wall of Death.
Same if you regroup: "However, it can shoot (including Overwatch), but counts as having moved and can only fire Snap Shots."
You can still use Wall of Death after your Unit has regrouped (and is forced to snap shoot).
Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special
rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots. In addition, any shooting attack that
does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot.
WoD
Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead,
if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging
unit,
The answer I gave for DL
Wall of death over rides the overwatch restriction for having to snapshot.
It does not however over ride DL restrictions for snap shots as it is still not defined as a snap shot.
So no, to WoD it has to conflict with DLs rules, as it doesn't you can not use it against him.
You go to fire overwatch.
You can't fire snap shots but you can WoD with flamers.
DL checks if WoD are snapshots
Nope, ends there
You didn't mention if the poll was RAW or HIWPIbtw.
Edit; I thought this was clear since RAWliterally states it is a shooting attack which is not a snap shot. I see in the thread BT linked this is not the case, I'd forgotten that one.
More importantly, in the definitions of Snap Shots:
If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of those shots
So, Deathleaper forces you to be BS1 (I don't know his exact wording), Overwatch forces you to be BS1, Invisibility forces you to be BS1. When following Wall of Death, what does it allow you to do? Fire your weapon although you are BS1 (snap shooting).
So, rather than rolling 6s To Hit, "Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits"
This is because the Unit is not "affected by snap shot Blight", like [Overwatch-type Snap shot] or [Invisibility-type Snap Shot]. A Unit forced to snap shot is simply reduced to BS1 (RaW) Can models with BS1 fire Template weapons during Overwatch?
ED: Also, to all those who still think Invisibility > WoD, how does Vector Strike affect an invisible Unit? It cannot [snap fire], so what do you do with the "automatic hit" ? (Same auto-Hit provided by WoD)
BlackTalos wrote: More importantly, in the definitions of Snap Shots:
If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of those shots
So, Deathleaper forces you to be BS1 (I don't know his exact wording), Overwatch forces you to be BS1, Invisibility forces you to be BS1.
When following Wall of Death, what does it allow you to do? Fire your weapon although you are BS1 (snap shooting).
So, rather than rolling 6s To Hit, "Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits"
This is because the Unit is not "affected by snap shot Blight", like [Overwatch-type Snap shot] or [Invisibility-type Snap Shot]. A Unit forced to snap shot is simply reduced to BS1 (RaW)
Can models with BS1 fire Template weapons during Overwatch?
ED: Also, to all those who still think Invisibility > WoD, how does Vector Strike affect an invisible Unit? It cannot [snap fire], so what do you do with the "automatic hit" ? (Same auto-Hit provided by WoD)
We don't have to draw conclusions, I did miss some of the snap shot rules sorry.
In addition, any shooting attack that
does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot
Automatically hit is not using BS . Snap shot excludes anything which is not rolling to hit on a 6 (excluding modifiers which specifically say they effect snap shots) from being able to be called a snap shot. Since at least 6th snap shots have been incredibly 'tight' ruling. The most they ever gave was immoteks lightning was able to hit flyers, and even that required a roll of 6 in the first place.
BlackTalos wrote: More importantly, in the definitions of Snap Shots:
If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of those shots
So, Deathleaper forces you to be BS1 (I don't know his exact wording), Overwatch forces you to be BS1, Invisibility forces you to be BS1.
When following Wall of Death, what does it allow you to do? Fire your weapon although you are BS1 (snap shooting).
So, rather than rolling 6s To Hit, "Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits"
This is because the Unit is not "affected by snap shot Blight", like [Overwatch-type Snap shot] or [Invisibility-type Snap Shot]. A Unit forced to snap shot is simply reduced to BS1 (RaW)
Can models with BS1 fire Template weapons during Overwatch?
ED: Also, to all those who still think Invisibility > WoD, how does Vector Strike affect an invisible Unit? It cannot [snap fire], so what do you do with the "automatic hit" ? (Same auto-Hit provided by WoD)
We don't have to draw conclusions, I did miss some of the snap shot rules sorry.
In addition, any shooting attack that
does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot
Automatically hit is not using BS . Snap shot excludes anything which is not rolling to hit on a 6 (excluding modifiers which specifically say they effect snap shots) from being able to be called a snap shot. Since at least 6th snap shots have been incredibly 'tight' ruling. The most they ever gave was immoteks lightning was able to hit flyers, and even that required a roll of 6 in the first place.
Okay, so we have:
If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of those shots
and (you cut it short)
Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots. In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot
Wall of Death will be covered by "Templates", which, we all know "cannot be fired as Snap Shots"
So Wall of Death cannot be a Snap shot.
What is it then?
How does a Heavy Flamer cause Hits, while specifically not being able to Snap shot ever?
Maybe this could apply:
If a special rule doesn’t specifically state that it affects Snap Shots, then the Snap Shot is resolved at Ballistic Skill 1.
Could Wall of death "specifically state that it affects Snap Shots"?
Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit,
What do i read from the WoD, by RaW?
1) Template weapons cannot fire Snap Shots.
2) Template weapons can fire overwatch.
3) If you fire a Template weapon, you auto-Hit D3.
So you've never fired a Snap shot, simply because it is not possible for these weapons to do so. But they inflict Auto-Hits, just like Vector Strike would.
IMO resolving Auto-Hits is quite easy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would even go as far as giving this RaW as support:
When rolling To Hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of a 1 always misses.
If the Template Weapon is not actually rolling To Hit (it also cannot be doing so due to Auto-Hits), why do rules like Invisibility (which "modify" To Hit rolls) even apply?
Because they modify the hit process to state that you cannot snapshot a blast / template weapon, precisely because they do not roll to hit.
Hammer of wrath does, because there is no equivalent to snapshot within the CC rules.
The only argument possible is: is Wall of Death a snapshot? The answer is no - it is instead of firing overwatch snapshot, you run a completely different path. So when asked "did you snapshot at me?" you cannot answer "Yes" with Wall of Death
BlackTalos wrote: More importantly, in the definitions of Snap Shots:
If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of those shots
So, Deathleaper forces you to be BS1 (I don't know his exact wording), Overwatch forces you to be BS1, Invisibility forces you to be BS1.
When following Wall of Death, what does it allow you to do? Fire your weapon although you are BS1 (snap shooting).
So, rather than rolling 6s To Hit, "Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits"
This is because the Unit is not "affected by snap shot Blight", like [Overwatch-type Snap shot] or [Invisibility-type Snap Shot]. A Unit forced to snap shot is simply reduced to BS1 (RaW)
Can models with BS1 fire Template weapons during Overwatch?
ED: Also, to all those who still think Invisibility > WoD, how does Vector Strike affect an invisible Unit? It cannot [snap fire], so what do you do with the "automatic hit" ? (Same auto-Hit provided by WoD)
We don't have to draw conclusions, I did miss some of the snap shot rules sorry.
In addition, any shooting attack that
does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot
Automatically hit is not using BS . Snap shot excludes anything which is not rolling to hit on a 6 (excluding modifiers which specifically say they effect snap shots) from being able to be called a snap shot. Since at least 6th snap shots have been incredibly 'tight' ruling. The most they ever gave was immoteks lightning was able to hit flyers, and even that required a roll of 6 in the first place.
Okay, so we have:
If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of those shots
and (you cut it short)
Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots. In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot
Wall of Death will be covered by "Templates", which, we all know "cannot be fired as Snap Shots"
Well, WoD is also covered by it being a shooting attack which does not use BS. It is both of those things.
So Wall of Death cannot be a Snap shot.
What is it then?
How does a Heavy Flamer cause Hits, while specifically not being able to Snap shot ever?
Not sure what you mean here or what the problem is. Relentless counters heavy, also not moving. Whats the point in having a heavy flamer is the heavy part does not have ill effects? The same premise as POTMS overriding one snap shot restriction but not the other. I'm not sure where you stand on that but if you believe the POTMS additional target does not override restrictions such as jinking which uses the same counter argument 'whats the point in it then' and relay it to that its the same (but different) mechanics.
Maybe this could apply:
If a special rule doesn’t specifically state that it affects Snap Shots, then the Snap Shot is resolved at Ballistic Skill 1.
Could Wall of death "specifically state that it affects Snap Shots"?
Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit,
We already have wording which effects the BS of a snap shot (Markerlights). These are quite different though, but WoD doesn't use BS in the first place making it difficult for it to specifically state it effects the BS of the shot, which would be '+1BS can be used on snapshots' or something similar, Instead WoD states since the template can not snap shot, instead during over watch (where normally, you can only snapshot) you can use the WoD rule to inflict D3 hits. This is not a snap shot though, this is a over watch exception so flamers are not useless. It does not account for rules on DL, or invisibility, only the restrictions laid down in the over watch rules, as it what it was meant to overcome.
What do i read from the WoD, by RaW?
1) Template weapons cannot fire Snap Shots.
2) Template weapons can fire overwatch.
3) If you fire a Template weapon, you auto-Hit D3.
So you've never fired a Snap shot, simply because it is not possible for these weapons to do so. But they inflict Auto-Hits, just like Vector Strike would.
IMO resolving Auto-Hits is quite easy.
No its not possible, and when firing at invis units you can ONLY fire snap shots. If your not given the opportunity to fire on BS that's does not mean you have overcome the restriction - why would it?
Vector strike is not firing a weapon, a weapon special rule or anything to do with such, it's a completely different concept and does not cause conflict with Invisibility as it never 'fired' vector strike at it. It's much like... Err... that Jetbike attack... When flying over... At some point it was decided (mostly) can not take cover saves as it's not a shooting attack. I have some reservation about that, but attacks which are not obviously shooting or CC attacks are a little bit in a world of their own and I'm not sure which rules from either are or are not suppose to apply. I don't believe WoD is like that, it's a form of firing the weapon and works like other weapon SR's (This format is more commonly seen on CC weapons though)
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would even go as far as giving this RaW as support:
When rolling To Hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of a 1 always misses.
If the Template Weapon is not actually rolling To Hit (it also cannot be doing so due to Auto-Hits), why do rules like Invisibility (which "modify" To Hit rolls) even apply?
Does Hammer of Wrath affect Invisible Units?
Yeah I don't think that sentance is applicable. Of course there's no such thing as a auto hit when your rolling to hit this sentence context is around rolling, and how increased BS can not cause the + to dice roll to end in a 'auto hit' - but we know auto hits and wounds exist within the confines of shooting, and CC attacks.
Hammer of Wrath, unlike Vector strike places itself firmly as one or the other - it says it is an additional close combat attack - However, snap shots don't exist for CC attacks so what hit on 6's means is less 'tight' rules wise, it can be a lot more ''loose''. Maybe it can 'bypass' the required hit - Snap shots wording stops anything 'bypassing' it, including autohits.
Again, without WoD being a snap shot the restriction process problem I see is very similar to POTMS in what your given permission to override. I don't know if they INTENDED to make WoD usable against targets which required to be snapshotted at to be fired at, but how we play it is Dealthleaper can not be WoD'ed, which out group established as the release of the nids codex last year.
So Wall of Death cannot be a Snap shot.
What is it then?
How does a Heavy Flamer cause Hits, while specifically not being able to Snap shot ever?
Not sure what you mean here or what the problem is. Relentless counters heavy, also not moving. Whats the point in having a heavy flamer is the heavy part does not have ill effects?
Heavy Flamers don't have the Heavy rule - they're Assault.
So Relentless is irrelevant.
So Wall of Death cannot be a Snap shot.
What is it then?
How does a Heavy Flamer cause Hits, while specifically not being able to Snap shot ever?
Not sure what you mean here or what the problem is. Relentless counters heavy, also not moving. Whats the point in having a heavy flamer is the heavy part does not have ill effects?
Heavy Flamers don't have the Heavy rule - they're Assault.
So Relentless is irrelevant.
I don't play with them so a little unsure of the context around that question
From the quotes people are using from the rule book and from my basic English skills, Wall of Death will hit an invisible unit that charges.
So we already know that Flamer weapons do not 'snap fire' in the traditional manner. In fact, they don't even SHOOT in the normal manner either, as they do not even need to roll to hit and thus ignore Ballistic Skill altogether in that aspect. They are special weapons among special weapons.
So with Overwatch, we know we fire Snap Shots. We also know that Invisible units can only be shot at as Snap Shots on a normal basis anyway.
What this equates too is that Flamers/Templates cannot actually fire at the Invisible unit on a normal basis, if the Invisible rule actually states you can only fire Snap Shots at them. But when it comes to Overwatch, that's a different story.
Flamers have Wall of Death, as we all know. Which isn't resolved using normal Overwatch/Shooting rules. Each Flamer/template gets D3 automatic hits, which does hit Invisible units. Why wouldn't it? The Invisible spell does not prevent this, and the Flamer/template is not breaking the restriction. It isn't a snap shot. It's a special rule for Overwatching.
angelofvengeance wrote: Just cause you're invisible shouldn't mean you're immune to being roasted alive with for instance, a big doomy flame thrower.
Well, if you want to apply it that way, WoD is preparation for a unit charging at you, amidst the chaos of battle you not likely to drop your bolters and be able to organize a flame wall in time for a enemy you didn't see coming.
angelofvengeance wrote: Just cause you're invisible shouldn't mean you're immune to being roasted alive with for instance, a big doomy flame thrower.
Honestly being invisible should allow you to be roasted anyways because how else is someone going to flush you out? Same for blast weapons (just make them scatter the full 2D6 or something and we're good in my book).
angelofvengeance wrote: Just cause you're invisible shouldn't mean you're immune to being roasted alive with for instance, a big doomy flame thrower.
Well, if you want to apply it that way, WoD is preparation for a unit charging at you, amidst the chaos of battle you not likely to drop your bolters and be able to organize a flame wall in time for a enemy you didn't see coming.
The person carrying the flamer is the one who makes the big wall of death, not the entire squad. And by your logic then they shouldn't get to snap fire bolters at the invisible enemy either.
Melevolence wrote: From the quotes people are using from the rule book and from my basic English skills, Wall of Death will hit an invisible unit that charges.
So we already know that Flamer weapons do not 'snap fire' in the traditional manner. In fact, they don't even SHOOT in the normal manner either, as they do not even need to roll to hit and thus ignore Ballistic Skill altogether in that aspect. They are special weapons among special weapons.
So with Overwatch, we know we fire Snap Shots. We also know that Invisible units can only be shot at as Snap Shots on a normal basis anyway.
What this equates too is that Flamers/Templates cannot actually fire at the Invisible unit on a normal basis, if the Invisible rule actually states you can only fire Snap Shots at them. But when it comes to Overwatch, that's a different story.
Flamers have Wall of Death, as we all know. Which isn't resolved using normal Overwatch/Shooting rules. Each Flamer/template gets D3 automatic hits, which does hit Invisible units. Why wouldn't it? The Invisible spell does not prevent this, and the Flamer/template is not breaking the restriction. It isn't a snap shot. It's a special rule for Overwatching.
"In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot"
If it wasn't fired as a Snap Shot, can it hit an invisible unit?
"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit"
Since we've established that WoD is not, in fact, a Snap Shot it cannot be fired at an Invisible unit - because Invisibility requires that all shots fired be Snap Shots.
Flamers have Wall of Death, as we all know. Which isn't resolved using normal Overwatch/Shooting rules. Each Flamer/template gets D3 automatic hits, which does hit Invisible units. Why wouldn't it? The Invisible spell does not prevent this, and the Flamer/template is not breaking the restriction. It isn't a snap shot. It's a special rule for Overwatching.
Invisibility prevents anything being fired which is not a snapshot ( WoD included) . Wod is allowed to be fired in Overwatch, that doesn't mean it's allowed to be fired against invisibility. Invisibility and overwatch are two separate rules, because your allowed to override one does not automatically mean you can override the other.
angelofvengeance wrote: Just cause you're invisible shouldn't mean you're immune to being roasted alive with for instance, a big doomy flame thrower.
Honestly being invisible should allow you to be roasted anyways because how else is someone going to flush you out? Same for blast weapons (just make them scatter the full 2D6 or something and we're good in my book).
angelofvengeance wrote: Just cause you're invisible shouldn't mean you're immune to being roasted alive with for instance, a big doomy flame thrower.
Well, if you want to apply it that way, WoD is preparation for a unit charging at you, amidst the chaos of battle you not likely to drop your bolters and be able to organize a flame wall in time for a enemy you didn't see coming.
The person carrying the flamer is the one who makes the big wall of death, not the entire squad. And by your logic then they shouldn't get to snap fire bolters at the invisible enemy either.
Well its all trying to rationalize real world circumstances which gets a bit dodgy as war isn't linear. I actually imagined a 'wall of death' being made up of multiple people, but we don't have rules for it being more effective if the model fire from the side rather than one guy in the middle going backwards and forwards with his thrower rotation. Maybe they realize their presence while quite close? Maybe they don't and never get to snap fire anything, which can happen in real life - but the point is it is not a case of immune to fire while invisible therefore logically WoD hits. Plenty of places in the rules this could happen or that could happen IRL, but we only have one set of rules (and some dice rolls for random factors).
Melevolence wrote: From the quotes people are using from the rule book and from my basic English skills, Wall of Death will hit an invisible unit that charges.
So we already know that Flamer weapons do not 'snap fire' in the traditional manner. In fact, they don't even SHOOT in the normal manner either, as they do not even need to roll to hit and thus ignore Ballistic Skill altogether in that aspect. They are special weapons among special weapons.
So with Overwatch, we know we fire Snap Shots. We also know that Invisible units can only be shot at as Snap Shots on a normal basis anyway.
What this equates too is that Flamers/Templates cannot actually fire at the Invisible unit on a normal basis, if the Invisible rule actually states you can only fire Snap Shots at them. But when it comes to Overwatch, that's a different story.
Flamers have Wall of Death, as we all know. Which isn't resolved using normal Overwatch/Shooting rules. Each Flamer/template gets D3 automatic hits, which does hit Invisible units. Why wouldn't it? The Invisible spell does not prevent this, and the Flamer/template is not breaking the restriction. It isn't a snap shot. It's a special rule for Overwatching.
"In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot"
If it wasn't fired as a Snap Shot, can it hit an invisible unit?
"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit"
Since we've established that WoD is not, in fact, a Snap Shot it cannot be fired at an Invisible unit - because Invisibility requires that all shots fired be Snap Shots.
Which a Flamer can not do. Which is why during Overwatch, it uses WoD instead, which grants D3 hits instead of firing traditional Overwatch.
With the wording for Invisibility, if that is word for word correct, RAW, it's still a toss up. It's how one wants to rule lawyer it.
As this is a 'You Make Da Call', my call is Yes. You can WoD Invisible units.
And if people want to get 'logical' about how one readies an attack for an Invisible unit, charging is NOT a quiet action. You're running, stomping, and depending on the faction, you're shouting. You'll make noise. People will fire in your direction and are bound to hit something.
rigeld2 wrote: "In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot"
If it wasn't fired as a Snap Shot, can it hit an invisible unit?
"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit"
Since we've established that WoD is not, in fact, a Snap Shot it cannot be fired at an Invisible unit - because Invisibility requires that all shots fired be Snap Shots.
Which a Flamer can not do. Which is why during Overwatch, it uses WoD instead, which grants D3 hits instead of firing traditional Overwatch.
With the wording for Invisibility, if that is word for word correct, RAW, it's still a toss up. It's how one wants to rule lawyer it.
WoD also cannot be fired as a snap shot. Agreed? Since only Snap Shots can be fired at the target unit, and WoD cannot (per the rules) be fired as a Snap Shot, it cannot be fired at the target unit.
And yes, it's word for word correct - that's why I put quotes around it.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Because they modify the hit process to state that you cannot snapshot a blast / template weapon, precisely because they do not roll to hit.
Hammer of wrath does, because there is no equivalent to snapshot within the CC rules.
The only argument possible is: is Wall of Death a snapshot? The answer is no - it is instead of firing overwatch snapshot, you run a completely different path. So when asked "did you snapshot at me?" you cannot answer "Yes" with Wall of Death
rigeld2 wrote: Since we've established that WoD is not, in fact, a Snap Shot it cannot be fired at an Invisible unit - because Invisibility requires that all shots fired be Snap Shots.
I quote Overwatch:
Any shots fired as Overwatch can only be fired as Snap Shots. Therefore, weapons and models that cannot fire Snap Shots cannot fire Overwatch.
So when asked "did you snapshot at me?" you cannot answer "Yes" with Wall of Death.
Therefore Wall of Death cannot fire Overwatch. Unless of course, you actually follow the WoD rule: "Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit"
How would you resolve automatic hits on an Invisible Unit? Say i trace a "Molten Beam" or "Infernal Gaze" through the invisible Unit. It is arguably "Fired" as a Witchfire. But a Beam is not a Snap Shot, does a Beam have no effect on Invisible Units?
Secondly, the CC rules are exactly the same:
and in close combat will onlyhit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6
How does Hammer of Wrath roll a 6?
Hammer of wrath cannot roll a 6, WoD cannot snap fire. Hammer of Wrath Auto-Hits, WoD Auto-Hits. Consistency: A) Both Auto-Hits are ignore because the restrictions (Snap Fire, 6 ) are not met. B) Both simply resolve the Hits that have been generated Automatically.
Pick A or B. Then the discussion will continue.
ED: Hammer of Wrath and WoD are at exactly the same level in Basic v Advanced, and the 2 phrases in "Invisibility" are synonymous in Shooting and CC (word "only")
rigeld2 wrote: "In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot"
If it wasn't fired as a Snap Shot, can it hit an invisible unit?
"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit"
Since we've established that WoD is not, in fact, a Snap Shot it cannot be fired at an Invisible unit - because Invisibility requires that all shots fired be Snap Shots.
Which a Flamer can not do. Which is why during Overwatch, it uses WoD instead, which grants D3 hits instead of firing traditional Overwatch.
With the wording for Invisibility, if that is word for word correct, RAW, it's still a toss up. It's how one wants to rule lawyer it.
WoD also cannot be fired as a snap shot. Agreed? Since only Snap Shots can be fired at the target unit, and WoD cannot (per the rules) be fired as a Snap Shot, it cannot be fired at the target unit.
And yes, it's word for word correct - that's why I put quotes around it.
I'm thinking you're mistaking a few things. I'm not saying Flamers can target an Invisible unit for a normal shooting attack. What I AM saying, is that WoD can be used if the Invisi unit declares a charge. Overwatch works differently than a standard shooting attack during the shooting phase. Invisi does not protect from WoD. It protects from normal shooting attacks, not Overwatch triggered attacks/effects.
BlackTalos wrote: How would you resolve automatic hits on an Invisible Unit?
Say i trace a "Molten Beam" or "Infernal Gaze" through the invisible Unit. It is arguably "Fired" as a Witchfire. But a Beam is not a Snap Shot, does a Beam have no effect on Invisible Units?
No - it has an effect. You're conflating hitting and firing/targeting. You shouldn't.
WoD cannot be fired at an Invisible unit because it cannot ever be a Snap Shot.
Molten Beam is not fired at an Invisible unit. Neither is Infernal Gaze.
"firing" and "firing at" are different things. Beams target a point on the table and therefore are never fired at an invisible unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melevolence wrote: What I AM saying, is that WoD can be used if the Invisi unit declares a charge.
So what you're saying is that WoD - something that cannot ever be fired as a Snap Shot - can fire at a unit that can only ever be fired at by snap shots?
BlackTalos wrote: How would you resolve automatic hits on an Invisible Unit?
Say i trace a "Molten Beam" or "Infernal Gaze" through the invisible Unit. It is arguably "Fired" as a Witchfire. But a Beam is not a Snap Shot, does a Beam have no effect on Invisible Units?
No - it has an effect. You're conflating hitting and firing/targeting. You shouldn't.
WoD cannot be fired at an Invisible unit because it cannot ever be a Snap Shot.
Molten Beam is not fired at an Invisible unit. Neither is Infernal Gaze.
"firing" and "firing at" are different things. Beams target a point on the table and therefore are never fired at an invisible unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melevolence wrote: What I AM saying, is that WoD can be used if the Invisi unit declares a charge.
So what you're saying is that WoD - something that cannot ever be fired as a Snap Shot - can fire at a unit that can only ever be fired at by snap shots?
No, they're not.
There is no concept of Snap Shot in CC. There is no rule saying that attacks that don't use WS cannot be used in CC.
They're not even close to the same thing - please don't attempt this straw man argument any more. It requires you to make up rules.
WoD is not something you can choose to use on a normal basis. I think you need to read how Flamer weapons work again. Flamers, by nature, cannot fire snapshots and resolve Overwatch in a different manner to compensate as well as be more 'flavorful'. They INSTEAD use WoD, which is not a traditional shooting attack. It can only be used in an instance where they WOULD fire snapshots, but are not able too. Which is during Overwatch.
Edit:
In the end, as the rules stand for WoD and Invisibility, this is all a total rule lawyer situation, and you have to all make your personal calls on the matter. Until GWFAQ's this, the rules are too ambiguous for even RAW.
Melevolence wrote: WoD is not something you can choose to use on a normal basis. I think you need to read how Flamer weapons work again. Flamers, by nature, cannot fire snapshots and resolve Overwatch in a different manner to compensate as well as be more 'flavorful'. They INSTEAD use WoD, which is not a traditional shooting attack. It can only be used in an instance where they WOULD fire snapshots, but are not able too. Which is during Overwatch.
Absolutely correct. I'm not arguing that.
Do you agree that WoD cannot ever be fired as a Snap Shot? Yes or no.
As has been said several times, wall of death is not a shooting attack. It is a special ability activated during overwatch. Read the rule. Nowhere in Wall of Death pg 173 does it say "this is a shooting attack" it doesn't even say"instead of" it says even though they cannot fire overwatch it automatically inflicts d3 wounds in the unit.
Overwatch is a sorting attack. These weapons cannot fire overwatch. Instead they use a special rule.
Your argument that invisible units cannot be snap shot at assumed wod is a shooting attack. Which it is not. It is the activation of a special rule. Very simple. You're trying to convince people a special rules is a shooting attack, it is not. Stop trying to make a broken spell more broken than the rules support by claiming it strips additional rules that are not even the attack type you are arguing against.
And off the rules lawyering block for a moment, if i can shoot a bolter at you I should damn well be able to burn you alive. The stupidity of flamers not working on invisibility normally makes my brain hurt. But that statement isn't backed up by raw and I have no evidence in the rule book to support that my brain hurts when I think about it, so I'm assuming someone it's going to refute my headaches with a raw rule.
Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit,
Oh. It does.
Your argument that invisible units cannot be snap shot at assumed wod is a shooting attack. Which it is not.
It's not?
if a Template weapon fires Overwatch,
So it's not a shooting attack, but it fires Overwatch which is a shooting attack, but it's totally not.
In addition - what rules do we use for wound allocation?
It is the activation of a special rule. Very simple. You're trying to convince people a special rules is a shooting attack, it is not. Stop trying to make a broken spell more broken than the rules support by claiming it strips additional rules that are not even the attack type you are arguing against.
How about you use the actual rules in your argument? I know I have.
And off the rules lawyering block for a moment, if i can shoot a bolter at you I should damn well be able to burn you alive. The stupidity of flamers not working on invisibility normally makes my brain hurt. But that statement isn't backed up by raw and I have no evidence in the rule book to support that my brain hurts when I think about it, so I'm assuming someone it's going to refute my headaches with a raw rule.
BlackTalos wrote: How would you resolve automatic hits on an Invisible Unit? Say i trace a "Molten Beam" or "Infernal Gaze" through the invisible Unit. It is arguably "Fired" as a Witchfire. But a Beam is not a Snap Shot, does a Beam have no effect on Invisible Units?
No - it has an effect. You're conflating hitting and firing/targeting. You shouldn't.
WoD cannot be fired at an Invisible unit because it cannot ever be a Snap Shot. Molten Beam is not fired at an Invisible unit. Neither is Infernal Gaze.
"firing" and "firing at" are different things. Beams target a point on the table and therefore are never fired at an invisible unit.
WoD does not "fire at", it "automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit".
Molten Beam inflict Auto-Hits on the Unit, WoD inflicts Auto-Hits on the Unit. They both auto-hit instead of rolling To Hit. Why does snap firing restrict 1 and not the other?
It seems like this whole thread is being overthought a little. It's simple. WoD says that a flamer can fire overwatch, even though it can't fire snap shots, and does d3 hits. So, can you use WoD on an invisible unit?
Are you firing overwatch? Then, yes.
There is nothing ambiguous about the rule. People are getting too caught up on what the nature of the snap shot is. A flamer can fire overwatch even though it can't fire snap shots. Nowhere in the rules does it give any impression that the source of the Snap Shot rule is relevant. It just says you can fire Overwatch, even though you can't usually snap shoot.
Your argument that invisible units cannot be snap shot at assumed wod is a shooting attack. Which it is not.
It's not?
if a Template weapon fires Overwatch,
So it's not a shooting attack, but it fires Overwatch which is a shooting attack, but it's totally not.
In addition - what rules do we use for wound allocation?
So you have measured range for the weapon, as required by the Shooting rules?
Or are you going to quote the last 3 "fluff" phrases in WoD?
I agree it IS a shooting attack though, just like Molten Beam, because it starts on Step 5. Roll To Wound. After you have allocated the Auto-Hits both rules provide.
BlackTalos wrote: How would you resolve automatic hits on an Invisible Unit?
Say i trace a "Molten Beam" or "Infernal Gaze" through the invisible Unit. It is arguably "Fired" as a Witchfire. But a Beam is not a Snap Shot, does a Beam have no effect on Invisible Units?
No - it has an effect. You're conflating hitting and firing/targeting. You shouldn't.
WoD cannot be fired at an Invisible unit because it cannot ever be a Snap Shot.
Molten Beam is not fired at an Invisible unit. Neither is Infernal Gaze.
"firing" and "firing at" are different things. Beams target a point on the table and therefore are never fired at an invisible unit.
WoD does not "fire at", it "automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit".
It's fired as part of Overwatch. Agreed?
Overwatch fire (weapons firing as part of Overwatch) is fired at a unit. Agreed?
As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units, that unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker – it doesn’t have to, but it’s often a good idea.
The actual rules say that Overwatch fire is fired at the would-be attacker. So your assertions are incorrect. Please cite rules supporting your assertions before continuing to argue this point.
Molten Beam inflict Auto-Hits on the Unit, WoD inflicts Auto-Hits on the Unit.
They both auto-hit instead of rolling To Hit. Why does snap Firing restrict 1 and not the other?
I've explained why, you're refusing to accept it.
Consistency requires you resolve both cases in the same way.
You're ignoring the fact that Snap Shots have a rule saying things that Auto-Hit cannot be fired as Snap Shots.
Hence, there's a difference between shooting and CC.
Hence, you cannot compare them because they have a significant difference that you continue to ignore despite the fact it's been pointed out multiple times. Please actually address that rule rather than handwaving it away.
Can Wall of Death ever by fired as a Snap Shot? Yes or No.
Your argument that invisible units cannot be snap shot at assumed wod is a shooting attack. Which it is not.
It's not?
if a Template weapon fires Overwatch,
So it's not a shooting attack, but it fires Overwatch which is a shooting attack, but it's totally not.
In addition - what rules do we use for wound allocation?
So you have measured range for the weapon, as required by the Shooting rules?
No.
Don’t worry about comparing the length of the template with the distance to the enemy.
I'm not required to.
Or are you going to quote the last 3 "fluff" phrases in WoD?
Comparing the length of the template with the distance to the enemy is a fluff sentence?
I agree it IS a shooting attack though, just like Molten Beam, because it starts on Step 5. Roll To Wound. After you have allocated the Auto-Hits both rules provide.
Normally, that's correct. Against an Invisible unit there is a difference, however. And that difference is that Molten Beam doesn't ever fire at the invisible unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AnFéasógMór wrote: It seems like this whole thread is being overthought a little. It's simple. WoD says that a flamer can fire overwatch, even though it can't fire snap shots, and does d3 hits. So, can you use WoD on an invisible unit?
Are you firing overwatch? Then, yes.
There is nothing ambiguous about the rule. People are getting too caught up on what the nature of the snap shot is. A flamer can fire overwatch even though it can't fire snap shots. Nowhere in the rules does it give any impression that the source of the Snap Shot rule is relevant. It just says you can fire Overwatch, even though you can't usually snap shoot.
Only if you ignore Invisibility - which I've quoted in this thread.
"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit"
Was the Wall of Death fired at the would be attacker? Yes.
Was it fired as a Snap Shot? No - it can never fire as a Snap Shot.
Therefore firing it is illegal and cannot be done.
BlackTalos wrote: How would you resolve automatic hits on an Invisible Unit? Say i trace a "Molten Beam" or "Infernal Gaze" through the invisible Unit. It is arguably "Fired" as a Witchfire. But a Beam is not a Snap Shot, does a Beam have no effect on Invisible Units?
No - it has an effect. You're conflating hitting and firing/targeting. You shouldn't.
WoD cannot be fired at an Invisible unit because it cannot ever be a Snap Shot. Molten Beam is not fired at an Invisible unit. Neither is Infernal Gaze.
"firing" and "firing at" are different things. Beams target a point on the table and therefore are never fired at an invisible unit.
WoD does not "fire at", it "automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit".
It's fired as part of Overwatch. Agreed? Overwatch fire (weapons firing as part of Overwatch) is fired at a unit. Agreed?
As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units, that unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker – it doesn’t have to, but it’s often a good idea.
The actual rules say that Overwatch fire is fired at the would-be attacker. So your assertions are incorrect. Please cite rules supporting your assertions before continuing to argue this point.
Molten Beam inflict Auto-Hits on the Unit, WoD inflicts Auto-Hits on the Unit. They both auto-hit instead of rolling To Hit. Why does snap Firing restrict 1 and not the other?
I've explained why, you're refusing to accept it.
Consistency requires you resolve both cases in the same way.
You're ignoring the fact that Snap Shots have a rule saying things that Auto-Hit cannot be fired as Snap Shots. Hence, there's a difference between shooting and CC. Hence, you cannot compare them because they have a significant difference that you continue to ignore despite the fact it's been pointed out multiple times. Please actually address that rule rather than handwaving it away.
Can Wall of Death ever by fired as a Snap Shot? Yes or No.
I see that in a very roundabout way, you are referring to a very simple RaW, let me help:
Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots.
I can even shorten it to make the point even clearer:
(Some weapon types, such as) "Template, cannot be fired as Snap Shots."
The rule above is very simple. Template weapons cannot be fired as Snap Shots.
So how does a Template weapon inflict Hits on the Charging Unit? Please explain the process to me considering the weapon cannot be "fired as a Snap Shot". Once you do, you can apply the same process on the Invisible Unit, and realise that there is no difference.
You have admitted WOD is not a snapshot nor is held to snap shot rules when you said, "You're ignoring the fact that Snap Shots have a rule saying things that Auto-Hit cannot be fired as Snap Shots."
When in fact wod is an ability used in overwatch when other weapons snapshoot.
Ps technically it doesn't say instead of. I was technically correct, and in rules lawyering and bureaucracy, technically correct is the best kind of correct.
BlackTalos wrote: I see that in a very roundabout way, you are referring to a very simple RaW, let me help:
Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots.
Nope. I've specified the rule I'm referring to multiple times. It was the very next sentence after the one you quoted.
In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot.
Does Wall of Death use Ballistic Skill? Yes or No.
Is Wall of Death fired at the would be attacker? Yes or No.
Please answer those two simple questions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FratHammer wrote: You have admitted WOD is not a snapshot nor is held to snap shot rules when you said, "You're ignoring the fact that Snap Shots have a rule saying things that Auto-Hit cannot be fired as Snap Shots."
When in fact wod is an ability used in overwatch when other weapons snapshoot.
Correct - WoD is not a Snap Shot and cannot ever be fired as a Snap Shot. That's what I've said all along.
Can you fire at an Invisible unit with something that is not fired as a Snap Shot?
Don’t worry about comparing the length of the template with the distance to the enemy. If the charge is successful, it doesn’t matter anyway. If the charge failed, we can assume that the enemy ran into range of the Template weapon and were driven back.
The underlined is RaW? great support Oh and "If the charge is successful", "If the charge failed" grammatically connect the previous sentence. So the 3 sentences above are 1.
But they are fluff, not RaW. RaW is:
"it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved at its normal Strength and AP value."
Because you don't measure range when you are provided with Auto-Hits from a Special rule. Like Vector Strike Or Total Collapse Or maybe Soul Blaze.
Does Total Collapse need to snap fire? They are all Auto-Hits, and we know how to resolve Auto-Hits on a Unit.
BlackTalos wrote: I see that in a very roundabout way, you are referring to a very simple RaW, let me help:
Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots.
Nope. I've specified the rule I'm referring to multiple times. It was the very next sentence after the one you quoted.
In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot.
Does Wall of Death use Ballistic Skill? Yes or No. Is Wall of Death fired at the would be attacker? Yes or No.
Please answer those two simple questions.
I have answered many times that a Template weapon cannot ever fire Snap Shots, by RaW. But this is true for any Overwatch,not only Invisible Units. It still inflict D3 Hits.
The Template weapon is fired at the would be attacker, Yes. But instead, the Unit suffers D3 Hits. Do you "fire at" a Unit with Auto-Hits?
Does Total collapse "Fire at" the Unit? Does Vector Strike "fire at"? No, Auto-Hits are resolved against a Unit without a To Hit Step, IE without Snap Shots.
If you wish to disallow any Auto-Hitting damage as per some convoluted conclusion that this damage must have been a Snap shot, feel free. The RaW on how to resolve Hits allocated is clear.
Don’t worry about comparing the length of the template with the distance to the enemy. If the charge is successful, it doesn’t matter anyway. If the charge failed, we can assume that the enemy ran into range of the Template weapon and were driven back.
The underlined is RaW? great support
Did I quote those as support? Hm. Nope, I sure didn't.
Oh and "If the charge is successful", "If the charge failed" grammatically connect the previous sentence. So the 3 sentences above are 1.
Except 2 are fluff and one isn't.
But they are fluff, not RaW. RaW is:
"it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved at its normal Strength and AP value."
Because you don't measure range when you are provided with Auto-Hits from a Special rule.
Like Vector Strike
Or Total Collapse
Or maybe Soul Blaze.
None of these are part of a shooting attack - comparing them isn't valid.
Does Total Collapse need to snap fire? They are all Auto-Hits, and we know how to resolve Auto-Hits on a Unit.
Again, none of those are part of a shooting attack. You're comparing apples and oranges to argue a banana.
You've failed to find fault with my actual arguments and are now trying to chip away at the edge for a weakness. I've proven - multiple times - why your assertions are incorrect.
I have answered many times that a Template weapon cannot ever fire Snap Shots, by RaW.
But this is true for any Overwatch,not only Invisible Units. It still inflict D3 Hits.
I'm not addressing Templates in general - my question was specific to Wall of Death. Please answer the question I ask and don't make up a question.
The Template weapon is fired at the would be attacker, Yes. But instead, the Unit suffers D3 Hits.
Do you "fire at" a Unit with Auto-Hits?
Yes. Since you're firing as part of Overwatch and Overwatch is indisputably fired at a unit.
Does Total collapse "Fire at" the Unit? Does Vector Strike "fire at"?
No, Auto-Hits are resolved against a Unit without a To Hit Step, IE without Snap Shots.
Neither of these are fired as part of Overwatch, and therefore irrelevant as comparison.
If you wish to disallow any Auto-Hitting damage as per some convoluted conclusion that this damage must have been a Snap shot, feel free.
Straw man - I'm not arguing that, you're saying I'm arguing that and arguing against it. The very definition of a straw man.
Please stop and re-think your position.
Yes! Overwatch is a snapshot for everyone else, you activate wod during overwatch...
Wait... Are you just trolling? Or are you honestly misreading the rules? Because there is no other option at this point.
It is an ABILITY, used during a portion of a phase, activated by declaring overwatch, which assigns AUTOMATIC HITS, which by the book and your own admission cannot be a snapshot (not that it is a shooting attack anyway) so I don't understand your point...
If it is, by your admission, not a snap shot, then it must be an ability, if it is an ability, where in invisibility does it states you get to strip that ability?
Edit-changed starts to states then added this line.
FratHammer wrote: Yes! Overwatch is a snapshot for everyone else, you activate wod during overwatch...
No, you use the WoD rule when you fire a Template weapon as part of Overwatch. Per the actual rules:
Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved...
So your assertion is incorrect.
Wait... Are you just trolling? Or are you honestly misreading the rules? Because there is no other option at this point.
I've quoted actual rules, and you haven't. Accusations of trolling are violations of rule #1 and get reported as such.
It is an ABILITY, used during a portion of a phase, activated by declaring overwatch, which assigns AUTOMATIC HITS, which by the book and your own admission cannot be a snapshot (not that it is a shooting attack anyway) so I don't understand your point...
It's not an ability, your statement has no rules support.
It's a shooting attack - asserting otherwise has no rules support.
It's fired at the would-be attackers - asserting otherwise has no rules support.
Could you cite an actual rule for once instead of making something up? That'd be great.
If it is, by your admission, not a snap shot, then it must be an ability, if it is an ability, where in invisibility does it starts you get to strip that ability?
No, those are not the only two options. Please do not make up rules, or tell me how a rule is worded when I've quoted the actual rule and you haven't.
So resolving Total collapse damage as part of a Unit's shooting attack is not a shooting attack?
Sure, there is not much precedence or examples to go by, but we make do. Provide more example of Auto-Hits during Shooting attacks if you disagree.
My argument is clear and easy:
Wall of Death inflicts D3 Automatic Hits on the charging Unit.
When a Unit suffers Automatic Hits, you simply resolve the damage.
All weapons must snap shoot at charging targets (Overwatch)
All weapons must snap shoot at Invisible targets.
Wall of Death provides damage to any charging target, it is not snap firing. Resolve.
BlackTalos wrote: So resolving Total collapse damage as part of a Unit's shooting attack is not a shooting attack?
Correct.
Sure, there is not much precedence or examples to go by, but we make do. Provide more example of Auto-Hits during Shooting attacks if you disagree.
Nope - onus is on you. I've proven my argument, you're trying to straw man me.
My argument is clear and easy:
Wall of Death inflicts D3 Automatic Hits on the charging Unit.
When a Unit suffers Automatic Hits, you simply resolve the damage.
This is true if you ignore all other rules in the rulebook, and is a simplification.
All weapons must snap shoot at charging targets (Overwatch)
All weapons must snap shoot at Invisible targets.
Actual rules:
Any shots fired as Overwatch can only be fired as Snap Shots.
enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit
Templates have a specific exception to the former. They have no exception to the latter.
If it is not fired as a Snap Shot (You've agreed WoD isn't) it cannot fire at Invisible units. That's literally what the rule says.
Wall of Death provides damage to any charging target, it is not snap firing. Resolve.
Making up rules again. Please refrain from doing so.
" Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved...
So your assertion is incorrect." -you
What about that says, fire this as a shooting attack? It says INSTEAD, which means "as a substitute or replacement; in the place or stead of someone or something" so instead of firing overwatch, would mean in place of. RAW Dictionary.
"I've quoted actual rules, and you haven't. Accusations of trolling are violations of rule #1 and get reported as such."
I apologize. I honestly could not believe your assertions could possibly be sincere.
" It's not an ability, your statement has no rules support."
What section do we find the rule Wall of Death? As stated, by me in fact, it is on pg 173. That section is called what? Special rules, also in slang called abilities.
" It's a shooting attack - asserting otherwise has no rules support."
I believe you in fact have no rules to support your argument. It takes the place of a shooting attack. Says so in the rule you and I keep quoting. Also if it was a shooting attack, not in fact an ability, why is it in the abilities section, not in fact in the shooting section?
" It's fired at the would-be attackers - asserting otherwise has no rules support."
No one is saying it is not activating at would be attackers, only that it is not a shooting attack which I've supported with evidence. Where is your evidence that it is a shooting attack?
"Could you cite an actual rule for once instead of making something up? That'd be great."
I originally paraphrased but did site the pg in the book and asked others to read it on pg1 of this forum post. But from here on out... Sure.
" No, those are not the only two options. Please do not make up rules, or tell me how a rule is worded when I've quoted the actual rule and you haven"
I believe it is either a shooting attack or not. What third option did you see? And I will be more efficient with your own quotes from here on out.
Edit- changed super to support, changed sorting to shooting, also added this line.
FratHammer wrote: " Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved...
So your assertion is incorrect." -you
What about that says, fire this as a shooting attack? It says INSTEAD, which means "as a substitute or replacement; in the place or stead of someone or something" so instead of firing overwatch, would mean in place of. RAW Dictionary.
Because the Template weapon is firing Overwatch - which is demonstrably a Shooting Attack.
" It's not an ability, your statement has no rules support."
What section do we find the rule Wall of Death? As stated, by me in fact, it is on pg 173. That section is called what? Special rules, also in slang called abilities.
Because Template is a special rule, not Wall of Death. In addition, I've explain other reasons why it's a shooting attack. Where it's located in the rulebook isn't relevant.
" It's a shooting attack - asserting otherwise has no rules support."
I believe you in fact have no rules to super your argument. It takes the place of a shooting attack. Says so in the rule you and I keep quoting.
No, it doesn't - in fact it says a Template weapon fires Overwatch.
Also if it was a sorting attack, not in fact an ability, why is it in the abilities section, not in fact in the shooting section?
Because it's specific to weapons with the Template special rule. Where it's located in the BRB is irrelevant.
" It's fired at the would-be attackers - asserting otherwise has no rules support."
No one is saying it is not activating at would be attackers, only that it is not a shooting attack which I've supported with evidence. Where is your evidence that it is a shooting attack?
The Template weapon is fired in Overwatch. Overwatch is a shooting attack. Therefore anything fired as part of that Shooting Attack is a shooting attack.
" No, those are not the only two options. Please do not make up rules, or tell me how a rule is worded when I've quoted the actual rule and you haven"
I believe it is either a shooting attack or not. What third option did you see? And I will be more efficient with your own quotes from here on out.
You said, and I'll quote since you left it out:
If it is, by your admission, not a snap shot, then it must be an ability, if it is an ability, where in invisibility does it starts you get to strip that ability?
It is a shooting attack. It is not a snap shot. It is not an "ability".
Shooting Attacks fired at Invisible units must be Snap Shots.
Template Weapons cannot fire Snap Shots - and Wall of Death is not a Snap Shot and cannot be. Wall of Death fires the Template at the Invisible unit - which is disallowed as it's not a Snap Shot.
BlackTalos wrote: So resolving Total collapse damage as part of a Unit's shooting attack is not a shooting attack?
Correct.
Sure, there is not much precedence or examples to go by, but we make do. Provide more example of Auto-Hits during Shooting attacks if you disagree.
Nope - onus is on you. I've proven my argument, you're trying to straw man me.
I've proven my argument, i'm just giving you example of Auto-Hitting attacks, since you did not seem to grasp their resolution.
It does not involve any Snap Firing.
My argument is clear and easy:
Wall of Death inflicts D3 Automatic Hits on the charging Unit.
When a Unit suffers Automatic Hits, you simply resolve the damage.
This is true if you ignore all other rules in the rulebook, and is a simplification.
All weapons must snap shoot at charging targets (Overwatch)
All weapons must snap shoot at Invisible targets.
Actual rules:
Any shots fired as Overwatch can only be fired as Snap Shots.
enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit
Templates have a specific exception to the former. They have no exception to the latter.
If it is not fired as a Snap Shot (You've agreed WoD isn't) it cannot fire at Invisible units. That's literally what the rule says.
Wall of Death provides damage to any charging target, it is not snap firing. Resolve.
Making up rules again. Please refrain from doing so.
You mean this RaW?
they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit
What from the above quote is made up?
The Automatic Hits?
Or that fact that it is not snap firing?
Templates do not have a specific exception to Snap Shots (only in) Overwatch.
They have a permission to automatically inflicts D3 hits during the Overwatch Phase. What does Invisibility do to Automatic Hits? (Hopefully you don't need more examples of how Auto-Hits work)
"Because Template is a special rule, not Wall of Death. In addition, I've explain other reasons why it's a shooting attack. Where it's located in the rulebook isn't relevant."
So the assumption here is it is not a special rule for a special rules? I am using facts. It is in the special rules section, and is a rule assigned to a special rule assigned to a profile. Your assumption is incorrect. If we are having a purely raw argument, you cannot state that GW placed the rule in the wrong section.
"The Template weapon is fired in Overwatch. Overwatch is a shooting attack. Therefore anything fired as part of that Shooting Attack is a shooting attack."
The Fear special rule happens at the start of the fight sub phase. Is fear a close combat attack?
Do you believe "No Escape" does not apply as well? Because a special role is assigning automatic hits on an invisible target?
BlackTalos wrote: So resolving Total collapse damage as part of a Unit's shooting attack is not a shooting attack?
Correct.
Sure, there is not much precedence or examples to go by, but we make do. Provide more example of Auto-Hits during Shooting attacks if you disagree.
Nope - onus is on you. I've proven my argument, you're trying to straw man me.
I've proven my argument, i'm just giving you example of Auto-Hitting attacks, since you did not seem to grasp their resolution.
It does not involve any Snap Firing.
Which is a problem, given the rule I've cited.
You mean this RaW?
they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit
What from the above quote is made up?
The Automatic Hits?
Or that fact that it is not snap firing?
Neither, but that's not what I'm addressing.
Templates do not have a specific exception to Snap Shots (only in) Overwatch.
They have a permission to automatically inflicts D3 hits during the Overwatch Phase. What does Invisibility do to Automatic Hits? (Hopefully you don't need more examples of how Auto-Hits work)
Invisibility doesn't do anything directly.
Instead, it requires that everything fired at the unit be a Snap Shot. Is Wall of Death firing at the unit? Is it firing Snap Shots?
The answers, as we know according to the cited rules are "Yes" and "No". Therefore firing a Template weapon as part of Overwatch against an Invisible unit isn't allowed, as it cannot be fired as a Snap Shot (given the snap shot rules that forbid attacks that don't use a BS from being Snap Shots).
HIWPI = yes, flame away, and I'd expect to be allowed to.
RAI = who knows? I'm leaning towards yes, WoD is supposed to work against Invisibility
RAW = must snap fire = must be able to snap fire... so no, fluff and logic don't apply, only the rules, no flamer wall against Invisible unit.
FratHammer wrote: "Because Template is a special rule, not Wall of Death. In addition, I've explain other reasons why it's a shooting attack. Where it's located in the rulebook isn't relevant."
So the assumption here is it is not a special rule for a special rules? I am using facts. It is in the special rules section, and is a rule assigned to a special rule assigned to a profile. Your assumption is incorrect. If we are having a purely raw argument, you cannot state that GW placed the rule in the wrong section.
The section is irrelevant.
"The Template weapon is fired in Overwatch. Overwatch is a shooting attack. Therefore anything fired as part of that Shooting Attack is a shooting attack."
The Fear special rule happens at the start of the fight sub phase. Is fear a close combat attack?
No. Fear is not made as part of a Close Combat Attack.
Do you believe "No Escape" does not apply as well? Because a special role is assigning automatic hits on an invisible target?
No Escape isn't a shooting attack. Wall of Death demonstrably (as in - I've demonstrated) is.
BlackTalos wrote: So resolving Total collapse damage as part of a Unit's shooting attack is not a shooting attack?
Correct.
Sure, there is not much precedence or examples to go by, but we make do. Provide more example of Auto-Hits during Shooting attacks if you disagree.
Nope - onus is on you. I've proven my argument, you're trying to straw man me.
I've proven my argument, i'm just giving you example of Auto-Hitting attacks, since you did not seem to grasp their resolution.
It does not involve any Snap Firing.
Which is a problem, given the rule I've cited.
You mean this RaW?
they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit
What from the above quote is made up?
The Automatic Hits?
Or that fact that it is not snap firing?
Neither, but that's not what I'm addressing.
Templates do not have a specific exception to Snap Shots (only in) Overwatch.
They have a permission to automatically inflicts D3 hits during the Overwatch Phase. What does Invisibility do to Automatic Hits? (Hopefully you don't need more examples of how Auto-Hits work)
Invisibility doesn't do anything directly.
Instead, it requires that everything fired at the unit be a Snap Shot. Is Wall of Death firing at the unit? Is it firing Snap Shots?
The answers, as we know according to the cited rules are "Yes" and "No". Therefore firing a Template weapon as part of Overwatch against an Invisible unit isn't allowed, as it cannot be fired as a Snap Shot (given the snap shot rules that forbid attacks that don't use a BS from being Snap Shots).
Overwatch requires that everything fired be a Snap Shot. Is Wall of Death firing? Is it firing Snap Shots?
The same conclusions apply: No, it is not Snap shooting, but the automatic hits are still resolved.
weapons and models that cannot fire Snap Shots cannot fire Overwatch
BlackTalos wrote: Overwatch requires that everything fired be a Snap Shot. Is Wall of Death firing? Is it firing Snap Shots?
Please read the rules for Wall of Death. It explicitly allows Templates to fire Overwatch (in contradiction to the normal rules).
There is no rule allowing Template weapons to make Snap Shots. Ever.
The same conclusions apply: No, it is not Snap shooting, but the automatic hits are still resolved.
weapons and models that cannot fire Snap Shots cannot fire Overwatch
Please stop applying conclusions from different situations to this one. They aren't similar because Wall of Death explicitly allows something that isn't a Snap Shot to happen during Overwatch.
Template weapons cannot Snap Shot. Template weapons can fire Overwatch (Wall of Death allows this). Weapons fired at an invisible unit must be fired as Snap Shots. Template weapons cannot fire Snap Shots - even with Wall of Death. Template weapons cannot be fired at Invisible units.
Please quote the assertion you disagree with and why.
You refuse to read the rules as I feel they are plainly written. I see what you are saying, that because it happens at the same time it must be the same. But RAW it is never called a shooting attack, it breaks the rules of a shooting attack, it is a special rule activated during overwatch as I believe is clearly stated in the rule itself, which we have quoted at length, and is in the section to cover such rules. It also states that you do this in place of normal overwatch, stated as such because you cannot snap fire. So the ability, which is not a shooting attack, triggers.
You believe, if I am not mistaken, that it is a shooting attack and as such must snapfire. Even though I do not agree that is what RAW tells us. I've even cited 1 example of an ability that occurs during another phase, but is not the same type of action. Neither is WOD. It is during the overwatch as an overwatch, but just as you stated fear is not a close combat attack(which it obviously is not) with no evidence to support you, you claim WOD is a shooting attack, not an activated ability, which I have supported with evidence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "They aren't similar because Wall of Death explicitly allows something that isn't a Snap Shot to happen during Overwatch."
OMG then you even say it! How are you not seeing the flaw in your logic?
It is a special rules that happens! You say it in your argument...i don't understand how you don't grasp that. It isn't a shooting attack... It isn't a snap shot... it is an effect...a special rules that comes into effect causing d3 hits... How do you not see the flaw in your argument...
FratHammer wrote: . I see what you are saying, that because it happens at the same time it must be the same.
No, that's not at all what I'm saying.
Is Overwatch a shooting attack - yes or no will suffice.
"They aren't similar because Wall of Death explicitly allows something that isn't a Snap Shot to happen during Overwatch."
OMG then you even say it! How are you not seeing the flaw in your logic?
It is a special rules that happens! You say it in your argument...i don't understand how you don't grasp that. It isn't a shooting attack... It isn't a snap shot... it is an effect...a special rules that comes into effect causing d3 hits... How do you not see the flaw in your argument...
No, I never said it was a special rule that happens. You're failing to read my argument correctly.
From my phone that would be difficult at best. When I'm home quotes are used with the website's built in assistance, but the quotes I am using are "correct"
Overwatch, with non template weapons, isa shooting attack. But as you said, "... Wall of Death explicitly allows something that isn't a snap shot to happen during overwatch" in 40k we call those special circumstance rules, special rules. Especially when listed in the special rules section, listed as a special rule for a special rule.
You want your statements to be true, but have no RAW to even set precedence. You're trying to convert special rules into something they are not. If WOD were a normal shooting attack, as with witchfire, it would state that it is a shooting attack.
AnFéasógMór wrote: It seems like this whole thread is being overthought a little. It's simple. WoD says that a flamer can fire overwatch, even though it can't fire snap shots, and does d3 hits. So, can you use WoD on an invisible unit?
Are you firing overwatch? Then, yes.
Wrong question.
Invisibility specifically requires the shooter to fire snap shots. Being Overwatch doesn't get around Invisibility... being a Snap Shot does.
Templates can fire Overwatch (which is normally a Snap Shot), even though they can't Snap Shoot. They can never Snap Shoot.
So when you try to make Wall of Death attacks against an Invisible unit, are you firing Snap Shots?
The answer is no, you're not. And so that attack is not allowed.
FratHammer wrote: Overwatch, with non template weapons, isa shooting attack. But as you said, "... Wall of Death explicitly allows something that isn't a snap shot to happen during overwatch" in 40k we call those special circumstance rules, special rules. Especially when listed in the special rules section, listed as a special rule for a special rule.
So you're just going to ignore the rule I quoted that Template weapons fire Overwatch, and that Overwatch is a shooting attack?
You want your statements to be true, but have no RAW to even set precedence. You're trying to convert special rules into something they are not. If WOD were a normal shooting attack, as with witchfire, it would state that it is a shooting attack.
I've shown the actual rules. You've asserted things that aren't actually rules. The Actual rules do state it's a shooting attack.
Lobukia wrote: HIWPI = yes, flame away, and I'd expect to be allowed to.
RAI = who knows? I'm leaning towards yes, WoD is supposed to work against Invisibility
RAW = must snap fire = must be able to snap fire... so no, fluff and logic don't apply, only the rules, no flamer wall against Invisible unit.
I completely agree I would not play it that way but it would be nice to know one way or the other cause someone else might try it against me. My regular opponent and I have have just agreed if you get invisibility to reroll the power as it is not very well balanced and not conducive to a fun game.
...Overwatch is resolved LIKE a normal shooting attack...shots fired as Overwatch can only be fired as snap shots. Therefore, weapons and models that cannot fire snap shots cannot fire Overwatch...pg45
Wall of Death: Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire snap shots. Instead, if a template weapon fires Overwatch, it Automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved at its normal Strength and AP value...pg173 as a portion of the Template Special Rule.
Overwatch is "RESOLVED LIKE A SHOOTING ATTACK"
Now lets look at a rule that is during a non shooting phase that "IS a shooting attack"
Witchfire pg27. "Witchfire powers ARE SHOOTING ATTACKS."
You can claim you can read RAW. You can claim you are basing your argument on RAW, but when I refute it, when I give evidence several times to the contrary, you can claim what you want. RULES DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT. And other guy, your BRB conclusion is incorrect, RAW.
Having read through the discussion, the RAW seem to strongly lean towards not being able to WoD. This seems in line with spirit of the rules. Why would an attack be more effective firing in a more limited shooting phase? I know spirit of the rules is a very nebulous notion. But if there is a debate over the rules with no clear resolution (not saying this is a case like that), I tend to focus on that.
RAW does not in fact support that as I've proven numerous times, Spirit of the Rules would allow it to happen as since it doesn't have to snapfire to deal it's wounds in this situation, and Common Sense says you should be able to shot a flasher better at anything you can shoot at that it's in range.
FratHammer wrote: ...Overwatch is resolved LIKE a normal shooting attack...shots fired as Overwatch can only be fired as snap shots. Therefore, weapons and models that cannot fire snap shots cannot fire Overwatch...pg45
Wall of Death: Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire snap shots. Instead, if a template weapon fires Overwatch, it Automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved at its normal Strength and AP value...pg173 as a portion of the Template Special Rule.
Overwatch is "RESOLVED LIKE A SHOOTING ATTACK"
Which means it's a shooting attack.
The rest of the rule that you opted not to quote:
(albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Uses all the normal rules for range, LoS, cover saves, and so on. The other differences are also listed:
Unlike a normal shooting attack, Overwatch cannot cause Morale checks or Pinning tests. Any shots fired as Overwatch can only be fired as Snap Shots. Therefore, weapons and models that cannot fire Snap Shots cannot fire Overwatch.
See anywhere it says it's not a normal shooting attack?
Now lets look at a rule that is during a non shooting phase that "IS a shooting attack"
Witchfire pg27. "Witchfire powers ARE SHOOTING ATTACKS."
Please tell me you understand the difference between a single thing and something that includes multiple things?
A witchfire is a shooting attack.
Firing a bolter is a shooting attack.
An Overwatch Attack contains shooting attacks.
You can claim you can read RAW. You can claim you are basing your argument on RAW,
Because I am.
but when I refute it, when I give evidence several times to the contrary, you can claim what you want. RULES DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT. And other guy, your BRB conclusion is incorrect, RAW.
You haven't quoted a single thing saying it's not a shooting attack. You have quoted at least one rule that says it is (and I quoted the rest of that rule saying that it is in multiple places).
You're inventing rules here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FratHammer wrote: RAW does not in fact support that as I've proven numerous times
Incorrect. You've incorrectly paraphrased and misquoted the actual rules multiple times, or made claims contrary to the rule you quote.
Why would they not use the word "is" as they obviously do it for witchfire?
Why would they use "like" instead?
Because if it's a mistake, all RAW ruleslawyering is inherently talked and we can come to the conclusions on our own and me correct. But if we choose to believe the rulebook was made to account for this, then " LIKE " is not the same as " IS " and overwatch, is not a shooting attack. Not to mention, as I've previously proven several times, we are talking about a special ability which is in no way obstructed by invisibility our shall I quote invisibility also?
And I left out the rest of the book paragraphs for Overwatch for brevity and because it wasn't pertinent to the argument, not for devious intent. You're quotes have less than one sentence often and I don't force you to rewrite it... There is a word for that...
FratHammer wrote: Why would they not use the word "is" as they obviously do it for witchfire?
Why would they use "like" instead?
GW consistently uses "like", "counts as" and some similar phrases to mean "is". Rather - they must be interpreted that way or the rules literally fail to function.
Because if it's a mistake, all RAW ruleslawyering is inherently talked and we can come to the conclusions on our own and me correct. But if we choose to believe the rulebook was made to account for this, then " LIKE " is not the same as " IS " and overwatch, is not a shooting attack. Not to mention, as I've previously proven several times, we are talking about a special ability which is in no way obstructed by invisibility our shall I quote invisibility also?
I've shown - multiple times - that your "special ability" argument is flawed. Overwatch is undeniably a shooting attack. Wall of Death is a fancy name for how to handle a Template weapon that fires in an Overwatch Attack.
Meaning Wall of Death is a shooting attack.
And I left out the rest of the book paragraphs for Overwatch for brevity and because it wasn't pertinent to the argument, not for devious intent. You're quotes have less than one sentence often and I don't force you to rewrite it... There is a word for that...
Please, if you think the rest of a rule is relevant call me out on it. I'll address it if you do.
The rest of the rule you opted to not quote is absolutely relevant - "Unlike a normal shooting attack" which means that it's a normal shooting attack with the following modifications. If it wasn't, they couldn't use the word "unlike".
"(albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on." And so on. Which means what? It has to mean that we use the shooting attack rules unless shown otherwise.
FratHammer wrote: Actually my special rules argument is fact see pg 175 rules pp2 "Template weapons have the Ignores Cover, Wall of Death, and No Escape Special Rules.
Done. It's a special rules enacted by template weapons in overwatch. It is not a shooting attack.
Drops mic...
Please elaborate on how "Wall of Death" allocates wounds. Since it's not a shooting attack, you're forbidden from referencing those rules.
Drop the mic all you want, while Wall of Death is a special rule (I haven't really asserted it's not) the special rule itself is not causing wounds.
The Template weapon is, when it fires Overwatch. Per the special rule. As I've quoted.
To elaborate:
Wall of Death being a special rule doesn't matter in the slightest.
The fact that Wall of Death specifically says "Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit..." means that it allows Template weapons to fire Overwatch.
Overwatch is a shooting attack. Therefore anything firing Overwatch is making a shooting attack. Where Wall of Death is in the rulebook has as much relevance as the price of tea in China does to this discussion - zero.
FratHammer wrote: It says in the rule... It's been quoted at least 4 times... Read...
No, it doesn't. You've asserted hits from Wall of Death are not generated by a shooting attack. That means you can't reference the Shooting Attack rules for guidance.
Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved at its normal Strength and AP value.
Which part of that rule dictates how to allocate the wounds that get generated?
And still - the rule literally says the Template weapon is firing Overwatch.
Overwatch is a shooting attack - or, to fit your poor understanding better, it uses all the rules for a shooting attack (as far as is relevant here).
Template weapons cannot fire Snap Shots. Ever.
Template weapons may fire Overwatch (Wall of Death permission).
Template weapons that fire Overwatch do not use Ballistic Skill.
Invisibility requires that all weapons fired at the target unit be fired as Snap Shots.
Template weapons cannot fire and meet the requirement Invisibility has put on them. ("In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot.")
Template weapons cannot fire at Invisible units, even in Overwatch.
FratHammer wrote: Spirit of the Rules would allow it to happen as since it doesn't have to snapfire to deal it's wounds in this situation,...
How is allowing something that can't fire Snap Shots to shoot something that can only be hit by Snap Shots in any way within the 'spirit of the rules'...?
Do beam psychic powers affect invisible units? Do nova powers affect invisible units? Does 'no escape' affect invisible units? Do things that "auto-hit" affect invisible units?
If the answer to any of those questions is yes, then wall of death and all of the above affect invisible units.
If the answer to any of those questions is no, then wall of death and all of the above do not affect invisible units.
My personal opinion is that if it auto-hits, then it hits invisible units. The rules for invisibility say that you must roll snap-shots, normal shooting attacks say you must roll your ballistic skill, but things that auto-hit don't roll at all - they skip that part and just deal a number of hits. Nova powers auto-hit and their rules say that they even hit flyers (which we know can only be hit by snap-fire as well) so there's a precedence. Until an FAQ comes out we won't know for sure.
Novas hit flyers only because their rules specifically say that they do. That doesn't set any sort of precedent for other rules that don't contain a similar statement.
insaniak wrote: Novas hit flyers only because their rules specifically say that they do. That doesn't set any sort of precedent for other rules that don't contain a similar statement.
The main point isn't that it says it hits flyers. The main point of my comment is that if things that auto-hit affect invisible units, they all do. If they do not affect invisible units then they all don't.
I don't think this will settle anything, clearly there are two camps who are both convinced that there side is correct. I'm just trying to work it out for myself.
Things that autohit that say that they hit flyers will hit flyers. That has no bearing on anything else, because in general things that autohit don't hit flyers.
So are you saying that an invisible unit inside an open topped transport hit with a flamer is immune to 'no escape' because the rule doesn't enumerate every possible type of unit inside that could be affected?
Nope, No Escape would appear to work fine, because it doesn't rely on the transported unit being targeted by an attack.
Invisibility restricts what sort of shooting attacks can target the Invisible unit. No Escape kicks in when the transport is targeted... you never target the embarked unit.
insaniak wrote: Novas hit flyers only because their rules specifically say that they do. That doesn't set any sort of precedent for other rules that don't contain a similar statement.
The main point isn't that it says it hits flyers. The main point of my comment is that if things that auto-hit affect invisible units, they all do. If they do not affect invisible units then they all don't.
I don't think this will settle anything, clearly there are two camps who are both convinced that there side is correct. I'm just trying to work it out for myself.
Your statement isn't true. Not all "auto hit" things are the same. Invisibility forbids things that fire at the unit from firing unless they're fired as Snap Shots.
Things like Novas, Beams, and some others don't ever fire at the invisible unit. It's almost like that's based on actual rules quoted in this thread or something.
The No Escape red herring has been brought up before.
insaniak wrote: Nope, No Escape would appear to work fine, because it doesn't rely on the transported unit being targeted by an attack.
Invisibility restricts what sort of shooting attacks can target the Invisible unit. No Escape kicks in when the transport is targeted... you never target the embarked unit.
So Nova and Beam powers also affect invisible units as long as they don't target it?
NightHowler wrote:So Nova and Beam powers also affect invisible units as long as they don't target it?
Novas target every unit in their AOE.
Beams would arguably work, though.
NightHowler wrote:So as long as I don't go through the targeting part of the shooting phase my wall of death will affect an invisible unit?
It's not quite that simple.
Invisibility doesn't rely on targeting. It only allows units to 'fire Snap Shots' at the Invisible unit. Exactly what consitutes 'firing at' a unit and what affects them otherwise is left undefined.
To my mind, 'firing at' the unit requires attacking them specifically. That would include selecting them as a target in the shooting phase, but also includes Overwatch attacks where the target is selected for you. You are making a shooting attack, directed at the unit, and so it has to be a Snap Shot.
(That's why I say Beams are 'arguable' rather than a strict yes or now... I can see them going either way, as the unit under the line isn't targeted by it, but you are still sort of attacking them directly by running the line over them.
I think I'm starting to see why almost 90% of Dakka posters agree that wall of death should affect invisible units.
I'm not. I can see why people think that they should work (and as I said in my first post, I think the same) but the RAW doesn't seem to allow it, as it currently stands.
NightHowler wrote: So as long as I don't go through the targeting part of the shooting phase my wall of death will affect an invisible unit?
I think I'm starting to see why almost 90% of Dakka posters agree that wall of death should affect invisible units.
Since Overwatch targets the would be attacker (it must or the shooting attack process breaks) almost 90% of Dakka posters are incorrect about what the rules actually say.
When two rules "seemingly" conflicts, always follow the old adage Break No Rules™.
RAW = Must snap fire at invisible unit. WoD isn't ever a "snap shooting" ability. So, you cannot, ever WoD an invisible unit.
HIWPI = I'd discuss it with my opponent and adjust my tactics accordingly, as I can see why folks would play to allow WoD'ing an invisible unit.
FratHammer wrote: Spirit of the Rules would allow it to happen as since it doesn't have to snapfire to deal it's wounds in this situation,...
How is allowing something that can't fire Snap Shots to shoot something that can only be hit by Snap Shots in any way within the 'spirit of the rules'...?
Because Spirit of the Game has to do with enjoyable, friendly, common sense use of the rules, which is more or less the exact opposite than the incredibly rude, ad hominem, RAWier-than-thou, rules lawyerish bickering going on in this thread?
I would have to agree, that SotG, absolutely you can WoD an invisible unit. Why? Well, aside from the fact that I don't feel the need to further OP amd already broken power by nitpicking single words and phrases into new rules and subrules, and insult everybody who doesn't agree with me, the simple fact is that IT MAKES SENSE. The entire point of wall of death is that when you see (or in this case, more likely hear) a unit charging at yu, you lay down a carpet of flames in front of you.
NightHowler wrote: So as long as I don't go through the targeting part of the shooting phase my wall of death will affect an invisible unit?
I think I'm starting to see why almost 90% of Dakka posters agree that wall of death should affect invisible units.
I would definitely agree with this conclusion (from previous posts).
Wall of Death provides any charging Unit with D3 Auto-Hits. Step 1,2,3 and 4 have been completed, and Wall of Death requires you continue with Step 5 of the Shooting process. Snap shooting is not involved at this point.
"if a Template weapon fires Overwatch" (WoD) is the same as "If you shoot a weapon during the shooting phase".
The weapon is definitely fired at the target. But the Auto-Wound are not "fired at" the charging Unit. They just suffer those Wounds like they would for Soulblaze, Vector Strike, or Total Collapse.
The same conclusions apply: No, it is not Snap shooting, but the automatic hits are still resolved.
weapons and models that cannot fire Snap Shots cannot fire Overwatch
Please stop applying conclusions from different situations to this one. They aren't similar because Wall of Death explicitly allows something that isn't a Snap Shot to happen during Overwatch.
Template weapons cannot Snap Shot.
Template weapons can fire Overwatch (Wall of Death allows this).
Weapons fired at an invisible unit must be fired as Snap Shots.
Template weapons cannot fire Snap Shots - even with Wall of Death.
Template weapons cannot be fired at Invisible units.
Please quote the assertion you disagree with and why.
You've answered yourself: WoD is "something that isn't a Snap Shot". I cannot be a Snap Shot because it is impossible for Template weapons to snap shoot.
What is Wall of Death then? D3 Auto-Hits.
Auto-Hits are never "fired at" a Unit, they are just D3 Hits that you have to resolve:
Template weapons cannot Snap Shot.
Template weapons can fire Overwatch (Wall of Death allows this). The charging Unit suffers D3 Auto-Hits.
Weapons fired at an invisible unit must be fired as Snap Shots.
Template weapons cannot fire Snap Shots - even with Wall of Death.
Template weapons cannot be fired at Invisible units.
Charging Unit suffers D3 Auto-Hits.
The template weapon is fired:
if a Template weapon fires Overwatch
But the D3 Auto-Hits are not "fired at". They are simply allocated to the charging Unit as result of the Wall of Death Special rule that is in effect.
When you say:
"Template weapons can fire Overwatch (Wall of Death allows this)"
I think you have a very big misunderstanding:
The Template weapon never runs through the shooting sequence "normally" because WoD allows it to. WoD does not "allow template weapons to fire" In the very same way as "No Escape", it provide a Unit, normally Un-targetable, un-reachable, with Hits that have to be resolved. At the Weapon S and AP value.
WoD creates Hits, when the weapon is selected and "fires Overwatch"
Wall of Death provides D3 Auto-Hits.
It does not just "allow you to fire template weapons normally"
Exct the rules, oft quoted, state that you are firing the template weapon.
You're firing at a unit which must be fired at using snapshots. This is unarguable.
In order to fire the flamer in over watch, you must use WOD. This is unarguable.
WoD is NOT a snapshot. This is unarguable.
So, in order tO break no rule, you cannot use WoD. If you use walk of death, you are firing without using snapshots, when you just use snapshots. Breaking a rule. You don't get to break rules unless explicitly allowed.
BlackTalos wrote: "if a Template weapon fires Overwatch" (WoD) is the same as "If you shoot a weapon during the shooting phase".
The weapon is definitely fired at the target. But the Auto-Wound are not "fired at" the charging Unit. They just suffer those Wounds like they would for Soulblaze, Vector Strike, or Total Collapse.
No, that's incorrect. Again, you compare apples and oranges.
Exactly. So how does WoD provide the enemy Units with Hits if the Weapon cannot fire (because it does not snap shoot) ?
Because WoD allows it to fire in the specific situation of Overwatch.
You've answered yourself: WoD is "something that isn't a Snap Shot". I cannot be a Snap Shot because it is impossible for Template weapons to snap shoot.
What is Wall of Death then? D3 Auto-Hits.
Auto-Hits are never "fired at" a Unit, they are just D3 Hits that you have to resolve:
It's fired as part of an Overwatch attack. Agreed?
Overwatch is fired at the would be attacker. Agreed?
If you disagree, cite an actual rule please.
But the D3 Auto-Hits are not "fired at". They are simply allocated to the charging Unit as result of the Wall of Death Special rule that is in effect.
When you say:
"Template weapons can fire Overwatch (Wall of Death allows this)"
I think you have a very big misunderstanding:
Despite the fact that's literally what WoD says? I have the misunderstanding?
The Template weapon never runs through the shooting sequence "normally" because WoD allows it to. WoD does not "allow template weapons to fire"
It literally says that in the WoD rule. I've quoted it multiple times. I'm sure you've read it. You even quoted it. Please don't make things up.
If it doesn't allow Template weapons to fire, why does the actual rule (that you quoted so I know you've read it) say, "If a Template weapon fires Overwatch"? It's your assertion that the Template weapon isn't firing at the would be attacker, but the Template weapon is demonstrably firing.
In the very same way as "No Escape", it provide a Unit, normally Un-targetable, un-reachable, with Hits that have to be resolved. At the Weapon S and AP value.
Simply incorrect.
"allow you to fire template weapons normally"
What are you quoting here? It makes it seem like you're quoting me or a rule, but you're doing neither.
rigeld2 wrote: "In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot"
If it wasn't fired as a Snap Shot, can it hit an invisible unit?
"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit"
Since we've established that WoD is not, in fact, a Snap Shot it cannot be fired at an Invisible unit - because Invisibility requires that all shots fired be Snap Shots.
Which a Flamer can not do. Which is why during Overwatch, it uses WoD instead, which grants D3 hits instead of firing traditional Overwatch.
With the wording for Invisibility, if that is word for word correct, RAW, it's still a toss up. It's how one wants to rule lawyer it.
WoD also cannot be fired as a snap shot. Agreed? Since only Snap Shots can be fired at the target unit, and WoD cannot (per the rules) be fired as a Snap Shot, it cannot be fired at the target unit.
And yes, it's word for word correct - that's why I put quotes around it.
Agreed & agreed
The thing is though, WOD doesn't roll to hit at all, it just generates d3 wounds. As you are just generating wounds, you are not restricted by the invisibility, nor are you breaking that rule.
It wasn't fired at the unit, You never shot at the unit, the unit just takes d3 wounds from a special rule.
rigeld2 wrote: "In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot"
If it wasn't fired as a Snap Shot, can it hit an invisible unit?
"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit"
Since we've established that WoD is not, in fact, a Snap Shot it cannot be fired at an Invisible unit - because Invisibility requires that all shots fired be Snap Shots.
Which a Flamer can not do. Which is why during Overwatch, it uses WoD instead, which grants D3 hits instead of firing traditional Overwatch.
With the wording for Invisibility, if that is word for word correct, RAW, it's still a toss up. It's how one wants to rule lawyer it.
WoD also cannot be fired as a snap shot. Agreed? Since only Snap Shots can be fired at the target unit, and WoD cannot (per the rules) be fired as a Snap Shot, it cannot be fired at the target unit.
And yes, it's word for word correct - that's why I put quotes around it.
Agreed & agreed
The thing is though, WOD doesn't roll to hit at all, it just generates d3 wounds. As you are just generating wounds, you are not restricted by the invisibility, nor are you breaking that rule.
It wasn't fired at the unit, You never shot at the unit, the unit just takes d3 wounds from a special rule.
No, wrong. It generates hits. Your whole argument is wrong.
You cannot fire it, as you are prohibited from firing unless firing a snapshot. The flamer is most definitely not firing a snapshot, so it is disallowed from firing. This means you cannot evoke the WoD rule, so never generate the hits
You're demonstrably breaking a rule. Don't break rules.
rigeld2 wrote: "In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot"
If it wasn't fired as a Snap Shot, can it hit an invisible unit?
"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit"
Since we've established that WoD is not, in fact, a Snap Shot it cannot be fired at an Invisible unit - because Invisibility requires that all shots fired be Snap Shots.
Which a Flamer can not do. Which is why during Overwatch, it uses WoD instead, which grants D3 hits instead of firing traditional Overwatch.
With the wording for Invisibility, if that is word for word correct, RAW, it's still a toss up. It's how one wants to rule lawyer it.
WoD also cannot be fired as a snap shot. Agreed? Since only Snap Shots can be fired at the target unit, and WoD cannot (per the rules) be fired as a Snap Shot, it cannot be fired at the target unit.
And yes, it's word for word correct - that's why I put quotes around it.
Agreed & agreed
The thing is though, WOD doesn't roll to hit at all, it just generates d3 wounds. As you are just generating wounds, you are not restricted by the invisibility, nor are you breaking that rule.
It wasn't fired at the unit, You never shot at the unit, the unit just takes d3 wounds from a special rule.
No, wrong. It generates hits. Your whole argument is wrong.
You cannot fire it, as you are prohibited from firing unless firing a snapshot. The flamer is most definitely not firing a snapshot, so it is disallowed from firing. This means you cannot evoke the WoD rule, so never generate the hits
You're demonstrably breaking a rule. Don't break rules.
By your logic then no one can ever use WOD, because as we also see under overwatch, any models that can not fire snap shots can not fire overwatch. and templates don't fire snap shots. Oh wait, it's you, you probably play that way.
rigeld2 wrote: "In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot"
If it wasn't fired as a Snap Shot, can it hit an invisible unit?
"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit"
Since we've established that WoD is not, in fact, a Snap Shot it cannot be fired at an Invisible unit - because Invisibility requires that all shots fired be Snap Shots.
Which a Flamer can not do. Which is why during Overwatch, it uses WoD instead, which grants D3 hits instead of firing traditional Overwatch.
With the wording for Invisibility, if that is word for word correct, RAW, it's still a toss up. It's how one wants to rule lawyer it.
WoD also cannot be fired as a snap shot. Agreed? Since only Snap Shots can be fired at the target unit, and WoD cannot (per the rules) be fired as a Snap Shot, it cannot be fired at the target unit.
And yes, it's word for word correct - that's why I put quotes around it.
Agreed & agreed
The thing is though, WOD doesn't roll to hit at all, it just generates d3 wounds. As you are just generating wounds, you are not restricted by the invisibility, nor are you breaking that rule.
It wasn't fired at the unit, You never shot at the unit, the unit just takes d3 wounds from a special rule.
No, wrong. It generates hits. Your whole argument is wrong.
You cannot fire it, as you are prohibited from firing unless firing a snapshot. The flamer is most definitely not firing a snapshot, so it is disallowed from firing. This means you cannot evoke the WoD rule, so never generate the hits
You're demonstrably breaking a rule. Don't break rules.
By your logic then no one can ever use WOD, because as we also see under overwatch, any models that can not fire snap shots can not fire overwatch. and templates don't fire snap shots. Oh wait, it's you, you probably play that way.
Sigh. Apparently I expected ra reasoned response. My bad.
Nothing about your argument bring factually wrong? Or that of course you can normally use wall of death, as it has a specific exemption to the over watch rules? It just doesn't have a specific exemption to the invisibility rule. As has been proven. Over and over and over..
The thing is though, WOD doesn't roll to hit at all
And there's the problem. To fire at the Invisible unit, you must fire a Snap Shot.
In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot.
Are you going to argue that WoD isn't a shooting attack, despite the existing evidence?
Then, the target enemy unit gets to make a special kind of shooting attack called Overwatch (see below).
It's a special kind of shooting attack, but it's explicitly a shooting attack.
Since it can't be fired as a Snap Shot (because it doesn't use Ballistic Skill) it can't be fired at an Invisible unit.
it just generates d3 wounds. As you are just generating wounds, you are not restricted by the invisibility, nor are you breaking that rule.
Absolutely incorrect. It generates d3 *hits* (an important distinction that you're not the only one to screw up). As you are generating hits, and it's a shooting attack, and the Template weapon fired at the unit, Invisibility does restrict it.
It wasn't fired at the unit, You never shot at the unit, the unit just takes d3 wounds from a special rule.
It was fired at the unit - Wall of Death says so.
nstead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch
How do you fire Overwatch?
As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units, that unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker
Overwatch is fired at the would-be attacker. So any claims that Wall of Death doesn't fire at the Invisible unit are demonstrably incorrect or making up rules.
Overwatch is fired at the would-be attacker. So any claims that Wall of Death doesn't fire at the Invisible unit are demonstrably incorrect or making up rules.
Yes it fires at the unit, it fires overwatch instead of snapshots.
This is really just the old imotech's lightning against fliers argument all over again, and those arguing that it did affect fliers ended up being right for the reasons they believed they were right.
But as invisiblity is already highly debated, it has been nerfed and changed in some tournies already. And as I've found, what you & nos argue the FAQ's usually come out against you.
Look at adepticon for example:
Use the following clarifications for the Invisibility psychic power:
Any attacks or special abilities that can cause damage (i.e. hits, wounds and/or vehicle damage) without rolling to hit (e.g. Codex: Chaos Daemons Warp Storm Tables, etc) affect invisible units normally
Overwatch is fired at the would-be attacker. So any claims that Wall of Death doesn't fire at the Invisible unit are demonstrably incorrect or making up rules.
Yes it fires at the unit, it fires overwatch instead of snapshots.
Correct.
This is really just the old imotech's lightning against fliers argument all over again, and those arguing that it did affect fliers ended up being right for the reasons they believed they were right.
Um. How is that even close to relevant? Right - it's not.
But as invisiblity is already highly debated, it has been nerfed and changed in some tournies already. And as I've found, what you & nos argue the FAQ's usually come out against you.
Now I remember why I had you on ignore. You're saying "Sure, the rules might be written that way, but no one follows those rules so there!" And no, the FAQ's don't "usually come out against" me.
Look at adepticon for example:
Let's not since this discussion has literally nothing to do with house rules.
It's a good thing you're out of here (your words) - you're not attempting to have a polite discussion about rules, you're attempting to bully people into changing the written rules and accepting something else.
Adepticon is literally changing the rules for their tournament. Which is fine - they can do that.
Invisibility says, "enemy units may only fire snapshots" but does not say that it makes the unit invulnerable auto-hits.
Wall of death skips the entire "roll to hit" part of the shooting phase and says it causes d3 hits - automatically.
Until they come out with an FAQ that says "invisibility makes the unit invulnerable to all weapons that cause auto-hits", saying that wall of death doesn't affect them is a house rule.
Discuss it with your opponent. If he agrees, then great! You can both have a fun game together. If he disagrees you'll need to roll off because the rules are so ambiguous that it's disturbing that you can deny the ambiguity - I mean the level of suspended disbelief necessary is more than I can stomach. If you can't admit that it's ambiguous then you're not really discussing, you're just raising your voice to drown out the people who disagree with you.
I find it humorous that this was changed from a poll when it was seen that 90% of Dakka agreed that Wall of Death did in fact hit invisible units.
NightHowler wrote: Invisibility says, "enemy units may only fire snapshots" but does not say that it makes the unit invulnerable auto-hits.
Wall of death skips the entire "roll to hit" part of the shooting phase and says it causes d3 hits - automatically.
Was Wall of Death fired as a snap shot? Yes or No.
Can Wall of Death ever be 'fired' as a Snap Shot? Yes or No.
Until they come out with an FAQ that says "invisibility makes the unit invulnerable to all weapons that cause auto-hits", saying that wall of death doesn't affect them is a house rule.
Incorrect. I've quoted the rules to support that Invisible units cannot be fired at in Overwatch by a Template weapon. You've cited no rules contradicting me, instead preferring to say that I'm wrong, call it a house rule, or insist there's ambiguity.
Discuss it with your opponent. If he agrees, then great! You can both have a fun game together. If he disagrees you'll need to roll off because the rules are so ambiguous that it's disturbing that you can deny the ambiguity - I mean the level of suspended disbelief necessary is more than I can stomach. If you can't admit that it's ambiguous then you're not really discussing, you're just raising your voice to drown out the people who disagree with you.
Where's the ambiguity? Show me the vague rule. Quote one rule that supports your viewpoint.
I find it humorous that this was changed from a poll when it was seen that 90% of Dakka agreed that Wall of Death did in fact hit invisible units.
I'm amused that you think this supports your position in a rules based discussion.
sirlynchmob wrote: The thing is though, WOD doesn't roll to hit at all, it just generates d3 wounds. As you are just generating wounds, you are not restricted by the invisibility, nor are you breaking that rule.
It wasn't fired at the unit, You never shot at the unit, the unit just takes d3 wounds from a special rule.
A good summary of what i was trying to say in a convoluted way. (D3 Hits, though)
nosferatu1001 wrote: You cannot fire it, as you are prohibited from firing unless firing a snapshot. The flamer is most definitely not firing a snapshot, so it is disallowed from firing. This means you cannot evoke the WoD rule, so never generate the hits
You're demonstrably breaking a rule. Don't break rules.
It wasn't fired at the unit, You never shot at the unit, the unit just takes d3 wounds from a special rule.
It was fired at the unit - Wall of Death says so.
nstead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch
How do you fire Overwatch?
As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units, that unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker
Overwatch is fired at the would-be attacker. So any claims that Wall of Death doesn't fire at the Invisible unit are demonstrably incorrect or making up rules.
How does Invisibility prohibit firing of a weapon? Please quote rules for this. Invisibility, as quoted:
enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6
Has 2 Restrictions: Enemy Units can only fire Snap Shots. Enemy Units can only hit on 6s.
What is a snap shot? Firing at BS1, and needing a 6 To Hit.
Now, answer the next one carefully: Why does Hammer of Wrath affect an Invisible Unit?
NightHowler wrote: Invisibility says, "enemy units may only fire snapshots" but does not say that it makes the unit invulnerable auto-hits.
Wall of death skips the entire "roll to hit" part of the shooting phase and says it causes d3 hits - automatically.
Was Wall of Death fired as a snap shot? Yes or No.
Can Wall of Death ever be 'fired' as a Snap Shot? Yes or No.
Until they come out with an FAQ that says "invisibility makes the unit invulnerable to all weapons that cause auto-hits", saying that wall of death doesn't affect them is a house rule.
Incorrect. I've quoted the rules to support that Invisible units cannot be fired at in Overwatch by a Template weapon. You've cited no rules contradicting me, instead preferring to say that I'm wrong, call it a house rule, or insist there's ambiguity.
Discuss it with your opponent. If he agrees, then great! You can both have a fun game together. If he disagrees you'll need to roll off because the rules are so ambiguous that it's disturbing that you can deny the ambiguity - I mean the level of suspended disbelief necessary is more than I can stomach. If you can't admit that it's ambiguous then you're not really discussing, you're just raising your voice to drown out the people who disagree with you.
Where's the ambiguity? Show me the vague rule. Quote one rule that supports your viewpoint.
I find it humorous that this was changed from a poll when it was seen that 90% of Dakka agreed that Wall of Death did in fact hit invisible units.
I'm amused that you think this supports your position in a rules based discussion.
Could you raise your voice a little more? You haven't drown everyone out yet.
BlackTalos wrote: Now, answer the next one carefully:
Why does Hammer of Wrath affect an Invisible Unit?
Because it generates an automatic hit and there's no clause preventing this from happening like there is with Snap Shots. I've answered your question with this before and you've literally ignored it before.
WoD doesn't work because it cannot 'fire' as a snap shot. If that clause wasn't there it'd work perfectly fine - it 'fires' as a Snap Shot but automatically hits.
You agreed with sirlynch when he said things that were demonstrably incorrect.
It is fired at the unit (WoD rules say so), you do shoot at the unit (Overwatch rules say so) and therefore you cannot 'fire' a Template weapon using Wall of Death at an Invisible unit.
Invisibility prohibits the firing of a weapon that cannot Snap Shot - and Template Weapons (even those firing Wall of Death) cannot Snap Shot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NightHowler wrote: Could you raise your voice a little more? You haven't drown everyone out yet.
Have a rules based objection to literally anything I've cited yet?
BlackTalos wrote: Now, answer the next one carefully:
Why does Hammer of Wrath affect an Invisible Unit?
Because it generates an automatic hit and there's no clause preventing this from happening like there is with Snap Shots. I've answered your question with this before and you've literally ignored it before.
WoD doesn't work because it cannot 'fire' as a snap shot. If that clause wasn't there it'd work perfectly fine - it 'fires' as a Snap Shot but automatically hits.
You agreed with sirlynch when he said things that were demonstrably incorrect.
It is fired at the unit (WoD rules say so), you do shoot at the unit (Overwatch rules say so) and therefore you cannot 'fire' a Template weapon using Wall of Death at an Invisible unit.
Invisibility prohibits the firing of a weapon that cannot Snap Shot - and Template Weapons (even those firing Wall of Death) cannot Snap Shot.
Invisibility does not prohibit the firing of a weapon that cannot snap shot.
It says that a unit can only fire snap shots at the target unit but does not say anything about weapons that have a special ability which causes auto-hits. You're extrapolating. To say that you could possibly be correct is fine. To say with 100% certainty that you are absolutely correct with 0 margin for error and that this is a concrete open and closed case is absurdity and the fact that 90% of dakka disagrees with you is quite telling.
rigeld2 wrote: Have a rules based objection to literally anything I've cited yet?
Yes. But you keep ignoring it and saying that you've disproved it. I'm saying it's ambiguous. You're saying that it's 100% clear and that you can't use wall of death against invisible units.
Answer me this. Do you think that 90% of the people on Dakka are so completely incapable of understanding the rules that they would disagree with something that is (according to you) obviously true?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Black talos - if your weapon cannot fire as a snapshot, are you allowed to fire it at a unit that REQUIRES you to fire snapshots?
Answer carefully an actual question, when yours have been answered more than once.
Again, go through the proven statements, and disprove them. You have yet to do so.
Your question should say, "If your weapon can only fire snapshots, are you allowed to used that weapons special ability which causes d3 hits automatically?"
BlackTalos wrote: Now, answer the next one carefully:
Why does Hammer of Wrath affect an Invisible Unit?
Because it generates an automatic hit and there's no clause preventing this from happening like there is with Snap Shots. I've answered your question with this before and you've literally ignored it before.
WoD doesn't work because it cannot 'fire' as a snap shot. If that clause wasn't there it'd work perfectly fine - it 'fires' as a Snap Shot but automatically hits.
You agreed with sirlynch when he said things that were demonstrably incorrect.
It is fired at the unit (WoD rules say so), you do shoot at the unit (Overwatch rules say so) and therefore you cannot 'fire' a Template weapon using Wall of Death at an Invisible unit.
Invisibility prohibits the firing of a weapon that cannot Snap Shot - and Template Weapons (even those firing Wall of Death) cannot Snap Shot.
Invisibility does not prohibit the firing of a weapon that cannot snap shot.
It absolutely does.
Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit
Are you firing at the unit? It must be a Snap Shot.
It says that a unit can only fire snap shots at the target unit but does not say anything about weapons that have a special ability which causes auto-hits.
No, the Snap Shot rule says that.
rigeld2 wrote: Have a rules based objection to literally anything I've cited yet?
Yes. But you keep ignoring it and saying that you've disproved it. I'm saying it's ambiguous. You're saying that it's 100% clear and that you can't use wall of death against invisible units.
Where's the ambiguity? Can weapons that do not use Ballistic Skill be 'fired' as a Snap Shot? It's a Yes or No question.
Do hits from Wall of Death use Ballistic Skill? It's a Yes or No question.
Answer me this. Do you think that 90% of the people on Dakka are so completely incapable of understanding the rules that they would disagree with something that is (according to you) obviously true?
Based on past polls, yes. And it's not 90% of the people on Dakka - it's 90% of the people who visited this thread and voted in the poll. Many people vote in the poll and then read the thread which means they aren't actually trying to understand the rule interactions.
I guarantee that if I put up a poll asking if, in 6th edition, Wraithknights could draw LoS to anything 90+% of the respondents would vote yes - despite it literally being against the rules.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Black talos - if your weapon cannot fire as a snapshot, are you allowed to fire it at a unit that REQUIRES you to fire snapshots?
Answer carefully an actual question, when yours have been answered more than once.
Again, go through the proven statements, and disprove them. You have yet to do so.
Your question should say, "If your weapon can only fire snapshots, are you allowed to used that weapons special ability which causes d3 hits automatically?"
The answer is yes.
No, it's not.
In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot.
The weapon is firing a shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill. It cannot be fired as a Snap Shot. Open and shut, no ambiguity.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Black talos - if your weapon cannot fire as a snapshot, are you allowed to fire it at a unit that REQUIRES you to fire snapshots?
Answer carefully an actual question, when yours have been answered more than once.
Again, go through the proven statements, and disprove them. You have yet to do so.
Your question should say, "If your weapon can only fire snapshots, are you allowed to used that weapons special ability which causes d3 hits automatically?"
The answer is yes.
Why would I create a question that is wrong in that way? It's almost like you're deliberately omitting rules to suit your debunked argument. I assume this isn't correct, as that would be a dishonest way to argue.
How are you evoking the special rule wall of death without firing the template weapon. Please explain, as your question above is woefully incomplete and wrong.
BlackTalos wrote: Now, answer the next one carefully:
Why does Hammer of Wrath affect an Invisible Unit?
Because it generates an automatic hit and there's no clause preventing this from happening like there is with Snap Shots. I've answered your question with this before and you've literally ignored it before.
WoD doesn't work because it cannot 'fire' as a snap shot. If that clause wasn't there it'd work perfectly fine - it 'fires' as a Snap Shot but automatically hits.
You agreed with sirlynch when he said things that were demonstrably incorrect.
It is fired at the unit (WoD rules say so), you do shoot at the unit (Overwatch rules say so) and therefore you cannot 'fire' a Template weapon using Wall of Death at an Invisible unit.
Invisibility prohibits the firing of a weapon that cannot Snap Shot - and Template Weapons (even those firing Wall of Death) cannot Snap Shot.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Black talos - if your weapon cannot fire as a snapshot, are you allowed to fire it at a unit that REQUIRES you to fire snapshots?
Answer carefully an actual question, when yours have been answered more than once.
Again, go through the proven statements, and disprove them. You have yet to do so.
WoD generates Automatic Hits just like Hammer of Wrath does.
When you Overwatch, weapons cannot "Fire" as snap shots.
Wall of Death generates D3 Hits when a Template weapon is fired. But that weapon was not allowed to fire (clearly in the Snap Shot Rules).
The "instead" from Wall of Death is generating Auto-Hits if you select and "fire" a Template weapon. Even though it is not allowed to do so, IE it can never count as "firing at" the charging Unit.
If your weapon cannot fire as a snapshot, are you allowed to fire it at a unit that REQUIRES you to fire snapshots?
No
If your weapon cannot fire as a snapshot, are you allowed to fire it during overwatch?
Wall of Death says you can: the Enemy Unit gets D3 Auto-Hits.
What does an invisible Unit do with D3 Auto-Hits?
The same clause you are using for Wall of Death: "Enemy Units can only fire Snap Shots."
Is the same clause that would apply to Hammer of Wrath: "Enemy Units can only hit on 6s."
Using your words:
"Hammer of Wrath doesn't work because it cannot 'To Hit' as a 6. If that clause wasn't there it'd work perfectly fine - it 'To Hit' on a 6 but automatically hits."
Both rules are identical, they cover the 3rd Phase of Combat / Shooting results:
Enemy Units can only fire Snap Shots.
Enemy Units can only hit on 6s.
Hammer of Wrath and Wall of Death both ignore this restriction: They Auto-Hit.
Consistency, please.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: How are you evoking the special rule wall of death without firing the template weapon. Please explain, as your question above is woefully incomplete and wrong.
How are you evoking the special rule Hammer of Wrath without being in close combat?
In close combat, you "will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6"
BlackTalos wrote: WoD generates Automatic Hits just like Hammer of Wrath does.
When you Overwatch, weapons cannot "Fire" as snap shots.
Wall of Death generates D3 Hits when a Template weapon is fired. But that weapon was not allowed to fire (clearly in the Snap Shot Rules).
False. Wall of Death allows it to fire Overwatch.
The "instead" from Wall of Death is generating Auto-Hits if you select and "fire" a Template weapon. Even though it is not allowed to do so, IE it can never count as "firing at" the charging Unit.
Even though the actual rule doesn't say it counts as firing, or is only kind of firing, you're insisting that it doesn't fire, it "fires". Is that right?
If your weapon cannot fire as a snapshot, are you allowed to fire it during overwatch?
Wall of Death says you can: the Enemy Unit gets D3 Auto-Hits.
So you are firing it during Overwatch. You're confusing.
What does an invisible Unit do with D3 Auto-Hits?
The same clause you are using for Wall of Death: "Enemy Units can only fire Snap Shots."
Is the same clause that would apply to Hammer of Wrath: "Enemy Units can only hit on 6s."
Using your words:
"Hammer of Wrath doesn't work because it cannot 'To Hit' as a 6. If that clause wasn't there it'd work perfectly fine - it 'To Hit' on a 6 but automatically hits."
Both rules are identical, they cover the 3rd Phase of Combat / Shooting results:
Enemy Units can only fire Snap Shots.
Enemy Units can only hit on 6s.
Hammer of Wrath and Wall of Death both ignore this restriction: They Auto-Hit.
Consistency, please.
Weapons that auto hit cannot be fired as a Snap Shot. Yes or no? Just answer this one question instead of lying about what I've said.
There is no equivalent to snapshot in close combat. There just isn't. Stop equating two stunningly different rules as if they're similar.
Hammer of wrath auto hits because there is no rule in close combat disallowing auto hits when you are told to hit on a set value. Find a rule saying this. I'll wait. Cf. to 5th ed vehicle moved over 6" and then immobilised, it is hit automatically AND hit on 6s. One satisfies the other.
The template never fires, therefore can never evoke the special rule activated after it fires, therefore never gets to generate auto hits. Because, to fire the template weapon - and the rules DO STATE, OVER AND OVER WE HAVE SAID THIS, THAT THE WEAPON FIRES- you must not snapshot, yet you are required to snapshot.
You are breaking a rule - you are demonstrably NOT SNAPSHOTTING - therefore you have cheated. As cheating is generally frowned upon, the only way to not cheat is to not fire.
Please, show how you are firing a snapshot. Page and graph. Now,
nosferatu1001 wrote: How are you evoking the special rule wall of death without firing the template weapon. Please explain, as your question above is woefully incomplete and wrong.
How are you evoking the special rule Hammer of Wrath without being in close combat?
In close combat, you "will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6"
Did Hammer of Wrath roll a 6?
Should be easy.
Stop comparing things that have different rules surrounding them. Maybe you'll see it in bold.
Shooting Attacks (Overwatch) must involve the Snap Shot rules.
There is no clause about weapons that don't use a Weapon Skill involved in the Hammer of Wrath chain like there is in the Wall of Death chain. Your argument consistently ignores that fact and as such cannot be considered correct.
BlackTalos wrote: WoD generates Automatic Hits just like Hammer of Wrath does. When you Overwatch, weapons cannot "Fire" as snap shots. Wall of Death generates D3 Hits when a Template weapon is fired. But that weapon was not allowed to fire (clearly in the Snap Shot Rules).
False. Wall of Death allows it to fire Overwatch.
The "instead" from Wall of Death is generating Auto-Hits if you select and "fire" a Template weapon. Even though it is not allowed to do so, IE it can never count as "firing at" the charging Unit.
Even though the actual rule doesn't say it counts as firing, or is only kind of firing, you're insisting that it doesn't fire, it "fires". Is that right?
If your weapon cannot fire as a snapshot, are you allowed to fire it during overwatch? Wall of Death says you can: the Enemy Unit gets D3 Auto-Hits.
So you are firing it during Overwatch. You're confusing.
What does an invisible Unit do with D3 Auto-Hits?
The same clause you are using for Wall of Death: "Enemy Units can only fire Snap Shots." Is the same clause that would apply to Hammer of Wrath: "Enemy Units can only hit on 6s."
Using your words: "Hammer of Wrath doesn't work because it cannot 'To Hit' as a 6. If that clause wasn't there it'd work perfectly fine - it 'To Hit' on a 6 but automatically hits."
Both rules are identical, they cover the 3rd Phase of Combat / Shooting results: Enemy Units can only fire Snap Shots. Enemy Units can only hit on 6s.
Hammer of Wrath and Wall of Death both ignore this restriction: They Auto-Hit.
Consistency, please.
Weapons that auto hit cannot be fired as a Snap Shot. Yes or no? Just answer this one question instead of lying about what I've said.
Yes. Attacks that auto hit cannot be Hitting on a 6. Yes or no?
nosferatu1001 wrote: There is no equivalent to snapshot in close combat. There just isn't. Stop equating two stunningly different rules as if they're similar.
There is: rolling a 6 To Hit. Do i need to define what a Snap Shot is? Thought that'd be clear....
nosferatu1001 wrote: Hammer of wrath auto hits because there is no rule in close combat disallowing auto hits when you are told to hit on a set value.
Wall of Death auto hits because there is no rule in shooting disallowing auto hits when you are told to hit on a set value. (BS1)
nosferatu1001 wrote: The template never fires, therefore can never evoke the special rule activated after it fires, therefore never gets to generate auto hits.
Why does it never fire? And i would point out Wall of Death does not happen after you select the weapon and fire it (like "no Escape") It is a rule that provides Auto-Hits to a charging Unit when the weapon is selected ("if a Template weapon fires Overwatch").
rigeld2 wrote: Weapons that auto hit cannot be fired as a Snap Shot. Yes or no?
Yes.
Attacks that auto hit cannot be Hitting on a 6. Yes or no?
Not a relevant question. There's no restriction for CC attacks that auto hit in the Hammer of Wrath chain.
There is in the Wall of Death chain. You continue to ignore that difference.
There is: rolling a 6 To Hit.
Do i need to define what a Snap Shot is?
Thought that'd be clear....
A Snap Shot is very much more than simply requiring a 6 to hit. The reason your argument fails is that you fail to apply all the rules.
Wall of Death auto hits because there is no rule in shooting disallowing auto hits when you are told to hit on a set value. (BS1)
Despite the rule I've quoted multiple times proving there is? Seriously? Do you just not read posts?
blacktalos wrote:
Yes.
Attacks that auto hit cannot be Hitting on a 6. Yes or no?
not relevant, as there is no clause preventing auto hits in cc. You realise there is one in snapshot, yes? You've quoted the rule so are surely aware there is a difference?
blacktalos wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote: There is no equivalent to snapshot in close combat. There just isn't. Stop equating two stunningly different rules as if they're similar.
There is: rolling a 6 To Hit.
Do i need to define what a Snap Shot is?
Thought that'd be clear....
How is that similar to the clause disallowing automatic hits? Please reference the same clause in invis. Page and graph. 2nd time of asking.
blacktalos wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote: Hammer of wrath auto hits because there is no rule in close combat disallowing auto hits when you are told to hit on a set value.
Wall of Death auto hits because there is no rule in shooting disallowing auto hits when you are told to hit on a set value. (BS1)
Good job that isn't all of the snapshot restriction then! It's almost like yours arguing dishonestly by leaving out key parts of a rule. Don't.
Snapshot has more restrictions. Such as not being able to fire template weapons. Invis requires you to fire a snapshot. Show how you haves one so - page and grAoh.
blacktalos wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote: The template never fires, therefore can never evoke the special rule activated after it fires, therefore never gets to generate auto hits.
Why does it never fire?
Because when firing at the unit you can only fire snapshots. Any weapon unabl to fire snapshots csnnot fire. I am unsure how this concept is evading you.
Please, explain how you are selecting a weapon to fire, when firing it breaks a rule. Is cheating allowable now?
blacktalos wrote:
And i would point out Wall of Death does not happen after you select the weapon and fire it (like "no Escape")
It is a rule that provides Auto-Hits to a charging Unit when the weapon is selected ("if a Template weapon fires Overwatch").
Indeed. It happens after selecting the weapon and fire it, as the rule literally requires you to fire the template weapon. If you do not select, and fire, the template weapon, you never get to the special rule
This is all proven through rules quotes. You have yet to offer a single argument that doesn't rely on ignoring, rewriting, or partially quoting rules.
WoD gives an exemption to the over watch rule, and does this by creating a non snapshot firing allowance. It doesn't give an exemption to the invisibility requirement, but apparently they're similar, so that's good enough. Or something else as incoherent. It's hard to tell any longer.
1) Invisible units can only be fired at by snap shots.
2) WoD is not a snap shot.
3) WoD can not fire at Invisible unit.
If WoD is does not fire a snap shot, how is it hitting a unit that can only be targeted by snap shots?
Someone come prove me wrong.
I've got one better for you.
1) During overwatch, a unit can only fire snap shots.
2) Template weapons cannot be shot as snap shots.
3) WoD kicks in and tells you to assign d3 hits to the unit.
It doesn't matter if the unit that is being overwatched is invisible or not. Invisibility does not confer the 'Hard to Hit' rule found on flyers and FMC's.
Relevant rules:
Snap Shots pg 32 wrote:Under specific circumstances, models must fire Snap Shots -- opportunistic bursts of fire 'snapped' off in the general direction of the target. The most common occurrences of Snap Shots are when models with Heavy weapons move and shoot in the same turn (pg 41) or when units make Overwatch shots (pf 45). If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of those shots, unless it has a Ballistic Skill of 0 (in which case it may not shoot, as explained on page 9).
The Ballistic Skill of a model firing a Snap Shot can only be modified by special rules that specifically state that they affect Snap Shots, along with any other restrictions (some may only modify Ballistic Skill when firing Overwatch Snap Shots, for example). If a special rule doesn’t specifically state that it affects Snap Shots, then the Snap Shot is resolved at Ballistic Skill 1. Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots. In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot. These exceptions aside, Snap Shots are treated in the same manner as any other shooting attack made with a Ballistic Skill of 1.
Hitting your target is not always enough to put it out of action. The shot might result in nothing more than a superficial graze or flesh wound.
Notice how the snap shot rule is missing the prevention that if a shot is a snap shot it cannot auto hit?
Template Weapons pg173 wrote:Wall of Death Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved at its normal Strength and AP value. Don’t worry about comparing the length of the template with the distance to the enemy. If the charge is successful, it doesn’t matter anyway. If the charge failed, we can assume that the enemy ran into range of the Template weapon and were driven back.
Notice how WoD doesn't even care about snap shots. WoD has explicit permission to fire Overwatch.
TL: DR := Invisibility is lacking the "Hard to Hit" special rule, ergo Wall of Death is allowed.
1) During overwatch, a unit can only fire snap shots.
2) Template weapons cannot be shot as snap shots.
3) WoD kicks in and tells you to assign d3 hits to the unit.
It doesn't matter if the unit that is being overwatched is invisible or not. Invisibility does not confer the 'Hard to Hit' rule found on flyers and FMC's.
You're failing to read the rule you quoted.
Snap Shots pg 32 wrote:Under specific curcumstances, models must fire Snap Shots -- opportunistic bursts of fire 'snapped' off in the general direction of the target. The most common occurrences of Snap Shots are when models with Heavy weapons move and shoot in the same turn (pg 41) or when units make Overwatch shots (pf 45). If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of those shots, unless it has a Ballistic Skill of 0 (in which case it may not shoot, as explained on page 9).
The Ballistic Skill of a model firing a Snap Shot can only be modified by special rules that specifically state that they affect Snap Shots, along with any other restrictions (some may only modify Ballistic Skill when firing Overwatch Snap Shots, for example). If a special rule doesn’t specifically state that it affects Snap Shots, then the Snap Shot is resolved at Ballistic Skill 1. Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots. In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot. These exceptions aside, Snap Shots are treated in the same manner as any other shooting attack made with a Ballistic Skill of 1.
Hitting your target is not always enough to put it out of action. The shot might result in nothing more than a superficial graze or flesh wound.
Notice how the snap shot rule is missing the prevention that if a shot is a snap shot it cannot auto hit?
Correct. Because shots that auto hit cannot be snap shots.
Notice how WoD doesn't even care about snap shots. WoD has explicit permission to fire Overwatch.
Invisibility however does care about snap shots.
TLR := Invisibility is lacking the "Hard to Hit" special rule, ergo Wall of Death is allowed.
No one is saying it bestows Hard to Hit - you're making that up. Your argument also ignores actual rules.
blacktalos wrote:
Yes.
Attacks that auto hit cannot be Hitting on a 6. Yes or no?
not relevant, as there is no clause preventing auto hits in cc. You realise there is one in snapshot, yes? You've quoted the rule so are surely aware there is a difference?
Please quote the rule saying no-auto hits on snap shots. I'd love to see it.
blacktalos wrote:
Yes.
Attacks that auto hit cannot be Hitting on a 6. Yes or no?
not relevant, as there is no clause preventing auto hits in cc. You realise there is one in snapshot, yes? You've quoted the rule so are surely aware there is a difference?
Please quote the rule saying no-auto hits on snap shots. I'd love to see it.
You quoted it.
In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot.
Do shots that automatically hit use Ballistic Skill?
blacktalos wrote:
Yes.
Attacks that auto hit cannot be Hitting on a 6. Yes or no?
not relevant, as there is no clause preventing auto hits in cc. You realise there is one in snapshot, yes? You've quoted the rule so are surely aware there is a difference?
Please quote the rule saying no-auto hits on snap shots. I'd love to see it.
You quoted it.
In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot.
Do shots that automatically hit use Ballistic Skill?
No, I quoted a rule that says attacks that don't use a ballistic skill cannot be fired as a snap shot. WoD has explicit permission to be fired during a time when only snap shots are allowed.
1) Invisible units can only be fired at by snap shots.
2) WoD is not a snap shot.
3) WoD can not fire at Invisible unit.
If WoD is does not fire a snap shot, how is it hitting a unit that can only be targeted by snap shots?
Someone come prove me wrong.
I've got one better for you.
1) During overwatch, a unit can only fire snap shots.
2) Template weapons cannot be shot as snap shots.
3) WoD kicks in and tells you to assign d3 hits to the unit.
It doesn't matter if the unit that is being overwatched is invisible or not. Invisibility does not confer the 'Hard to Hit' rule found on flyers and FMC's.
Relevant rules:
Snap Shots pg 32 wrote:Under specific circumstances, models must fire Snap Shots -- opportunistic bursts of fire 'snapped' off in the general direction of the target. The most common occurrences of Snap Shots are when models with Heavy weapons move and shoot in the same turn (pg 41) or when units make Overwatch shots (pf 45). If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of those shots, unless it has a Ballistic Skill of 0 (in which case it may not shoot, as explained on page 9).
The Ballistic Skill of a model firing a Snap Shot can only be modified by special rules that specifically state that they affect Snap Shots, along with any other restrictions (some may only modify Ballistic Skill when firing Overwatch Snap Shots, for example). If a special rule doesn’t specifically state that it affects Snap Shots, then the Snap Shot is resolved at Ballistic Skill 1. Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots. In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot. These exceptions aside, Snap Shots are treated in the same manner as any other shooting attack made with a Ballistic Skill of 1.
Hitting your target is not always enough to put it out of action. The shot might result in nothing more than a superficial graze or flesh wound.
Notice how the snap shot rule is missing the prevention that if a shot is a snap shot it cannot auto hit?
Template Weapons pg173 wrote:Wall of Death
Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved at its normal Strength and AP value. Don’t worry about comparing the length of the template with the distance to the enemy. If the charge is successful, it doesn’t matter anyway. If the charge failed, we can assume that the enemy ran into range of the Template weapon and were driven back.
Notice how WoD doesn't even care about snap shots. WoD has explicit permission to fire Overwatch.
TL: DR := Invisibility is lacking the "Hard to Hit" special rule, ergo Wall of Death is allowed.
edit: spelling fails =\
No argument from me about how the rule works with normal circumstances, which is all I got out of it.
But you never addressed my points. Mainly the first one.
1) Invisible units can only be fired at by snap shots.
blacktalos wrote:
Yes.
Attacks that auto hit cannot be Hitting on a 6. Yes or no?
not relevant, as there is no clause preventing auto hits in cc. You realise there is one in snapshot, yes? You've quoted the rule so are surely aware there is a difference?
Please quote the rule saying no-auto hits on snap shots. I'd love to see it.
You quoted it.
In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot.
Do shots that automatically hit use Ballistic Skill?
No, I quoted a rule that says attacks that don't use a ballistic skill cannot be fired as a snap shot. WoD has explicit permission to be fired during a time when only snap shots are allowed.
Correct!
Now - answer the question. Do shots that automatically hit use Ballistic Skill? I'm going to assume you answer "No." because any other answer is incorrect. Therefore Wall of Death cannot be fired as a Snap Shot. Do we agree?
Now, Invisibility says:
Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit
If you fire something that cannot be fired as a Snap Shot at a target that you must fire Snap Shots against, is that legal? You're firing something that isn't a Snap Shot at something that requires Snap Shots. Agreed?
No argument from me about how the rule works with normal circumstances, which is all I got out of it.
But you never addressed my points. Mainly the first one.
1) Invisible units can only be fired at by snap shots.
Let's start there.
And like I said, the unit firing overwatch doesn't care about how invisible the unit is. In both circumstances the unit firing must fire snap shots. In both circumstances, template weapons cannot fire snap shots. Also in both circumstances, the Wall of Death rule says the template weapon can fire Overwatch although it is not permitted to snap shot.
blacktalos wrote:
Yes.
Attacks that auto hit cannot be Hitting on a 6. Yes or no?
not relevant, as there is no clause preventing auto hits in cc. You realise there is one in snapshot, yes? You've quoted the rule so are surely aware there is a difference?
Please quote the rule saying no-auto hits on snap shots. I'd love to see it.
You quoted it.
In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot.
Do shots that automatically hit use Ballistic Skill?
No, I quoted a rule that says attacks that don't use a ballistic skill cannot be fired as a snap shot. WoD has explicit permission to be fired during a time when only snap shots are allowed.
So a weapon that autohits. Has it used ballistic skill? Yes or no.
You're also ignoring that invis requires the weapon to be fired as a snapshot. Can your temp,ate weapon fire a snapshot? Yes or no
Mulletdude wrote: Also in both circumstances, the Wall of Death rule says the template weapon can fire Overwatch although it is not permitted to snap shot.
So you agree that Wall of Death is not a Snap Shot, yes?
Mulletdude wrote: Also in both circumstances, the Wall of Death rule says the template weapon can fire Overwatch although it is not permitted to snap shot.
So you agree that Wall of Death is not a Snap Shot, yes?
The important distinction to make is where the restriction is being placed.
During overwatch, a unit can only fire snap shots.
When targeting an invisible unit, a unit can only fire snap shots.
In both cases, a template weapon cannot fire snap shots and does not fire a snap shot. It instead invokes the Wall of Death rule and inflicts auto-hits.
Mulletdude wrote: The important distinction to make is where the restriction is being placed.
During overwatch, a unit can only fire snap shots.
When targeting an invisible unit, a unit can only fire snap shots.
In both cases, a template weapon cannot fire snap shots and does not fire a snap shot. It instead invokes the Wall of Death rule and inflicts auto-hits.
So you're allowing a weapon to fire at a target that can only be hit by Snap Shots when that weapon cannot ever Snap Shot? Even the Wall of Death rules cite the Template weapon firing, and the Snap Shot rules tell us that it cannot fire Snap Shots.
blacktalos wrote:
Yes.
Attacks that auto hit cannot be Hitting on a 6. Yes or no?
not relevant, as there is no clause preventing auto hits in cc. You realise there is one in snapshot, yes? You've quoted the rule so are surely aware there is a difference?
Please quote the rule saying no-auto hits on snap shots. I'd love to see it.
You quoted it.
In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot.
Do shots that automatically hit use Ballistic Skill?
The problem with your argument is that nothing in the invisibility rule prevents things that cause auto-hits. It says you must fire snapshots if shooting at the target, but says nothing to prevent the template rule from triggering.
Templates (Wall of Death): Template weapons can fire overwatch even though they cannot fire snapshots. Instead, if a template weapon fires overwatch,it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved at its normal strength and AP value.
So nothing in the Wall of Death rule requires you to roll to hit at all. It's automatic. No need for snapshots or balistic skill based 'to-hit' rolls. It just happens. A wall of flame that the invisible unit charges through automatically does D3 hits without rolling to hit. Just like Nova, just like beam, just like no escape - the hits are automatic. Saying you must roll snapshot to cause automatic hits would therefore necessarily also mean that nova, beam, no escape to also be useless against invisible units.
So rule X says you must snapshot to hit the unit and rule Y says the hits happen automatically. Sure... not ambiguous at all...
Mulletdude wrote: The important distinction to make is where the restriction is being placed. During overwatch, a unit can only fire snap shots. When targeting an invisible unit, a unit can only fire snap shots.
In both cases, a template weapon cannot fire snap shots and does not fire a snap shot. It instead invokes the Wall of Death rule and inflicts auto-hits.
So you're allowing a weapon to fire at a target that can only be hit by Snap Shots when that weapon cannot ever Snap Shot? Even the Wall of Death rules cite the Template weapon firing, and the Snap Shot rules tell us that it cannot fire Snap Shots.
In the shooting section, it gives the basic rules of 'template weapons cannot snap shot' rule and "In addition, any shooting attack that does not use a Ballistic Skill cannot be 'fired' as a Snap Shot". In the Wall of Death advanced special rule, it gives permission for a template weapon to fire overwatch, even though this attack is not a snap shot. The snap shots basic rule of is overridden by the advanced Special Rule of Wall of Death that gives explicit permission to fire during overwatch, which is a time where normally weapons are firing snap shots.
According to the BRB PG13, "Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules".
blacktalos wrote:
Yes.
Attacks that auto hit cannot be Hitting on a 6. Yes or no?
not relevant, as there is no clause preventing auto hits in cc. You realise there is one in snapshot, yes? You've quoted the rule so are surely aware there is a difference?
Please quote the rule saying no-auto hits on snap shots. I'd love to see it.
You quoted it.
In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot.
Do shots that automatically hit use Ballistic Skill?
The problem with your argument is that nothing in the invisibility rule prevents things that cause auto-hits. It says you must fire snapshots if shooting at the target, but says nothing to prevent the template rule from triggering.
The invisibility rule requires everything fired at the unit to be a Snap Shot. Agreed?
Mulletdude wrote: The important distinction to make is where the restriction is being placed.
During overwatch, a unit can only fire snap shots.
When targeting an invisible unit, a unit can only fire snap shots.
In both cases, a template weapon cannot fire snap shots and does not fire a snap shot. It instead invokes the Wall of Death rule and inflicts auto-hits.
So you're allowing a weapon to fire at a target that can only be hit by Snap Shots when that weapon cannot ever Snap Shot? Even the Wall of Death rules cite the Template weapon firing, and the Snap Shot rules tell us that it cannot fire Snap Shots.
In the shooting section, it gives the general 'template weapons cannot snap shot' rule. In the Wall of Death rule, it gives permission for a template weapon to fire overwatch, even though this attack is not a snap shot. A template weapon firing in overwatch is not a snap shot. The snap shots generic rule of "In addition, any shooting attack that does not use a Ballistic Skill cannot be 'fired' as a Snap Shot" is overridden by the more specific Special Rule of Wall of Death that gives explicit permission to fire during overwatch, which is a time where normally weapons are firing snap shots.
According to the BRB PG13, "Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules".
You're arguing that Wall of Death allows you to fire an Overwatch shot. I don't disagree with that premise.
You're also asserting that a weapon that can never fire Snap Shots is allowed to fire at a target that requires you to fire Snap Shots.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NightHowler wrote: So rule X says you must snapshot to hit the unit and rule Y says the hits happen automatically. Sure... not ambiguous at all...
It's only ambiguous if you ignore the rules for a Snap Shot and pretend that it only means BS1.
You're arguing that Wall of Death allows you to fire an Overwatch shot. I don't disagree with that premise.
If you're not arguing that premise, then what are you arguing?
Wall of Death allows a Template weapon to fire Overwatch (a shooting attack). Agreed? (assumed yes)
Wall of Death does not allow Template weapons to fire Snap Shots. Agreed? (Assumed yes)
Invisibility requires any shooting attack at the invisible unit to fire as a Snap Shot. Agreed? (Assumed yes)
The above rules have been quoted repeatedly.
When firing a Template Weapon as part of Overwatch, it is not firing and cannot fire Snap Shots. Agreed?
If you're required to fire Snap Shots at something and are unable to fire Snap Shots, can you fire the weapon?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mulletdude wrote: My understanding on Invisiblity and Template weapons so far:
1) If a unit is invisible, when it is being targeted by a shooting attack, the attack must be snap shots.
2) In the shooting phase, the restriction of 'not using BS, no shot' applies, preventing a template weapon from firing at an invisible unit.
3) When a unit it charged, it gets to declare overwatch. Overwatch shots have the restriction of 'must be snap shots'.
4) Wall of Death allows a template weapon to fire overwatch, even though it cannot fire snap shots.
5) In the eyes of a unit being charged: It does not matter if the unit is invisible or not, as the unit being charged can only fire snap shots.
The underlined restriction doesn't exist - you have invented it.
You're arguing that Wall of Death allows you to fire an Overwatch shot. I don't disagree with that premise.
If you're not arguing that premise, then what are you arguing?
That just because you could normally fire over watch , doesn't mean you can in this specific situation.
If you could evoke the rule, you would cause hits. Trimble is, to evoke the rule, you MUST FIRE a weapon you CANNOT FIRE .
So, explain how you are firing a weapon you have a prohibition on firing. Page and graph. should be straightforward.
Pg13, conflicting rules. Advanced special rule Wall of Death overrides basic rule Snap Shots.
Sure - Wall of Death allows Template weapons to fire Overwatch - because where the conflict lies. There's no rule in Wall of Death allowing Template weapons to fire Snap Shots. No conflict means page 13 doesn't apply.
Mulletdude wrote: 2) In the shooting phase, the restriction of 'not using BS, no shot' applies, preventing a template weapon from firing at an invisible unit.
The underlined restriction doesn't exist - you have invented it.
The underlined is a restriction of my premise 2. Please look at each of my premises individually and tell me if you agree or disagree with them.
Premise 2 is absolutely incorrect and has no basis in actual rules.
You're arguing that Wall of Death allows you to fire an Overwatch shot. I don't disagree with that premise.
If you're not arguing that premise, then what are you arguing?
That just because you could normally fire over watch , doesn't mean you can in this specific situation.
If you could evoke the rule, you would cause hits. Trimble is, to evoke the rule, you MUST FIRE a weapon you CANNOT FIRE .
So, explain how you are firing a weapon you have a prohibition on firing. Page and graph. should be straightforward.
pg 173
Instead of snapshots, fire WOD.
are we firing overwatch? yes
do templates have permission to fire during overwatch? Yes
does invisibility specifically cancel the permission to fire? no
d3 hits
or even
can only be hit with snapshots
instead of snapshots, WOD
can only be hit with WOD.
You're arguing that Wall of Death allows you to fire an Overwatch shot. I don't disagree with that premise.
If you're not arguing that premise, then what are you arguing?
That just because you could normally fire over watch , doesn't mean you can in this specific situation.
If you could evoke the rule, you would cause hits. Trimble is, to evoke the rule, you MUST FIRE a weapon you CANNOT FIRE .
So, explain how you are firing a weapon you have a prohibition on firing. Page and graph. should be straightforward.
pg 173
Instead of snapshots, fire WOD.
are we firing overwatch? yes
do templates have permission to fire during overwatch? Yes
does invisibility specifically cancel the permission to fire? no
False. You're required to fire Snap Shots at invisible units. Templates cannot fire Snap Shots, and shooting attacks that don't use Ballistic Skill cannot be 'fired' as Snap Shots.
I think it might be time for folks to take a step back from the thread and come back when their heads are a bit cooler. I think we can agree there is an argument both ways and because of that there is no true "100% right answer" at the moment.
I've sent this in for FAQing (assuming I don't just end up in the Spam Folder because of how many emails I end up sending in there) so maybe we'll see a definitive answer from GW on this. In the mean time I think it'll have to come down to a HIWPI.
Mulletdude wrote: 2) In the shooting phase, the restriction of 'not using BS, no shot' applies, preventing a template weapon from firing at an invisible unit.
The underlined restriction doesn't exist - you have invented it.
The underlined is a restriction of my premise 2. Please look at each of my premises individually and tell me if you agree or disagree with them.
Premise 2 is absolutely incorrect and has no basis in actual rules.
I'm sorry. What? How is my premise #2 incorrect? It reads as follows: If the current phase is the shooting phase, and I elect to target a unit that is invisible, therefore I am unable to fire a template weapon? How the is that logic wrong?
You're arguing that Wall of Death allows you to fire an Overwatch shot. I don't disagree with that premise.
If you're not arguing that premise, then what are you arguing?
That just because you could normally fire over watch , doesn't mean you can in this specific situation.
If you could evoke the rule, you would cause hits. Trimble is, to evoke the rule, you MUST FIRE a weapon you CANNOT FIRE .
So, explain how you are firing a weapon you have a prohibition on firing. Page and graph. should be straightforward.
Pg13, conflicting rules. Advanced special rule Wall of Death overrides basic rule Snap Shots.
Wrong, no conflict. Nothing in wall of death makes the flamer fire a snapshot. If you think this happens, prove it. You cannot do so, so concede this point. Also, given invisibility is setting the requirement, and is by definition a special rule, you would need explicit rules in wall of death to override this specfic requirement
NOTHING in WoD makes it a snapshot. Nothing. As such you are firing a weapon, not as a snapshot, at a unit that require you to fire as a snapshot. Breaking the rule.
This is proven. No part of your argument holds up, as it tries to ignore the "must snapshot" requirement.
You're arguing that Wall of Death allows you to fire an Overwatch shot. I don't disagree with that premise.
If you're not arguing that premise, then what are you arguing?
That just because you could normally fire over watch , doesn't mean you can in this specific situation.
If you could evoke the rule, you would cause hits. Trimble is, to evoke the rule, you MUST FIRE a weapon you CANNOT FIRE .
So, explain how you are firing a weapon you have a prohibition on firing. Page and graph. should be straightforward.
pg 173
Instead of snapshots, fire WOD.
are we firing overwatch? yes
do templates have permission to fire during overwatch? Yes
does invisibility specifically cancel the permission to fire? no
d3 hits
or even
can only be hit with snapshots
instead of snapshots, WOD
can only be hit with WOD.
qed. d3 hits
Fired as a snapshot? No? No permission to fire. QED.
ClockworkZion wrote:I think it might be time for folks to take a step back from the thread and come back when their heads are a bit cooler. I think we can agree there is an argument both ways and because of that there is no true "100% right answer" at the moment.
Well, there is. I've quoted the rules supporting it.
Mulletdude wrote: 2) In the shooting phase, the restriction of 'not using BS, no shot' applies, preventing a template weapon from firing at an invisible unit.
The underlined restriction doesn't exist - you have invented it.
The underlined is a restriction of my premise 2. Please look at each of my premises individually and tell me if you agree or disagree with them.
Premise 2 is absolutely incorrect and has no basis in actual rules.
I'm sorry. What? How is my premise #2 incorrect? If the current phase is the shooting phase, and I elect to target a unit that is invisible, therefore I am unable to fire a template weapon? How the is that logic wrong?
You're unable to fire a Template weapon because it's a Template weapon. It has nothing to do with the "no BS, no snap shot" rule.
In addition, we're not discussing the shooting phase at all.
ClockworkZion wrote: I think it might be time for folks to take a step back from the thread and come back when their heads are a bit cooler. I think we can agree there is an argument both ways and because of that there is no true "100% right answer" at the moment.
I've sent this in for FAQing (assuming I don't just end up in the Spam Folder because of how many emails I end up sending in there) so maybe we'll see a definitive answer from GW on this. In the mean time I think it'll have to come down to a HIWPI.
Except there isn't an argument both ways
To fire the flamer, it must do so as a snapshot. It cannot do so, so cannot fire.
It is EXACTLY that simple. WoD at No point turns it into a snapshot.
ClockworkZion wrote:I think it might be time for folks to take a step back from the thread and come back when their heads are a bit cooler. I think we can agree there is an argument both ways and because of that there is no true "100% right answer" at the moment.
Well, there is. I've quoted the rules supporting it.
And they've quoted rules to argue against it.
Neither side is going to "win" this one and I really think it's better for people to step back instead of arguing to the point where a mod gets involved and starts smacking people upside the head.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Except their quoted rules do not actually support their stance. This has been proven repeatedly.
In fact a fair few actually destroy their argument.
I'm not getting dragged into this and I'm not taking sides. I just offered the most rational option for when things turn into arguments on the internet: walk away and take a break.
ClockworkZion wrote:I think it might be time for folks to take a step back from the thread and come back when their heads are a bit cooler. I think we can agree there is an argument both ways and because of that there is no true "100% right answer" at the moment.
Well, there is. I've quoted the rules supporting it.
And they've quoted rules to argue against it.
No, they're making up rules or ignoring them to argue against it.
You're unable to fire a Template weapon because it's a Template weapon. It has nothing to do with the "no BS, no snap shot" rule.
In addition, we're not discussing the shooting phase at all.
Relax a bit. My premise was correct and I'm trying to explain how it is. Ignore the topic of the thread and please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following premises.
1) If a unit is invisible, when it is being targeted by a shooting attack, the attack must be snap shots.
2) If the current phase is the shooting phase and I select a target to shoot at an invisible unit, the resulting shots must be snap shots.
3) If I am restricted to firing snap shots, I cannot fire a template weapon.
4) If a unit it charged, it gets to declare Overwatch.
5) Overwatch shots have the restriction of 'must be snap shots'.
6) Wall of Death allows a template weapon to fire Overwatch.
You're unable to fire a Template weapon because it's a Template weapon. It has nothing to do with the "no BS, no snap shot" rule.
In addition, we're not discussing the shooting phase at all.
Relax a bit. My premise was correct and I'm trying to explain how it is. Ignore the topic of the thread and please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following premises.
1) If a unit is invisible, when it is being targeted by a shooting attack, the attack must be snap shots.
2) If the current phase is the shooting phase and I select a target to shoot at an invisible unit, the resulting shots must be snap shots.
3) If I am restricted to firing snap shots, I cannot fire a template weapon.
4) If a unit it charged, it gets to declare Overwatch.
5) Overwatch shots have the restriction of 'must be snap shots'.
6) Wall of Death allows a template weapon to fire Overwatch.
You're unable to fire a Template weapon because it's a Template weapon. It has nothing to do with the "no BS, no snap shot" rule. In addition, we're not discussing the shooting phase at all.
Relax a bit. My premise was correct and I'm trying to explain how it is. Ignore the topic of the thread and please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following premises.
1) If a unit is invisible, when it is being targeted by a shooting attack, the attack must be snap shots.
2) If the current phase is the shooting phase and I select a target to shoot at an invisible unit, the resulting shots must be snap shots.
3) If I am restricted to firing snap shots, I cannot fire a template weapon.
4) If a unit it charged, it gets to declare Overwatch.
5) Overwatch shots have the restriction of 'must be snap shots'.
6) Wall of Death allows a template weapon to fire Overwatch.
Yes, all of those in general are correct.
Alright, cool. Now with my base premises being accepted, I would like to continue my train of logic.
Combining premises 1, 4, and 5 gives us the following.
7) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, it gets to declare overwatch and the shots must be resolved as snap shots.
EDIT: Selected the wrong premises. Should've been 1,4,5, not 1,2,4
sirlynchmob wrote: The thing is though, WOD doesn't roll to hit at all, it just generates d3 wounds. As you are just generating wounds, you are not restricted by the invisibility, nor are you breaking that rule. .
WOD generates hits, not wounds.
Template weapons firing normally don't roll to hit either. They just generate a number of hits equal to the number of models under the template. So by your logic, Template weapons firing normally would also ignore Invisibility.
It gets to declare overwatch but it must fire all shots as snap shots which templates cannot do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Which is exactly like disembarking from and assault vehicle after it comes in from reserve two restrictions with a single allowance. It's a no go.
Mulletdude wrote: And that leads me to what should be my last premise
9) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, it gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons.
This is because being charged is logically equivalent to being charged by an invisible unit, as described by premise 7.
What is giving you permission to ignore your premise #1?
Yes, you can declare Overwatch with the unit that has a template weapon being charged by an Invisible unit... but you're only going to be able to resolve any shots with weapons that can snap fire.
Mulletdude wrote: And that leads me to what should be my last premise
9) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, it gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons.
This is because being charged is logically equivalent to being charged by an invisible unit, as described by premise 7.
Here's the issue with that.
You have general permission to declare Overwatch with Template weapons. You have a specific restriction on top of the general Overwatch restriction of requiring snap shots.
Template weapons cannot fire snap shots.
If a Land Raider arrives from Reserves, can the Sternguard embarked on it disembark and declare a charge? No.
Cannot declare a charge when disembarking from a vehicle - Assault Ramps conflict and override this.
Cannot declare a charge the turn you arrive from Reserves - nothing conflicts.
In this case you have:
Overwatch requires Snap shots - WoD conflicts and overrides.
Invisible requires snap shots - nothing conflicts.
You're assuming that just because you declare over watch that all weapons will fire as snapshots. This isn't true. Templates fire, without ever being snapshots.
rigeld2 wrote: The Template weapon is never making a Snap Shot against the invisible unit. It can't. Nothing in your premises allows it to make a snap shot.
You are correct. According to my premise 3, a template weapon cannot be fired as a snap shot. But you agreed with me and said premise 8 was true, allowing a template weapon to be fired in Overwatch. The only thing I did between premise 8 and 9 is change out the logically equivalent statement. This is because if the charging unit is invisible or not, the charged unit can fire overwatch as snap shots.
rigeld2 wrote: The Template weapon is never making a Snap Shot against the invisible unit. It can't. Nothing in your premises allows it to make a snap shot.
You are correct. According to my premise 3, a template weapon cannot be fired as a snap shot. But you agreed with me and said premise 8 was true, allowing a template weapon to be fired in Overwatch. The only thing I did between premise 8 and 9 is change out the logically equivalent statement. This is because if the charging unit is invisible or not, the charged unit can fire overwatch as snap shots.
Template weapons can be fired in Overwatch. This does not mean that they are firing as Snap Shots. Nothing in Wall of Death or in any of your premises says that Templates fire Snap Shots - in fact, the Snap Shot rules say that cannot happen (not only can Templates not fire Snap Shots, but as a shooting attack that does use Ballistic Skill it can't be 'fired' as a Snap Shot).
edit: You're making the leap that because you can fire Overwatch, you're firing Snap Shots. That isn't true at all.
edit2: You also said that "a unit is charged" and " If a unit is charged by an invisible unit" are logically equivalent which is demonstrably untrue. There are significant additional rules in place with an invisible unit versus a non-invisible one so they are not equivalent.
rigeld2 wrote: The Template weapon is never making a Snap Shot against the invisible unit. It can't. Nothing in your premises allows it to make a snap shot.
You are correct. According to my premise 3, a template weapon cannot be fired as a snap shot. But you agreed with me and said premise 8 was true, allowing a template weapon to be fired in Overwatch. The only thing I did between premise 8 and 9 is change out the logically equivalent statement. This is because if the charging unit is invisible or not, the charged unit can fire overwatch as snap shots.
Already pointed out you have made a leap in logic there.
WoD allows you to fire. It does not require that to be as a snapshot. We know this to be true, as WoD does not say it makes the flamer fire a snapshot .
If you want to prove your assertion, prove that WoD makes it into a snapshot.
ClockworkZion wrote:I think it might be time for folks to take a step back from the thread and come back when their heads are a bit cooler. I think we can agree there is an argument both ways and because of that there is no true "100% right answer" at the moment.
Well, there is. I've quoted the rules supporting it.
And they've quoted rules to argue against it.
Neither side is going to "win" this one and I really think it's better for people to step back instead of arguing to the point where a mod gets involved and starts smacking people upside the head.
You're absolutely right, but it's pointless to try to stop the bickering. Unfortunately, there is a certain class of player, who don't understand the rules of good debate, who rely one accusing their opponents their opponents of logical fallacies (generally the same logical fallacies they themselves are fall prey to), ad hominem attacks (often, as seen above, while using ad hominem attacks themselves), and an unshakable belief in the superiority of their own interpretations (often making assertions while refusing any burden of proof, yet expecting the other side to fulfil said burden) to win arguments (or rather, to grind everyone's patience down to the point that they stop arguing). These kinds of players are incapable of having an intelligent debate, because they do not know how to assume good faith, they cannot acknowledge, and therefore debate, the merits of different viewpoints, and their only goal is to "win" the argument (not surprisingly, these are the same types of players nobody wants to play with, because of the same type of attitude). And unfortunately, those are the types of players carrying this thread (and the majority of threads in YMDC).
So yeah, it's about time for this thread to end. But I don't think that's gonna happen without the mods just closing it.
And seriously people, it's a game. It's supposed to be fun, not...this
ClockworkZion wrote:I think it might be time for folks to take a step back from the thread and come back when their heads are a bit cooler. I think we can agree there is an argument both ways and because of that there is no true "100% right answer" at the moment.
Well, there is. I've quoted the rules supporting it.
And they've quoted rules to argue against it.
Neither side is going to "win" this one and I really think it's better for people to step back instead of arguing to the point where a mod gets involved and starts smacking people upside the head.
You're absolutely right, but it's pointless to try to stop the bickering. Unfortunately, there is a certain class of player, who don't understand the rules of good debate, who rely one accusing their opponents their opponents of logical fallacies (generally the same logical fallacies they themselves are fall prey to), ad hominem attacks (often, as seen above, while using ad hominem attacks themselves), and an unshakable belief in the superiority of their own interpretations (often making assertions while refusing any burden of proof, yet expecting the other side to fulfil said burden) to win arguments (or rather, to grind everyone's patience down to the point that they stop arguing). These kinds of players are incapable of having an intelligent debate, because they do not know how to assume good faith, they cannot acknowledge, and therefore debate, the merits of different viewpoints, and their only goal is to "win" the argument (not surprisingly, these are the same types of players nobody wants to play with, because of the same type of attitude). And unfortunately, those are the types of players carrying this thread (and the majority of threads in YMDC).
So yeah, it's about time for this thread to end. But I don't think that's gonna happen without the mods just closing it.
And seriously people, it's a game. It's supposed to be fun, not...this
This. Above all it's supposed to be fun, but i've seen a lot of evidence both for and against WOD on Invisible units. Until they FAQ it, it will be house rules or HIWPI.
Side note: most of YMDC is fine, but every once in a while this or another thread pops up and people lose their fething mind.
Seriously - what evidence is there allowing Wall of Death to fire at a unit that requires you use Snap Shots? There isn't any actual evidence in this thread (unless I've somehow missed it) just people inaccurately quoting rules or making things up.
And the game is fun. I find rules discussions - including this one - also fun. Remember that just because I argue a certain way doesn't mean I play that way.
rigeld2 wrote: Seriously - what evidence is there allowing Wall of Death to fire at a unit that requires you use Snap Shots? There isn't any actual evidence in this thread (unless I've somehow missed it) just people inaccurately quoting rules or making things up.
And the game is fun. I find rules discussions - including this one - also fun. Remember that just because I argue a certain way doesn't mean I play that way.
Not even gonna get dragged into this okay? So don't bother. I'm just saying I've seen points that make sense on both sides, so back off.
rigeld2 wrote: Seriously - what evidence is there allowing Wall of Death to fire at a unit that requires you use Snap Shots? There isn't any actual evidence in this thread (unless I've somehow missed it) just people inaccurately quoting rules or making things up.
And the game is fun. I find rules discussions - including this one - also fun. Remember that just because I argue a certain way doesn't mean I play that way.
Not even gonna get dragged into this okay? So don't bother. I'm just saying I've seen points that make sense on both sides, so back off.
Then don't reply?
If you state something as fact ("but i've seen a lot of evidence both for and against WOD on Invisible units") you should expect to be asked about it.
Since you've opted not to support your statement by pointing out any evidence how do you expect me to take your statement?
And I don't need to "back off" because I wasn't specifically addressing you nor calling you out. All I did was ask for evidence. You said it exists, so did the other poster - I've yet to see any.
If you're not here to discuss RAW then you are not posting in the relevant forum, i.e., you are probably breaking Rule Number Two. YMDC is for discussing RAW, not for lecturing us about why discussing RAW is not fun (for you). Thanks.
rigeld2 wrote: Seriously - what evidence is there allowing Wall of Death to fire at a unit that requires you use Snap Shots? There isn't any actual evidence in this thread (unless I've somehow missed it) just people inaccurately quoting rules or making things up.
And the game is fun. I find rules discussions - including this one - also fun. Remember that just because I argue a certain way doesn't mean I play that way.
Not even gonna get dragged into this okay? So don't bother. I'm just saying I've seen points that make sense on both sides, so back off.
Posting that you have seen something factual, in an ongoing discussion, would normally mean you would expect to be asked to substantiate your claims. It's in the tenets or something.
You have a specific rule that invokes a general rule (invisibility) conflicting with another specific rule (Wall of Death). Frankly I see logic on both sides but I also see a lot of rejection of alternate ideas here.
This has hardly been a discussion or a debate but instead the WWI trench lines on the Western Front.
Manchu wrote: If you're not here to discuss RAW then you are not posting in the relevant forum, i.e., you are probably breaking Rule Number Two. YMDC is for discussing RAW, not for lecturing us about why discussing RAW is not fun (for you). Thanks.
And with that, this is my last attempt to prove my point. I have refined my premises to be more clear and include proper citation.
1) If a unit it charged, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch and the shots must be snap shots. (BRBpg 45 - Overwatch)
P->Q
2) If a unit is declaring Overwatch, then template weapons may be fired. (BRBpg 173 - Wall of Death)
Q->S
3) If a unit is charged, then the charged unit gets to fire with template weapons. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
P->S
4) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare overwatch and the shots must be snap shots. (New assumption, previously agreed to be true)
R->Q
5) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
R->S
Premises 1 thru 4 are agreed to be true. Premises 1 and 4 have the same Q. Therefore, because premise 2 is true, premise 5 must be true because of Hypothetical Syllogism. If someone can find fault with this Logic I'd love to know.
rigeld2 wrote: Seriously - what evidence is there allowing Wall of Death to fire at a unit that requires you use Snap Shots? There isn't any actual evidence in this thread (unless I've somehow missed it) just people inaccurately quoting rules or making things up.
And the game is fun. I find rules discussions - including this one - also fun. Remember that just because I argue a certain way doesn't mean I play that way.
Not even gonna get dragged into this okay? So don't bother. I'm just saying I've seen points that make sense on both sides, so back off.
Then don't reply?
If you state something as fact ("but i've seen a lot of evidence both for and against WOD on Invisible units") you should expect to be asked about it.
Since you've opted not to support your statement by pointing out any evidence how do you expect me to take your statement?
And I don't need to "back off" because I wasn't specifically addressing you nor calling you out. All I did was ask for evidence. You said it exists, so did the other poster - I've yet to see any.
This is what I've seen for evidence. It makes the most sense, but still falls in line with RAI.
Manchu wrote: If you're not here to discuss RAW then you are not posting in the relevant forum, i.e., you are probably breaking Rule Number Two. YMDC is for discussing RAW, not for lecturing us about why discussing RAW is not fun (for you). Thanks.
And with that, this is my last attempt to prove my point. I have refined my premises to be more clear and include proper citation.
1) If a unit it charged, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch and the shots must be snap shots. (BRBpg 45 - Overwatch)
P->Q
2) If a unit is declaring Overwatch, then template weapons may be fired. (BRBpg 173 - Wall of Death)
Q->S
3) If a unit is charged, then the charged unit gets to fire with template weapons. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
P->S
4) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare overwatch and the shots must be snap shots. (New assumption, previously agreed to be true)
R->Q
5) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
R->S
Premises 1 thru 4 are agreed to be true. Premises 1 and 4 have the same Q. Therefore, because premise 2 is true, premise 5 must be true because of Hypothetical Syllogism. If someone can find fault with this Logic I'd love to know.
Mulletdude wrote: 1) If a unit it charged, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch and the shots must be snap shots. (BRBpg 45 - Overwatch)
P->Q
2) If a unit is declaring Overwatch, then template weapons may be fired. (BRBpg 173 - Wall of Death)
Q->S
3) If a unit is charged, then the charged unit gets to fire with template weapons. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
P->S
4) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare overwatch and the shots must be snap shots. (New assumption, previously agreed to be true)
R->Q
5) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
R->S
Premises 1 thru 4 are agreed to be true. Premises 1 and 4 have the same Q. Therefore, because premise 2 is true, premise 5 must be true because of Hypothetical Syllogism. If someone can find fault with this Logic I'd love to know.
Your premise 2 is still missing the caveat that Overwatch with template weapons is allowed as a specific exception to the normal requirement to be able to Snap Fire.
Which renders your '5' incorrect, because the template weapon doesn't fire snap shots.
Or, more precisely, your '5' becomes "If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch, but will be unable to fire Wall of Death shots as they are not Snap Shots."
AnFéasógMór wrote: You're absolutely right, but it's pointless to try to stop the bickering. Unfortunately, there is a certain class of player, who don't understand the rules of good debate, who rely one accusing their opponents their opponents of logical fallacies (generally the same logical fallacies they themselves are fall prey to), ad hominem attacks (often, as seen above, while using ad hominem attacks themselves), and an unshakable belief in the superiority of their own interpretations (often making assertions while refusing any burden of proof, yet expecting the other side to fulfil said burden) to win arguments (or rather, to grind everyone's patience down to the point that they stop arguing). These kinds of players are incapable of having an intelligent debate, because they do not know how to assume good faith, they cannot acknowledge, and therefore debate, the merits of different viewpoints, and their only goal is to "win" the argument (not surprisingly, these are the same types of players nobody wants to play with, because of the same type of attitude). And unfortunately, those are the types of players carrying this thread (and the majority of threads in YMDC).
So yeah, it's about time for this thread to end. But I don't think that's gonna happen without the mods just closing it.
And seriously people, it's a game. It's supposed to be fun, not...this
You seem to be reading a completely different thread, because this one has been fairly civil so far, aside from the two posts from you slinging off at people for wanting to discuss the rules.
The point of a rules discussion isn't to 'win' it. The point of a rules discussion is to discuss the rules, so that people can see the various interpretations of those rules that are available, and from there make up their minds as to how they will choose to play it.
If that's not something you're interested in doing, then perhaps a rules discussion board is not the place for you.
Mulletdude wrote: 1) If a unit it charged, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch and the shots must be snap shots. (BRBpg 45 - Overwatch)
P->Q
2) If a unit is declaring Overwatch, then template weapons may be fired. (BRBpg 173 - Wall of Death)
Q->S
3) If a unit is charged, then the charged unit gets to fire with template weapons. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
P->S
4) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare overwatch and the shots must be snap shots. (New assumption, previously agreed to be true)
R->Q
5) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
R->S
Premises 1 thru 4 are agreed to be true. Premises 1 and 4 have the same Q. Therefore, because premise 2 is true, premise 5 must be true because of Hypothetical Syllogism. If someone can find fault with this Logic I'd love to know.
Your premise 2 is still missing the caveat that Overwatch with template weapons is allowed as a specific exception to the normal requirement to be able to Snap Fire.
Which renders your '5' incorrect, because the template weapon doesn't fire snap shots.
Or, more precisely, your '5' becomes "If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch, but will be unable to fire Wall of Death shots as they are not Snap Shots."
I'm sorry, I think I'm just blind at this point, but how does adding that caveat make 5 incorrect?
Mulletdude wrote: 1) If a unit it charged, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch and the shots must be snap shots. (BRBpg 45 - Overwatch)
P->Q
2) If a unit is declaring Overwatch, then template weapons may be fired. (BRBpg 173 - Wall of Death)
Q->S
3) If a unit is charged, then the charged unit gets to fire with template weapons. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
P->S
4) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare overwatch and the shots must be snap shots. (New assumption, previously agreed to be true)
R->Q
5) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
R->S
Premises 1 thru 4 are agreed to be true. Premises 1 and 4 have the same Q. Therefore, because premise 2 is true, premise 5 must be true because of Hypothetical Syllogism. If someone can find fault with this Logic I'd love to know.
Your premise 2 is still missing the caveat that Overwatch with template weapons is allowed as a specific exception to the normal requirement to be able to Snap Fire.
Which renders your '5' incorrect, because the template weapon doesn't fire snap shots.
Or, more precisely, your '5' becomes "If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch, but will be unable to fire Wall of Death shots as they are not Snap Shots."
According to that statement, if premise 5 is incorrect then premise 3 is incorrect, as they both draw off the same premise 2. This means you are saying that units can never fire overwatch with template weapons under any circumstances, invisible or not.
If I change premise 2 to read as follows:
2) If a unit is declaring Overwatch, then template weapons may be fired because the normal requirement to snap fire is ignored.
then premise 3 reads:
3) If a unit is charged, then the charged unit gets to fire with template weapons because the normal requirement to snap fire is ignored.
which also means premise 5 reads:
5) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons because the normal requirement to snap fire is ignored.
I have incorporated the caveat you have said I missed. My logic still holds that Wall of Death works regardless if the unit is invisible or not.
Only if you are counting Invisibility as the normal requirement which it is not. You have two restrictions with permission to ignore one. That does not mean you ignore the other.
Gravmyr wrote: Only if you are counting Invisibility as the normal requirement which it is not. You have two restrictions with permission to ignore one. That does not mean you ignore the other.
The restrictions, however, are the exact same. When overwatching a unit, the shots fired are snap shots. When overwatching an invisible unit, the shots fired are snap shots. If I ignore the snap shot requirement for the non-invisible unit, then I ignore the snap shot requirement of the invisible unit (for overwatch only)
Now that I'm not typing on my phone and have a rule book open in front of me I think I'm making better sense of this mess. So here's what I see in this mess and people can tell me I'm wrong after I lay it out:
1. Snap Shots is a general rule that says templates and blasts can not be fired. (pg. 33)
2. Wall of Death is a specific rule that overrides Snap Shots during overwatch. ("Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they can not fire Snap Shots...") (pg 173)
3. Invisibility is a specific rule that says all shots from enemy units fired at it can be snap shots (which is a general rule).
4. When firing Overwatch you also can only fire Snap Shots, something that is specifically negated by Wall of Death if firing a Template Weapon.
So by what I am looking at Invisibilty forces everyone to BS1 as per the snap shot rule during the assault phase (something that Overwatch does as well), but during when using Overwatch Wall of Death specifically overrules the firing restriction.
I'd argue based on this that the specific rule invoking the general one does not negate the specific rule that says negates the snap shot restriction on template weapons.
According to that statement, if premise 5 is incorrect then premise 3 is incorrect, as they both draw off the same premise 2.
And where Invisible units are concerned, that is indeed the case. Because premise 3 doesn't take into account units that can only be fired at with snap shots.
If I change premise 2 to read as follows:
2) If a unit is declaring Overwatch, then template weapons may be fired because the normal requirement to snap fire is ignored.
then premise 3 reads:
3) If a unit is charged, then the charged unit gets to fire with template weapons because the normal requirement to snap fire is ignored.
which also means premise 5 reads:
5) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons because the normal requirement to snap fire is ignored.
I have incorporated the caveat you have said I missed. My logic still holds that Wall of Death works regardless if the unit is invisible or not.
Nope. Your 5 still ignores the fact that invisible units can only be fired at with Snap Shots.
An allowance to ignore the snap fire requirement for Overwatch is not an allowance to ignore the snap fire requirement for Invisibility, because Overwatch and Invisibility are two completely separate rules.
You're falling into the same logic hole that used to have people arguing that Fleet units could assault after Deep Striking, because they could run, and Fleet allowed assaulting after running... The removal of one restriction has no impact on a completely separate restriction, even if those two restrictions are on the same action.
According to that statement, if premise 5 is incorrect then premise 3 is incorrect, as they both draw off the same premise 2.
And where Invisible units are concerned, that is indeed the case. Because premise 3 doesn't take into account units that can only be fired at with snap shots.
If I change premise 2 to read as follows: 2) If a unit is declaring Overwatch, then template weapons may be fired because the normal requirement to snap fire is ignored. then premise 3 reads: 3) If a unit is charged, then the charged unit gets to fire with template weapons because the normal requirement to snap fire is ignored. which also means premise 5 reads: 5) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons because the normal requirement to snap fire is ignored.
I have incorporated the caveat you have said I missed. My logic still holds that Wall of Death works regardless if the unit is invisible or not.
Nope. Your 5 still ignores the fact that invisible units can only be fired at with Snap Shots.
An allowance to ignore the snap fire requirement for Overwatch is not an allowance to ignore the snap fire requirement for Invisibility, because Overwatch and Invisibility are two completely separate rules.
You're falling into the same logic hole that used to have people arguing that Fleet units could assault after Deep Striking, because they could run, and Fleet allowed assaulting after running... The removal of one restriction has no impact on a completely separate restriction, even if those two restrictions are on the same action.
They both are the same restriction though. The firing restrictions for overwatch are the exact same as the firing restrictions for invisibility. The restrictions for fleet and reserves are completely different. One is a permission saying you can do X after Y (fleet). Reserves says you cannot X after Z. [sidebar: Wow that brings back the 5th ed memories xD. Although, afaik, this combination of rules has never been possible. 5th allowed for fleet charges and reserve charges, but 6th disallowed both]
Reading through this as a non-participant, it seems pretty well argued, and makes overall sense, that WoD bypasses invisibility.
Specific > general
The specific wording of invisibility references to a general rule (snap shots)
WoD specifically rules that it bypasses a specific rule referenced by invisibility (snap shooting, rolling to hit)
Therefore, it seems to me as an impartial observer, WoD works on invisible guys.
It doesn't matter that they are the same. That is not how restrictions work in a permissive ruleset.
It is the same as assault transports and reserves though. Even though assault overrides the transport rule of no charging it does not override the reserves restriction stating no assaulting.
Gravmyr wrote: It doesn't matter that they are the same. That is not how restrictions work in a permissive ruleset.
It is the same as assault transports and reserves though. Even though assault overrides the transport rule of no charging it does not override the reserves restriction stating no assaulting.
It's not that they are the same, but that they both invoke the same general rule: "Snap Shots". And because Wall of Death overrides that rule during Overwatch I stand by that it works regardless of why your firing snap shots during Overwatch.
According to Invisibility, enemy units that target the invisible unit may only fire snapshots and can only hit the unit on 6s in close combat.
This causes problems for Nova, Beam, No escape, Hammer of Wrath, Wall of Death, and any other shooting or close combat ability which hits automatically. Because if it hits automatically it can't snapshot or roll a 6 to hit in close combat.
Basically, if it must fire snapshots or roll 6s in close combat to hit an invisible unit, the invisible unit becomes invulnerable to everything that hits automatically.
If, however, the rules that cause automatic hits do so without the need to fire snapshots or roll 6s in close combat (as implied by the phrase 'automatically inflict D3 hits') then there is no problem, unless you claim that "can only fire snapshots or hit on 6s" applies even to special abilities which state that they automatically inflict hits.
They both are the same restriction though. The firing restrictions for overwatch are the exact same as the firing restrictions for invisibility.
But they come from different sources.
Try this:
The general rules for my office say 'You're not allowed to have cookies!'
My wife says 'You're not allowed to have cookies!'
My boss says 'Today, staff can have cookies'.
If I eat a cookie, am I breaking a rule?
Quite clearly I am. The fact that the two rules are the same is irrelevant... they're being imposed by two different sources. In order to remove both restrictions, a rule has to specifically address both sources, not just one of them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: It's not that they are the same, but that they both invoke the same general rule: "Snap Shots". And because Wall of Death overrides that rule during Overwatch I stand by that it works regardless of why your firing snap shots during Overwatch.
Wall of Death isn't just a blanket 'you don't have to fire Snap Shots, ever!' rule, though. It allows a weapon that can't fire snap shots to fire Overwatch anyway. ie: it's removing the Snap Shot requirement for that specific situation.
That has no effect whatsoever on any other rule that requires you to fire Snap Shots. It just removes the requirement to be able to Snap Shot to fire Overwatch.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NightHowler wrote: According to Invisibility, enemy units that target the invisible unit may only fire snapshots and can only hit the unit on 6s in close combat.
This causes problems for Nova, Beam, No escape, Hammer of Wrath, Wall of Death, and any other shooting or close combat ability which hits automatically.
At least a couple of the things on that list do not target the invisible unit, as has already been pointed out.
They both are the same restriction though. The firing restrictions for overwatch are the exact same as the firing restrictions for invisibility.
But they come from different sources.
Try this:
The general rules for my office say 'You're not allowed to have cookies!'
My wife says 'You're not allowed to have cookies!'
My boss says 'Today, staff can have cookies'.
If I eat a cookie, am I breaking a rule?
Quite clearly I am. The fact that the two rules are the same is irrelevant... they're being imposed by two different sources. In order to remove both restrictions, a rule has to specifically address both sources, not just one of them.
Your arguement breaks down that they come from different sources (like a codex and a rulebook) while both of these rules come from one source (the rulebook).
Both rules invoke the snap shot rule, snap shots during Overwatch is overruled by Wall of Death. There is no differentation between one kind of Snap Shots and another anywhere in the book, all Snap Shots are still snap shots. The only difference here is that in a very specific circumstance you have an override for that general rule.
They both are the same restriction though. The firing restrictions for overwatch are the exact same as the firing restrictions for invisibility.
But they come from different sources.
Try this:
The general rules for my office say 'You're not allowed to have cookies!'
My wife says 'You're not allowed to have cookies!'
My boss says 'Today, staff can have cookies'.
If I eat a cookie, am I breaking a rule?
Quite clearly I am. The fact that the two rules are the same is irrelevant... they're being imposed by two different sources. In order to remove both restrictions, a rule has to specifically address both sources, not just one of them.
That is a fair counter to my previous statement. Yes of course you're breaking a rule in your setup. Your setup is not the same as mine, however.
If I'm targeting an invisibile unit with a shooting attack, it must be resolved as a snap shot
If I'm declaring overwatch against an invisible unit, I'm declaring the invisible unit as the target of a shooting attack.
Therefore, if I'm declaring overwatch against an invisible unit, it must be resolved as a snap shot.
A template weapon cannot be fired as a snap shot.
Wall of death allows me to make a special shooting attack that causes d3 hits instead of making a snap shot in overwatch.
therefore, if I'm declaring overwatch against an invisible unit, Wall of Death allows me to make a special shooting attack that causes d3 hits instead of making a snap shot in overwatch.
I have satisfied the condition of only firing snap shots in overwatch because the wall of death rule gives explicit permission to fire a non-snap shot.
It's not that they are the same, but that they both invoke the same general rule: "Snap Shots". And because Wall of Death overrides that rule during Overwatch I stand by that it works regardless of why your firing snap shots during Overwatch.
I assume then you allow units to charge out of assault transports after they come out of reserve?
ClockworkZion wrote: Your arguement breaks down that they come from different sources (like a codex and a rulebook) while both of these rules come from one source (the rulebook).
Coming from the same book is irrelevant. The restriction is imposed by two different rules. That's what I meant by 'different sources'. Whether those two rules are in the same book or not makes no difference.
Both rules invoke the snap shot rule, snap shots during Overwatch is overruled by Wall of Death.
But Snap Shots to fire at an invisible unit is not.
You have two separate rules:
You can only fire Snap Shots in Overwatch
You can only fire Snap Shots at Invisible units.
Wall of death allows templates to Overwatch despite not being able to fire Snap Shots... it doesn't make their shots count as Snap Shots. So the weapon you are trying to fire at an Invisible unit, despite being allowed to fire Overwatch, can still not fire Snap Shots... and so can not fire at an Invisible unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mulletdude wrote: Wall of death allows me to make a special shooting attack that causes d3 hits instead of making a snap shot in overwatch.
You're not doing it instead... you're doing it despite not being able to Snap Fire.
...the wall of death rule gives explicit permission to fire a non-snap shot.
Right. So the attack you are making against that invisible unit is not a snap shot. Which breaks the Invisibility rule, as that requires the attack to be a Snap Shot.
Its a simple matter of the more specific rule overriding other rules.
In this case we A) The rules for firing overwatch, B) The rules for wall of death, and C) The rules for firing at invisible units.
The rules for firing at the invisible unit is the most specific here.
The question is not can the unit fire overwatch, or can the unit fire overwatch using flamers. The question is can the unit fire overwatch using flamers targeting an invisible unit..
NightHowler wrote: According to Invisibility, enemy units that target the invisible unit may only fire snapshots and can only hit the unit on 6s in close combat.
This causes problems for Nova, Beam, No escape, Hammer of Wrath, Wall of Death, and any other shooting or close combat ability which hits automatically.
At least a couple of the things on that list do not target the invisible unit, as has already been pointed out.
Can we go through them and discuss how each would be resolved?
Nova: (this one directly targets everything in range)
A nova power automatically targets and hits all enemy units within the psychic power's maximum range
Beam: (this one targets the unit indirectly)
To use a whitchfire power with the beam sub-type, target a point within the power's range and trace a line between the chosen point and the center of the psyker's base. All units under the line are hit. Each unit hit by the attack takes a number of hits equal to the number of models from that unit that are under the line.
No Escape: (this one targets the unit indirectly)
If a template weapon hits a building's fire point or an open-topped vehicle and there is a unit embarked inside that building or vehicle, then in addition to any other effects that unit suffers D6 hits, resolved at the Strenght and AP of the weapon.
Wall of Death: (this one could be argued to target the charging unit)
If a template weapon fires overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved at its normal Strength and AP value.
Hammer of Wrath: (this one is a close combat attack, but invisibility says all close combat attacks must roll 6 to hit - not sure how targeting or not plays in)
If a model with this special rule ends its charge move in base or hull contact with an enemy model, it makes one additional attack that hits automatically and is resolved at the model's unmodified Strength with AP -.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DJGietzen wrote: Its a simple matter of the more specific rule overriding other rules.
In this case we A) The rules for firing overwatch, B) The rules for wall of death, and C) The rules for firing at invisible units.
The rules for firing at the invisible unit is the most specific here.
The question is not can the unit fire overwatch, or can the unit fire overwatch using flamers. The question is can the unit fire overwatch using flamers targeting an invisible unit..
I'm curious how you concluded that invisibility is more specific than wall of death...
Invisibility is a psychic power that forces other units to follow a general rule (snapshots)
Wall of death is a special ability under templates in the special rules section of the rulebook. It certainly seems more specific than snapshots to me, but then others may disagree.
insaniak wrote: Beams and No Escape don't target units. And Hammer of Wrath is not a shooting attack, so is not really relevant to the discussion.
Hammer of wrath is very relevant. It is part of the same game mechanic being discussed, mainly whether or not invisibility's ability to force enemy units to fire snapshots or hit on 6s overrides other abilities which cause hits automatically (without rolling snapshots or 6s in close combat).
Additionally, I'm curious how you feel about nova. Does it affect invisible units?
It's not that they are the same, but that they both invoke the same general rule: "Snap Shots". And because Wall of Death overrides that rule during Overwatch I stand by that it works regardless of why your firing snap shots during Overwatch.
I assume then you allow units to charge out of assault transports after they come out of reserve?
Does assaulting out of an assault transport specifically override the restriction for not being allowe to assault from reserves?
NightHowler wrote: Additionally, I'm curious how you feel about nova. Does it affect invisible units?
Novas target every unit in their AOE, which is a problem. Strict RAW as far as I can see would be that you can't use a Nova if an Invisible unit is in the AOE. More practical would be to just exclude the Invisible unit from its effects, although it seems more reasonable (and realistic) to allow Novas to hit them regardless of the RAW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: Does assaulting out of an assault transport specifically override the restriction for not being allowe to assault from reserves?
Yeah, your example doesn't work.
Does Wall of Death specifically over-ride the requirement to only fire Snap Shots at Invisible units?
It's not that they are the same, but that they both invoke the same general rule: "Snap Shots". And because Wall of Death overrides that rule during Overwatch I stand by that it works regardless of why your firing snap shots during Overwatch.
I assume then you allow units to charge out of assault transports after they come out of reserve?
. That's hardly a fair comparison. The rules for assault vehicles specifically state "unless the unit arrived from reserve that turn". The rules for WoD do not specifically state, "unless the unit is invisible".
insaniak wrote:Beams and No Escape don't target units. And Hammer of Wrath is not a shooting attack, so is not really relevant to the discussion.
Hammer of Wrath is absolutely relevant, and he's as laid out several times his reasoning for believing it to be so, and asked you for your opinion on the difference between the two.
Per your logic, WoD cannot be used in Overwatch against an invisible unit, because Invisibility requires weapons to be fired as a Snap Shot, and WoD does not grant permission to fire as a Snap Shot, and so even though WoD auto-hits, the attack must be able to snap shoot in order for it to hit. It can't, so WoD doesn't work. I don't agree with that interpretation, but that is the one being used for this example.
Invisibility also requires a roll of 6 for models to hit and invisible unit in close combat.
By your logic, even though HoW also auto-hits, it cannot be used, because in order for it to hit the invisible unit, it must be able to roll a 6, and Hammer of Wrath does not create a permission for the unit to roll a die.
Under your interpretation, the two rules face a similar problem, and it is relevant to the discussion.
Dismissing an opinion is not the same as refuting it. If HoW is not relevant, then, please, enlighten us as to why.
NightHowler wrote: Additionally, I'm curious how you feel about nova. Does it affect invisible units?
Novas target every unit in their AOE, which is a problem. Strict RAW as far as I can see would be that you can't use a Nova if an Invisible unit is in the AOE. More practical would be to just exclude the Invisible unit from its effects, although it seems more reasonable (and realistic) to allow Novas to hit them regardless of the RAW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: Does assaulting out of an assault transport specifically override the restriction for not being allowe to assault from reserves?
Yeah, your example doesn't work.
Does Wall of Death specifically over-ride the requirement to only fire Snap Shots at Invisible units?
During the assault phase it overrules the Snap Shot rule which is the only applicable part since Invisible just effectively says "see Snap Shots".
Where does Invisibility specifically overrule the ability to use Wall of Death?
AnFéasógMór wrote: By your logic, even though HoW also auto-hits, it cannot be used, because in order for it to hit the invisible unit, it must be able to roll a 6, and Hammer of Wrath does not create a permission for the unit to roll a die.
That appears to be the case, yes.
As with not being able to use Novas, and the fuzziness around Beams, it's probably not the intention.
I'm still not sure how that changes the argument about WOD, though.
AnFéasógMór wrote: That's hardly a fair comparison. The rules for assault vehicles specifically state "unless the unit arrived from reserve that turn". The rules for WoD do not specifically state, "unless the unit is invisible"
Now it does but it didn't in 6th. They faqed it to say exactly what we are saying here. You need a specific pass to ignore a restriction. Let me rephrase if it makes it easier.
In 6th, assault vehicle did not have the unless the unit arrived from reserve that turn. Did you allow it, at the time, to overrride the reserve restriction?
AnFéasógMór wrote: That's hardly a fair comparison. The rules for assault vehicles specifically state "unless the unit arrived from reserve that turn". The rules for WoD do not specifically state, "unless the unit is invisible"
Now it does but it didn't in 6th. They faqed it to say exactly what we are saying here. You need a specific pass to ignore a restriction. Let me rephrase if it makes it easier.
In 6th, assault vehicle did not have the unless the unit arrived from reserve that turn. Did you allow it, at the time, to overrride the reserve restriction?
This isn't a discussion of 6th edition rules, but of 7th. Old rules are irrelevant in this discussion.
ClockworkZion wrote: During the assault phase it overrules the Snap Shot rule ...
...for firing Overwatch.
Again, it doesn't say 'Template weapon shots count as Snap Shots'... it simply allows them to fire in Overwatch, even though they aren't able to fire Snap Shots.
So the end result is an Overwatch attack that is not comprised of Snap Shots.
And what sort of shots are required in order to fire at an Invisible unit?
Where does Invisibility specifically overrule the ability to use Wall of Death?
It doesn't. Because it doesn't need to.
Wall of Death allows the unit to fire Overwatch. Within that unit, any weapons that can not fire Snap Shots will be unable to target Invisible enemy units, because Invisible units can only be targeted with Snap Shots.
That's what this keeps coming back to. WOD allows you to fire the templates despite them not being able to Snap Fire... but it doesn't make them count as Snap Shots. The attack from WOD is not comprised of Snap Shots, and so can not be used against an Invisible unit.
I'm curious how you concluded that invisibility is more specific than wall of death...
Invisibility is a psychic power that forces other units to follow a general rule (snapshots)
Wall of death is a special ability under templates in the special rules section of the rulebook. It certainly seems more specific than snapshots to me, but then others may disagree.
Invisibility is a psychic power that forces other units to follow a general rule (snapshots) specifically when firing at the blessed unit. The rules for firing firing over watch with a template weapon are less specific because they apply to EVERY unit the firing unit might target, but the invisibility rules apply to targeting a SINGLE unit.
AnFéasógMór wrote: By your logic, even though HoW also auto-hits, it cannot be used, because in order for it to hit the invisible unit, it must be able to roll a 6, and Hammer of Wrath does not create a permission for the unit to roll a die.
That appears to be the case, yes.
As with not being able to use Novas, and the fuzziness around Beams, it's probably not the intention.
I'm still not sure how that changes the argument about WOD, though.
Because of the last part of that second sentence. "It's probably not the intention". That is the entire point I've been trying to make. These rules are fuzzy. They are not as cut and dried as people seem to think. They create situtations and contradictions that are absolutely nonsensical. So why is Clockwork's interpretatiom any less valid than yours?
I highly doubt that it was GWs intention to forbid WoD against invisible units. Invisible or not, they're still running into a giant inferno. It would actually make more sense for HoW not to work (unless the troops just stumbled into the invisible unit so hard it hurt), but most people agree HoW works against invisibility (in fact it's a common competative counter to invisibility).
I get that YMDC is geared towards RAW debates, but there reaches a point that the RAW creates situations so nonsensical that you have to look at intent of the rule.
Gravmyr wrote:
AnFéasógMór wrote: That's hardly a fair comparison. The rules for assault vehicles specifically state "unless the unit arrived from reserve that turn". The rules for WoD do not specifically state, "unless the unit is invisible"
Now it does but it didn't in 6th. They faqed it to say exactly what we are saying here. You need a specific pass to ignore a restriction. Let me rephrase if it makes it easier.
In 6th, assault vehicle did not have the unless the unit arrived from reserve that turn. Did you allow it, at the time, to overrride the reserve restriction?
My apologies, I never played 6th, I was just going by the information I had available.
ClockworkZion wrote: During the assault phase it overrules the Snap Shot rule ...
...for firing Overwatch.
Again, it doesn't say 'Template weapon shots count as Snap Shots'... it simply allows them to fire in Overwatch, even though they aren't able to fire Snap Shots.
So the end result is an Overwatch attack that is not comprised of Snap Shots.
And what sort of shots are required in order to fire at an Invisible unit?
You just quoted that during Overwatch they're allowed to fire despite not being allowed to fire Snap Shots, so where is the contradiction between rules? There is no restriction on what caused the Snap Shots, just that during Overwatch you ignore the usual restriction.
Wall of Death isn't even supposed to represent a direct attack, it represents a literal wall of fire the opposing unit has to charge through. That's why it is allowed even when you can't normally snap fire.
Where does Invisibility specifically overrule the ability to use Wall of Death?
It doesn't. Because it doesn't need to.
Wall of Death allows the unit to fire Overwatch. Within that unit, any weapons that can not fire Snap Shots will be unable to target Invisible enemy units, because Invisible units can only be targeted with Snap Shots.
That's what this keeps coming back to. WOD allows you to fire the templates despite them not being able to Snap Fire... but it doesn't make them count as Snap Shots. The attack from WOD is not comprised of Snap Shots, and so can not be used against an Invisible unit.
There is only one kind of shooting attack during the Assault Phase: Overwatch. It doesn't matter if you're shooting at something that's invisible or not, it's still Overwatch. Unless Invisibility changes what that shooting attack is called it does not deny Wall of Death because it's permitted as part of the Overwatch shooting attack.
Which tells me that you either see that there is a comparison or that you thought it should have been allowed and then were flat out informed you were incorrect via FAQ.
Because of the last part of that second sentence. "It's probably not the intention". That is the entire point I've been trying to make. These rules are fuzzy. They are not as cut and dried as people seem to think. They create situtations and contradictions that are absolutely nonsensical. So why is Clockwork's interpretatiom any less valid than yours?
Because the discussion is on the actual rules.
I've pointed out several times in this thread so far that I suspect that autohits should be allowed, but just aren't as the rules currently stand.
Suggesting that it be allowed is perfectly acceptable as a house rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: You just quoted that during Overwatch they're allowed to fire despite not being allowed to fire Snap Shots, so where is the contradiction between rules?
There is no contradiction.
WOD allows you to make Overwatch shots that are not Snap Shots. Invisibility doesn't care what WOD allows you to do... it requires you to fire Snap Shots.
There is only one kind of shooting attack during the Assault Phase: Overwatch.
Sure. And in general, that Overwatch shooting is comprised of Snap Shots.
If something allows you to fire Overwatch without those shots being Snap Shots, then the Overwatch shooting is (in that specific case) not comprised of Snap Shots.
So if something can only be fired upon with Snap Shots, you can normally fire Overwatch against them, but would be unable to do si in that situation where your Overwatch is not comprised of Snap Shots.
Because of the last part of that second sentence. "It's probably not the intention". That is the entire point I've been trying to make. These rules are fuzzy. They are not as cut and dried as people seem to think. They create situtations and contradictions that are absolutely nonsensical. So why is Clockwork's interpretatiom any less valid than yours?
Because the discussion is on the actual rules.
I've pointed out several times in this thread so far that I suspect that autohits should be allowed, but just aren't as the rules currently stand.
Suggesting that it be allowed is perfectly acceptable as a house rule.
The actual rules that say during an Overwatch that Wall of Death overrules the Snap Shot rule specifically.
Also Hammer of Wrath is a Close Combat attack at I10 that auto-hits and doesn't follow the rules for shooting and thus is not affected by snap shots.
Also Hammer of Wrath is a Close Combat attack at I10 that auto-hits and doesn't follow the rules for shooting and thus is not affected by snap shots.
...ok?
Was someone saying HoWwas affected by Snap Shots?
I was pointing out why it doesn't really properly factor into this discussion. Yes, it auto-hits, but it's not bound to the restrictions Snap Shots are.
ClockworkZion wrote: Where do the rules say that two occurances of the same rule happen at the same time are treated as seperate entities?
If they're caused by two separate things, why would they not be?
But that's still ultimately not the actual issue here. The actual problem is simple:
If you fire an Overwatch shot that isn't a Snap Shot, are you firing a Snap Shot?
Also Wall of Death doesn't say override Snap Shots caused by the Overwatch rule, it flat out ignores ALL instances of Snap Shot when firing Overwatch.
No, it doesn't. It allows you to fire Overwatch even though template weapons can't fire Snap Shots.
That's it. There is no blanket removal of the Snap Shot rule in the Wall of Death rule. Just a specific allowance to fire a template weapon at a specific time when you would normally only be able to fire Snap Shots.
SO, again, if you fire an Overwatch shot that isn't a Snap Shot, are you firing a Snap Shot?
Also Wall of Death doesn't say override Snap Shots caused by the Overwatch rule, it flat out ignores ALL instances of Snap Shot when firing Overwatch.
BRB Wall of Death wrote:Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots.
I'm not sure what you are reading to get to the conclusion that you ignore all instances of Snap Shots when firing Overwatch, when it states that they can fire Overwatch even though they can't fire Snap Shots.
ClockworkZion wrote: Where do the rules say that two occurances of the same rule happen at the same time are treated as seperate entities?
If they're caused by two separate things, why would they not be?
Because regardless of source it's still referring to the same exact rule. It's not creating 2 separate rules with similar but different effects but instead pointing at the same rule and saying "do this" while WoD say "I overrule that if you're shooting Overwatch".
insaniak wrote: But that's still ultimately not the actual issue here. The actual problem is simple:
If you fire an Overwatch shot that isn't a Snap Shot, are you firing a Snap Shot?
WoD doesn't care about your snap shots because it ignores them. Show me something in Invisibility that says that Snap Shots can't be overruled and you'd have me convinced, but there isn't anything. All it says is to use the general rule which is overruled by a specific rule when being shot at during Overwatch (itself being a Specific Rule that allows you to shoot during your opponent's assault phase while referring to the Snap Shots rule on how to resolve the shooting attack).
Also Wall of Death doesn't say override Snap Shots caused by the Overwatch rule, it flat out ignores ALL instances of Snap Shot when firing Overwatch.
No, it doesn't. It allows you to fire Overwatch even though template weapons can't fire Snap Shots.
That's it. There is no blanket removal of the Snap Shot rule in the Wall of Death rule. Just a specific allowance to fire a template weapon at a specific time when you would normally only be able to fire Snap Shots.
SO, again, if you fire an Overwatch shot that isn't a Snap Shot, are you firing a Snap Shot?
Where does WoD differentiate where the Snap Shot rule comes from during Overwatch? Where does the override get limited?
You're not providing and evidence that the rules actually treat the snap shot rule different just because it is referenced from different rules, nor are you providing evidence that there is anything that says the override provided by WoD. You're making assertions but have yet to give me specifics that actually support those assertions.
We already have a situation with Overwatch and WoD where Overwatch says "you snap shot" and WoD tells Overwatch to get stuff and says "I auto-hit instead" (which itself is a Overwatch Snap Shot that isn't a Snap Shot) so how does Invisibility change that despite telling you to do the same thing?
ClockworkZion wrote: WoD doesn't care about your snap shots because it ignores them.
Yes, Wall of Death does. Which means that the Overwatch shot that you fire is not a Snap Shot.
How are you getting from there to an allowance to fire something other than a Snap Shot at an Invisible unit?
Show me something in Invisibility that says that Snap Shots can't be overruled and you'd have me convinced, but there isn't anything.
I'm not saying that Snap Shots can't be over-ruled. I'm saying that they're not over-ruled.
Because they're not.
Where does WoD differentiate where the Snap Shot rule comes from during Overwatch? Where does the override get limited?
I'm not sure what you're asking here.
You're not providing and evidence that the rules actually treat the snap shot rule different just because it is referenced from different rules, nor are you providing evidence that there is anything that says the override provided by WoD.
That's because I'm not claiming that the rules treat the snap shot rule differently dependong on where it referenced, and I'm probably not claiming whatever it is you said in the second half of that statement.
There is exacty one over-ride in play here: You can fire Overwatch (which normally has to be a Snap Shot) even though the weapon you are using can't fire Snap Shots.
You don't fire a Snap Shot. You fire an Overwatch shot that isn't a Snap Shot.
You don't throw the Snap Shot rule out the window... it simply doesn't apply to that Overwatch shot, because that Overwatch shot is not a Snap Shot.
So... Can you fire at an Invisible unit with something that isn't a Snap Shot?
An invisible unit charges a squad that has Forewarning(?) cast on it (or whatever the psychic power that allows overwatch at full BS is).
Dos the unit get to fire at full BS, or do they have to roll 6's to hit the invisible unit?
I'd say yes, fire at full BS.
When you're being charged, you are firing Overwatch, which in nature are by default Snap Shots. But Forewarning merely ignores the fact you'd normally fire at BS1. The shots are merely now full BS snapshots. Edit: Forewarning does not change the inherent nature of the shots being fired, the phase they are being fired in, or the trigger allowing these shots.
An invisible unit charges a squad that has Forewarning(?) cast on it (or whatever the psychic power that allows overwatch at full BS is).
Dos the unit get to fire at full BS, or do they have to roll 6's to hit the invisible unit?
I'd say yes, fire at full BS.
When you're being charged, you are firing Overwatch, which in nature are by default Snap Shots. But Forewarning merely ignores the fact you'd normally fire at BS1. The shots are merely now full BS snapshots. Edit: Forewarning does not change the inherent nature of the shots being fired, the phase they are being fired in, or the trigger allowing these shots.
I agree. All Snap Shots treated the same during Overwatch so anything that overrides Snap Shots during Overwatch would work unless GW says otherwise.
You just quoted that during Overwatch they're allowed to fire despite not being allowed to fire Snap Shots, so where is the contradiction between rules? There is no restriction on what caused the Snap Shots, just that during Overwatch you ignore the usual restriction.
Not true whatsoever.
When making an Overwatch attack a Template weapon is allowed to fire.
That doesn't mean it's firing a Snap Shot.
Invisibility requires you to fire a Snap Shot.
[
There is only one kind of shooting attack during the Assault Phase: Overwatch. It doesn't matter if you're shooting at something that's invisible or not, it's still Overwatch. Unless Invisibility changes what that shooting attack is called it does not deny Wall of Death because it's permitted as part of the Overwatch shooting attack.
You can fire Templates in an Overwatch attack all you want, but you cannot fire at an Invisible unit without a Snap Shot.
You have multiple restrictions and only one conflicting rule to override. Meaning there's still a restriction that must be followed.
You just quoted that during Overwatch they're allowed to fire despite not being allowed to fire Snap Shots, so where is the contradiction between rules? There is no restriction on what caused the Snap Shots, just that during Overwatch you ignore the usual restriction.
Not true whatsoever.
When making an Overwatch attack a Template weapon is allowed to fire.
That doesn't mean it's firing a Snap Shot.
Invisibility requires you to fire a Snap Shot.
[
There is only one kind of shooting attack during the Assault Phase: Overwatch. It doesn't matter if you're shooting at something that's invisible or not, it's still Overwatch. Unless Invisibility changes what that shooting attack is called it does not deny Wall of Death because it's permitted as part of the Overwatch shooting attack.
You can fire Templates in an Overwatch attack all you want, but you cannot fire at an Invisible unit without a Snap Shot.
You have multiple restrictions and only one conflicting rule to override. Meaning there's still a restriction that must be followed.
Please quote in the rules where having multiple restrictions means you must have multiple overrides.
Question: Unit that went to ground, gets up but can only fire snapshots. If they get charged by a unit, can they Overwatch with a Flamer? What if they have Forewarning on (the full BS power)?
You just quoted that during Overwatch they're allowed to fire despite not being allowed to fire Snap Shots, so where is the contradiction between rules? There is no restriction on what caused the Snap Shots, just that during Overwatch you ignore the usual restriction.
Not true whatsoever.
When making an Overwatch attack a Template weapon is allowed to fire.
That doesn't mean it's firing a Snap Shot.
Invisibility requires you to fire a Snap Shot.
[
There is only one kind of shooting attack during the Assault Phase: Overwatch. It doesn't matter if you're shooting at something that's invisible or not, it's still Overwatch. Unless Invisibility changes what that shooting attack is called it does not deny Wall of Death because it's permitted as part of the Overwatch shooting attack.
You can fire Templates in an Overwatch attack all you want, but you cannot fire at an Invisible unit without a Snap Shot.
You have multiple restrictions and only one conflicting rule to override. Meaning there's still a restriction that must be followed.
Please quote in the rules where having multiple restrictions means you must have multiple overrides.
Question: Unit that went to ground, gets up but can only fire snapshots. If they get charged by a unit, can they Overwatch with a Flamer? What if they have Forewarning on (the full BS power)?
The super common one is deep striking and disembarking. Units can't charge the turn they deep strike, and units can't charge the turn they disembark from a vehicle. Assault Vehicles allow disembarking and Assaulting. But if a Drop pod, raider, Stormwolf, ect ect come on from reserves and a unit disembarks can they assault? No, because they only have one permission to do so but two restrictions.
jreilly89 wrote: Question: Unit that went to ground, gets up but can only fire snapshots. If they get charged by a unit, can they Overwatch with a Flamer?
They can't fire Overwatch with anything, in that scenario, as the Go To Ground rules say no overwatch.
What if they have Forewarning on (the full BS power)?
Foreboding lets them fire Snap Shots at full BS. It doesn't change when Snap Shots are fired, or which shots are or are not Snap Shots.
And, again, this isn't actually an issue of multiple restrictions applying anyway.
The WOD rule simply doesn't interact with Invisibility at all.
You just quoted that during Overwatch they're allowed to fire despite not being allowed to fire Snap Shots, so where is the contradiction between rules? There is no restriction on what caused the Snap Shots, just that during Overwatch you ignore the usual restriction.
Not true whatsoever.
When making an Overwatch attack a Template weapon is allowed to fire.
That doesn't mean it's firing a Snap Shot.
Invisibility requires you to fire a Snap Shot.
[
There is only one kind of shooting attack during the Assault Phase: Overwatch. It doesn't matter if you're shooting at something that's invisible or not, it's still Overwatch. Unless Invisibility changes what that shooting attack is called it does not deny Wall of Death because it's permitted as part of the Overwatch shooting attack.
You can fire Templates in an Overwatch attack all you want, but you cannot fire at an Invisible unit without a Snap Shot.
You have multiple restrictions and only one conflicting rule to override. Meaning there's still a restriction that must be followed.
Please quote in the rules where having multiple restrictions means you must have multiple overrides.
Question: Unit that went to ground, gets up but can only fire snapshots. If they get charged by a unit, can they Overwatch with a Flamer? What if they have Forewarning on (the full BS power)?
No and no.
I'll provide that rules quote when you define - using the rulebook - the word "a".
I'm patient - I'll wait.
Not a relevant question. There's no restriction for CC attacks that auto hit in the Hammer of Wrath chain. There is in the Wall of Death chain. You continue to ignore that difference. [Snip] A Snap Shot is very much more than simply requiring a 6 to hit. The reason your argument fails is that you fail to apply all the rules.
nosferatu1001 wrote: [Snip] not relevant, as there is no clause preventing auto hits in cc. You realise there is one in snapshot, yes? You've quoted the rule so are surely aware there is a difference? [Snip] How is that similar to the clause disallowing automatic hits? Please reference the same clause in invis. Page and graph. 2nd time of asking. [Snip] Good job that isn't all of the snapshot restriction then! It's almost like yours arguing dishonestly by leaving out key parts of a rule. Don't.
Snapshot has more restrictions. Such as not being able to fire template weapons. Invis requires you to fire a snapshot. Show how you haves one so - page and grAoh. [Snip] Because when firing at the unit you can only fire snapshots. Any weapon unabl to fire snapshots csnnot fire. I am unsure how this concept is evading you.
Please, explain how you are selecting a weapon to fire, when firing it breaks a rule. Is cheating allowable now?
So you are both relying on this Rule, from Snap Shots: "Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots."
Great ! What do you think Wall of Death does to that rule? I thought we had already agreed that these weapons could not fire? I can't fire the weapon, otherwise i break the Snap Shot rule. I follow the Wall of Death rule Instead and get D3 Auto-Hits. I just resolve Auto-Hits, like i would for Hammer of Wrath
The restrictions are exactly the same: A) The weapons fired at the target must be Snap shots, or they break Rules. B) Close Combat attacks at the target must have rolled a 6 To Hit, or they break Rules.
Your position disallows Hammer of Wrath and Wall of Death. If it only allows one and not the other, your are being inconsistent with the application of Rules (Cherry-picking which Auto-Hits are allowed).
blacktalos wrote: And i would point out Wall of Death does not happen after you select the weapon and fire it (like "no Escape" It is a rule that provides Auto-Hits to a charging Unit when the weapon is selected ("if a Template weapon fires Overwatch".
Indeed. It happens after selecting the weapon and fire it, as the rule literally requires you to fire the template weapon. If you do not select, and fire, the template weapon, you never get to the special rule
This is all proven through rules quotes. You have yet to offer a single argument that doesn't rely on ignoring, rewriting, or partially quoting rules.
How do you perform the underlined above? That is not RaW. What is firing a weapon? please define the Term?
I'll do it for you: "Firing a weapon" or "Firing at" involves following these steps:
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot.
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines what it must roll in order to hit the target.
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
What does "if a Template weapon fires Overwatch" actually mean? I thought this would be clear with your knowledge of rules:
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. ---> Heavy Flamer
All models equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot. ---> Actually, I can't shoot, because i cannot Snap Fire with this weapon. Wall of Death: You get D3 Auto-Hits (just in case this was not clear: Auto-Hits are allocated to the target Unit, so range and LoS are not relevant - just as the fluff says in WoD)
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines what it must roll in order to hit the target. ---> This is where Invisibility applies. But we've got Auto-Hits, so we're not worried
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
---> Actually, it's not the strength of the firing weapon, because the Heavy flamer cannot fire (cannot Snap Shoot). We must use what WoD provides us with: The weapon's normal Strength and AP.
Are you allowed to fire a non-snapshot shot at a unit that requires all firing is a snapshot?
A simple yes or no is all that is needed. No wall of text, no wriggle - yes or no.
No, as shown above.
Are you allowed to fire an Auto-Hit at a unit that requires all firing is a snapshot? Yes, as Shown above.
Your continued insistence that you have to fire a snap shot when the WoD special rule is actually providing you with D3 Auto-Hits is getting grating. Hammer of Wrath does not roll a 6 To Hit, yet the Invisibility rules requires that you have to roll a 6 To Hit for all close combat attacks. Does Hammer of Wrath not target the Invisible Unit? Is it not a CC Attack?
They are the same situation, but keep denying cherry-picking restrictions for your Auto-Hits.
On that note, i'm getting just as bored as with the Void Shield Blast argument. At least that one was fun because the RaW was complex. This is just easy stuff. I know what the RaW conclusion is, and will wait for FaQ confirmation or some other change in the rules before i post again.
UNfortunately once you say that step three is where WoD happens that is also where Invisibility happens.
BRB Invisibility wrote:Whilst the power is
in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit...
Both Overwatch and Invisibility require you to fire snap shots while only Overwatch is overridden by WoD. What way did you handle charging from assault vehicles coming in from reserve in 6th? Why would you treat two restrictions different from two restrictions? The statement that it was last edition doesn't hold up when they went out of their way to make it clear in 7th that GW feels that you still specific overrides for all restrictions.
Would you even start the shooting process at all if you are unable to fire at the target?
enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit
If you can not fire snap shots, you can not fire at the unit, there is no way the template can fire anything which is a snap shot.
A snap shot is a firing at BS1. Anything not fired at BS1, including a system that does not use BS is not a snapshot and can not be fired at the target unit. We don't just start the process skip a step then go 'Oops that wasn't a snap shot, oh well too late now', you just never start the process.
Why, at step 3 where invisibility is concerned would it not go; Autohits are not snap shots, Can not be fired. What in invisibility rules, snap shot rules or WOD rules would make invisibility go : Auto hits: OK, you may fire.
By the time you've rolled to hit or generated those hits automatically you've already fired, Invisibility must check before the hits are generated (no matter what means are used to generate them).
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for using Assault vehicle rules and the restrictions & permissions I believe the example can still be given where passengers fire non assault weapons during their shooting phase and then their assault transport is destroyed during the same phase. Most regular occurrence of such I believe would be scattering friendly blasts onto the transport.
Of course, from reserves was a much stronger example when it was still relevant.
Not a relevant question. There's no restriction for CC attacks that auto hit in the Hammer of Wrath chain. There is in the Wall of Death chain. You continue to ignore that difference. [Snip] A Snap Shot is very much more than simply requiring a 6 to hit. The reason your argument fails is that you fail to apply all the rules.
nosferatu1001 wrote: [Snip] not relevant, as there is no clause preventing auto hits in cc. You realise there is one in snapshot, yes? You've quoted the rule so are surely aware there is a difference? [Snip] How is that similar to the clause disallowing automatic hits? Please reference the same clause in invis. Page and graph. 2nd time of asking. [Snip] Good job that isn't all of the snapshot restriction then! It's almost like yours arguing dishonestly by leaving out key parts of a rule. Don't.
Snapshot has more restrictions. Such as not being able to fire template weapons. Invis requires you to fire a snapshot. Show how you haves one so - page and grAoh. [Snip] Because when firing at the unit you can only fire snapshots. Any weapon unabl to fire snapshots csnnot fire. I am unsure how this concept is evading you.
Please, explain how you are selecting a weapon to fire, when firing it breaks a rule. Is cheating allowable now?
So you are both relying on this Rule, from Snap Shots: "Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots."
Great ! What do you think Wall of Death does to that rule? I thought we had already agreed that these weapons could not fire? I can't fire the weapon, otherwise i break the Snap Shot rule. I follow the Wall of Death rule Instead and get D3 Auto-Hits. I just resolve Auto-Hits, like i would for Hammer of Wrath
Incorrect. You don't just "follow the rule" - you're firing a Template weapon per the Wall of Death rule. Templates are explicitly allowed to fire Overwatch shots - but they are not firing Snap Shots.
The restrictions are exactly the same: A) The weapons fired at the target must be Snap shots, or they break Rules. B) Close Combat attacks at the target must have rolled a 6 To Hit, or they break Rules.
Again, this is incorrect. Snap Shots is simply not the same as needing a 6 to hit.
Your position disallows Hammer of Wrath and Wall of Death. If it only allows one and not the other, your are being inconsistent with the application of Rules (Cherry-picking which Auto-Hits are allowed).
That's a lie and I've explained why. You failed to rebut my explanation, and instead continue to repeat an incorrect statement. My position does not disallow HoW.
---> Actually, I can't shoot, because i cannot Snap Fire with this weapon.
Again, you're literally ignoring the fact that Wall of Death explicitly says that the Template weapon is fired.
nos wrote:Are you allowed to fire a non-snapshot shot at a unit that requires all firing is a snapshot?
No, as shown above.
Are you allowed to fire an Auto-Hit at a unit that requires all firing is a snapshot? Yes, as Shown above.
Despite the part of Snap Shot that explicitly disallows that?
Your continued insistence that you have to fire a snap shot when the WoD special rule is actually providing you with D3 Auto-Hits is getting grating.
Grating or not, it's a fact. You agreed that you are not allowed to fire a non-snap shot weapon at a target that requires snap shots. And then you go on to say that you can fire a Template weapon at a target that requires all firing is a snapshot.
Hammer of Wrath does not roll a 6 To Hit, yet the Invisibility rules requires that you have to roll a 6 To Hit for all close combat attacks. Does Hammer of Wrath not target the Invisible Unit? Is it not a CC Attack?
It is. Requiring a 6 to hit is not the same as requiring a Snap Shot. You continue to ignore a significant amount of rules to compare them.
They are the same situation, but keep denying cherry-picking restrictions for your Auto-Hits.
They are not the same situation, but keep ignoring rules to attempt to make your point.
On that note, i'm getting just as bored as with the Void Shield Blast argument. At least that one was fun because the RaW was complex. This is just easy stuff. I know what the RaW conclusion is, and will wait for FaQ confirmation or some other change in the rules before i post again.
I'd love for you to explain why you think ignoring rules is RAW. Just once.
Not a relevant question. There's no restriction for CC attacks that auto hit in the Hammer of Wrath chain.
There is in the Wall of Death chain. You continue to ignore that difference.
[Snip]
A Snap Shot is very much more than simply requiring a 6 to hit. The reason your argument fails is that you fail to apply all the rules.
nosferatu1001 wrote: [Snip]
not relevant, as there is no clause preventing auto hits in cc. You realise there is one in snapshot, yes? You've quoted the rule so are surely aware there is a difference?
[Snip]
How is that similar to the clause disallowing automatic hits? Please reference the same clause in invis. Page and graph. 2nd time of asking. [Snip]
Good job that isn't all of the snapshot restriction then! It's almost like yours arguing dishonestly by leaving out key parts of a rule. Don't.
Snapshot has more restrictions. Such as not being able to fire template weapons. Invis requires you to fire a snapshot. Show how you haves one so - page and grAoh.
[Snip]
Because when firing at the unit you can only fire snapshots. Any weapon unabl to fire snapshots csnnot fire. I am unsure how this concept is evading you.
Please, explain how you are selecting a weapon to fire, when firing it breaks a rule. Is cheating allowable now?
So you are both relying on this Rule, from Snap Shots:
"Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots."
Great ! What do you think Wall of Death does to that rule? I thought we had already agreed that these weapons could not fire?
I can't fire the weapon, otherwise i break the Snap Shot rule.
I follow the Wall of Death rule Instead and get D3 Auto-Hits. I just resolve Auto-Hits, like i would for Hammer of Wrath
Incorrect. You don't just "follow the rule" - you're firing a Template weapon per the Wall of Death rule. Templates are explicitly allowed to fire Overwatch shots - but they are not firing Snap Shots.
Incorrect. You have a special ability which inflicts auto-hits. This is more specific than snapshots. Specific>General.
The restrictions are exactly the same:
A) The weapons fired at the target must be Snap shots, or they break Rules.
B) Close Combat attacks at the target must have rolled a 6 To Hit, or they break Rules.
Again, this is incorrect. Snap Shots is simply not the same as needing a 6 to hit.
Again, this is incorrect. Because the special rule "Wall of Death" is more specific than snapshots, you are allowed the D3 auto-hits.
Your position disallows Hammer of Wrath and Wall of Death. If it only allows one and not the other, your are being inconsistent with the application of Rules (Cherry-picking which Auto-Hits are allowed).
That's a lie and I've explained why. You failed to rebut my explanation, and instead continue to repeat an incorrect statement. My position does not disallow HoW.
Actually, that's a lie. He has shown why it is exactly the same and you have failed to show how it is not.
Your continued insistence that you have to fire a snap shot when the WoD special rule is actually providing you with D3 Auto-Hits is getting grating.
Grating or not, it's a fact.
You agreed that you are not allowed to fire a non-snap shot weapon at a target that requires snap shots.
And then you go on to say that you can fire a Template weapon at a target that requires all firing is a snapshot.
It is clearly not a fact. It's your opinion and many believe for good reason that it is incorrect. They feel this way because the rules say you are incorrect as has been pointed out to you many times. The fact that you keep claiming that this is not ambiguous is what I think he is talking about when he says it's beginning to grate.
You are not allowed to fire snapshots with a weapon that cannot snapshot. Wall of Death is a special rule that does auto-hits - bypassing the need to roll to hit at all and allowing you to inflict hits on a unit that requires you to use the general rule "snapshot".
Hammer of Wrath does not roll a 6 To Hit, yet the Invisibility rules requires that you have to roll a 6 To Hit for all close combat attacks.
Does Hammer of Wrath not target the Invisible Unit? Is it not a CC Attack?
It is. Requiring a 6 to hit is not the same as requiring a Snap Shot. You continue to ignore a significant amount of rules to compare them.
Indeed it truly is. And requiring a 6 to hit when you are using a special rule that tells you you don't have to roll to hit is exactly the same as requiring a snapshot. You continue to ignore a significant amount of rules to say they are not similar.
On that note, i'm getting just as bored as with the Void Shield Blast argument. At least that one was fun because the RaW was complex. This is just easy stuff.
I know what the RaW conclusion is, and will wait for FaQ confirmation or some other change in the rules before i post again.
I'd love for you to explain why you think ignoring rules is RAW. Just once.
I'd love for you to explain why you think ignoring rules is RAW. Just once
You see, just because you take a person's post apart one line at a time does not make you correct.
The flaws in your argument are the same flaws you are accusing others of having in their arguments. The things that you are accusing others of ignoring are similar to the things you are ignoring. You're claim that this is unambiguously and clearly a case of invisibility trumping wall of death is indefensible for all of the reasons I've pointed out above.
The really frustrating thing is that I know you will take this post apart one line at a time and just say "wrong for the reasons I've shown" after each line, just like you did with what was unarguably a very well written post by blacktalos.
Can we please get a MOD to lock this thread? This argument will not be resolved here.
Incorrect. You don't just "follow the rule" - you're firing a Template weapon per the Wall of Death rule. Templates are explicitly allowed to fire Overwatch shots - but they are not firing Snap Shots.
Incorrect. You have a special ability which inflicts auto-hits. This is more specific than snapshots. Specific>General.
No. You have a special rule that allows Templates to fire in Overwatch - since that's literally what the rule actually says. And it's not firing snap shots.
The restrictions are exactly the same: A) The weapons fired at the target must be Snap shots, or they break Rules. B) Close Combat attacks at the target must have rolled a 6 To Hit, or they break Rules.
Again, this is incorrect. Snap Shots is simply not the same as needing a 6 to hit.
Again, this is incorrect. Because the special rule "Wall of Death" is more specific than snapshots, you are allowed the D3 auto-hits.
What does that have to do with Snap Shots not being the same as needing a 6 to hit?
Your position disallows Hammer of Wrath and Wall of Death. If it only allows one and not the other, your are being inconsistent with the application of Rules (Cherry-picking which Auto-Hits are allowed).
That's a lie and I've explained why. You failed to rebut my explanation, and instead continue to repeat an incorrect statement. My position does not disallow HoW.
Actually, that's a lie. He has shown why it is exactly the same and you have failed to show how it is not.
No, he hasn't. They're demonstrably different. Here, I'll show you: in CC you need a 6 to hit. End of line. Snap Shots:
Spoiler:
Snap Shots Under specific circumstances, models must fire Snap Shots – opportunistic bursts of fire ‘snapped’ off in the general direction of the target. The most common occurrences of Snap Shots are when models with Heavy weapons move and shoot in the same turn or when units make Overwatch shots. If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of those shots, unless it has a Ballistic Skill of 0 (in which case it may not shoot). The Ballistic Skill of a model firing a Snap Shot can only be modified by special rules that specifically state that they affect Snap Shots, along with any other restrictions (some may only modify Ballistic Skill when firing Overwatch Snap Shots, for example). If a special rule doesn’t specifically state that it affects Snap Shots, then the Snap Shot is resolved at Ballistic Skill 1. Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots. In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot. These exceptions aside, Snap Shots are treated in the same manner as any other shooting attack made with a Ballistic Skill of 1.
---> Actually, I can't shoot, because i cannot Snap Fire with this weapon.
Again, you're literally ignoring the fact that Wall of Death explicitly says that the Template weapon is fired.
Again, you're literally ignoring the fact that Wall of Death is more specific than snapshots and therefore is allowed.
It's absolutely allowed to fire Overwatch. It may be more specific (I don't care to debate that) but it does not conflict with Invisibility, and therefore doesn't override the Snap Shot requirement on Invisibility.
nos wrote:Are you allowed to fire a non-snapshot shot at a unit that requires all firing is a snapshot?
No, as shown above.
Are you allowed to fire an Auto-Hit at a unit that requires all firing is a snapshot? Yes, as Shown above.
Despite the part of Snap Shot that explicitly disallows that?
Despite the part of Wall of Death being more specific than snapshots?
Are you just spamming the same thing over and over? I'm legitimately attempting to have an honest discussion and it feels like you (and others) are deliberately ignoring rules, not quoting the rules you assert exist, and just repeating the same thing for no reason.
Your continued insistence that you have to fire a snap shot when the WoD special rule is actually providing you with D3 Auto-Hits is getting grating.
Grating or not, it's a fact. You agreed that you are not allowed to fire a non-snap shot weapon at a target that requires snap shots. And then you go on to say that you can fire a Template weapon at a target that requires all firing is a snapshot.
It is clearly not a fact. It's your opinion and many believe for good reason that it is incorrect. They feel this way because the rules say you are incorrect as has been pointed out to you many times. The fact that you keep claiming that this is not ambiguous is what I think he is talking about when he says it's beginning to grate.
The sky is yellow at all times. I'm sure you disagree, therefore the statement "The sky is blue" cannot be fact. Right? Disagreement doesn't change fact - you can disagree that light exists, but that doesn't change a fact. The rules don't say I'm incorrect - and it hasn't been "pointed out". It's been asserted but with zero supporting rules.
You are not allowed to fire snapshots with a weapon that cannot snapshot. Wall of Death is a special rule that does auto-hits - bypassing the need to roll to hit at all and allowing you to inflict hits on a unit that requires you to use the general rule "snapshot".
The underlined is absolutely, 100% false. Quote the rule and prove me wrong.
Hammer of Wrath does not roll a 6 To Hit, yet the Invisibility rules requires that you have to roll a 6 To Hit for all close combat attacks. Does Hammer of Wrath not target the Invisible Unit? Is it not a CC Attack?
It is. Requiring a 6 to hit is not the same as requiring a Snap Shot. You continue to ignore a significant amount of rules to compare them.
Indeed it truly is. And requiring a 6 to hit when you are using a special rule that tells you you don't have to roll to hit is exactly the same as requiring a snapshot. You continue to ignore a significant amount of rules to say they are not similar.
I'm ignoring the Snap Shot rules? Really? What rules am I ignoring? You made the assertion, prove it.
On that note, i'm getting just as bored as with the Void Shield Blast argument. At least that one was fun because the RaW was complex. This is just easy stuff. I know what the RaW conclusion is, and will wait for FaQ confirmation or some other change in the rules before i post again.
I'd love for you to explain why you think ignoring rules is RAW. Just once.
I'd love for you to explain why you think ignoring rules is RAW. Just once
Again, what rules am I ignoring?
You see, just because you take a person's post apart one line at a time does not make you correct.
Would you prefer I just put my entire reply after his post in one block of text? I'd rather respond to his points individually.
The flaws in your argument are the same flaws you are accusing others of having in their arguments. The things that you are accusing others of ignoring are similar to the things you are ignoring. You're claim that this is unambiguously and clearly a case of invisibility trumping wall of death is indefensible for all of the reasons I've pointed out above.
What rules am I ignoring? You've literally failed to cite one rule I ignore. You've literally failed to prove that "requires a 6 to hit" and "requires a Snap Shot to fire" are similar.
The really frustrating thing is that I know you will take this post apart one line at a time and just say "wrong for the reasons I've shown" after each line, just like you did with what was unarguably a very well written post by blacktalos.
It was very well written. Unfortunately, well written doesn't mean correct. BlackTalos has consistently ignored and misstated what a Snap Shot is, and that stance is central to his argument.
Can we please get a MOD to lock this thread? This argument will not be resolved here.
Evidence that you can't actually prove your argument, but instead want the discussion to "go away". Unfortunately it'll likely get locked because of posts like yours.
Manchu wrote:If you're not here to discuss RAW then you are not posting in the relevant forum, i.e., you are probably breaking Rule Number Two. YMDC is for discussing RAW, not for lecturing us about why discussing RAW is not fun (for you). Thanks.
NightHowler wrote:Wow. Thank you for so eloquently proving my point.
Manchu wrote:If you're not here to discuss RAW then you are not posting in the relevant forum, i.e., you are probably breaking Rule Number Two. YMDC is for discussing RAW, not for lecturing us about why discussing RAW is not fun (for you). Thanks.
NightHowler wrote:Wow. Thank you for so eloquently proving my point.
Can we please get this thread locked?
So you're not here to discuss RAW? Thanks.
I've tried.
Again and again and again and again and again and each side is only repeating the same thing over and over. Both are convinced that they are correct and the discussion can not be resolved in this manner.
It begins to feel antagonistic by it's very nature and should be locked.
Again and again and again and again and again and each side is only repeating the same thing over and over. Both are convinced that they are correct and the discussion can not be resolved in this manner.
It begins to feel antagonistic by it's very nature and should be locked.
So you've quoted the rules I've ignored (that I asked you to do)?
You've proven how "requires a 6 to hit" and "requires a snap shot to fire" are the same?
You've proven that WoD is a special rule that causes auto-hits despite the rule literally saying that a Template weapon is firing?
Again and again and again and again and again and each side is only repeating the same thing over and over. Both are convinced that they are correct and the discussion can not be resolved in this manner.
It begins to feel antagonistic by it's very nature and should be locked.
So you've quoted the rules I've ignored (that I asked you to do)?
You've proven how "requires a 6 to hit" and "requires a snap shot to fire" are the same?
You've proven that WoD is a special rule that causes auto-hits despite the rule literally saying that a Template weapon is firing?
I haven't seen that.
Yes. I know you haven't. And it is painfully clear that you won't. I could dig through the thread and find the pages where these have been written and I could quote them and I could go to all that work and you would take my post one line at a time and write your opinion under it just like you have been doing. It's not a debate. It's two sides repeating themselves with no clear answer who is correct because of poorly written rules and no appropriate FAQ.
I love a good debate, but that is not what this is. In a debate you can use logic. In a rules interpretation you can only use the rules you're given and in this case there is no clear answer.
Again and again and again and again and again and each side is only repeating the same thing over and over. Both are convinced that they are correct and the discussion can not be resolved in this manner.
It begins to feel antagonistic by it's very nature and should be locked.
So you've quoted the rules I've ignored (that I asked you to do)? You've proven how "requires a 6 to hit" and "requires a snap shot to fire" are the same? You've proven that WoD is a special rule that causes auto-hits despite the rule literally saying that a Template weapon is firing?
I haven't seen that.
Yes. I know you haven't. And it is painfully clear that you won't.
You've proven that "requires a 6 to hit" and "requires a snap shot to fire" are the same?
Seriously, please quote the post that explains that. I'd love to see it.
and you would take my post one line at a time and write your opinion under it just like you have been doing.
I don't write opinions. I write fact. And again, I'd rather respond to points individually - if we were having a conversation this is how I'd reply - when you finish a point I'd reply to it. Because it's a text based medium you're allowed to make several points at once and I'm allowed to address all of those points individually. Fact: "requires a 6 to hit" and "requires a Snap Shot to fire" are two completely different rules. Fact: Wall of Death is not a special rule that causes hits, it's a special rule that allows a Template to fire Overwatch (explicitly in its rules text) and explains what happens when you do. I've quoted the actual rules to support those facts. All I've been told in opposition is either "Nuh uh" or a post that says WoD is a special rules that causes hits.
It's not a debate. It's two sides repeating themselves with no clear answer who is correct because of poorly written rules and no appropriate FAQ.
Yes, it's not a debate when one side has proven their point repeatedly and the other literally ignores rules and makes knowingly incorrect statements.
I love a good debate, but that is not what this is. In a debate you can use logic. In a rules interpretation you can only use the rules you're given and in this case there is no clear answer.
Saying that is like saying there's no clear answer to if Dinosaurs lived or not.
Again and again and again and again and again and each side is only repeating the same thing over and over. Both are convinced that they are correct and the discussion can not be resolved in this manner.
It begins to feel antagonistic by it's very nature and should be locked.
So you've quoted the rules I've ignored (that I asked you to do)?
You've proven how "requires a 6 to hit" and "requires a snap shot to fire" are the same?
You've proven that WoD is a special rule that causes auto-hits despite the rule literally saying that a Template weapon is firing?
I haven't seen that.
Yes. I know you haven't. And it is painfully clear that you won't.
You've proven that "requires a 6 to hit" and "requires a snap shot to fire" are the same?
Seriously, please quote the post that explains that. I'd love to see it.
It's been explained to you that snapshots require a roll of 6. Autohits do not allow you to roll at all - they simply generate hits.
Requiring 6s to hit in close combat require a roll of 6. Autohits do not allow you to roll at all - they simply generate hits.
These are pretty obviously similar and related as the interaction between both examples come from the same two rules.
This has been stated before but you ignore/dismiss/handwave
and you would take my post one line at a time and write your opinion under it just like you have been doing.
I don't write opinions. I write fact. And again, I'd rather respond to points individually - if we were having a conversation this is how I'd reply - when you finish a point I'd reply to it. Because it's a text based medium you're allowed to make several points at once and I'm allowed to address all of those points individually.
Fact: "requires a 6 to hit" and "requires a Snap Shot to fire" are two completely different rules.
Fact: Wall of Death is not a special rule that causes hits, it's a special rule that allows a Template to fire Overwatch (explicitly in its rules text) and explains what happens when you do.
I've quoted the actual rules to support those facts. All I've been told in opposition is either "Nuh uh" or a post that says WoD is a special rules that causes hits.
I love that you feel your opinions are fact. I really do. It's endearing. But saying, "I write facts" does not make what you say facts.
Fact: "requires a 6 to hit" and "requires a snap shot to fire" both come from exactly the same rule - invisibility.
Fact: Wall of death is a special rule that causes hits. It's found under the template rule in the special abilities section of the rulebook. It also allows you to fire overwatch with templates.
You haven't quoted any rules to support your opinion that these work differently than my opinion says they do. This is an opinion. You have one and I have one and they are different. Accept this and embrace it and your understanding of dialogue will deepen beyond your wildest dreams.
I love a good debate, but that is not what this is. In a debate you can use logic. In a rules interpretation you can only use the rules you're given and in this case there is no clear answer.
Saying that is like saying there's no clear answer to if Dinosaurs lived or not.
I appreciate your opinion that saying this isn't a debate is like talking about dinosaurs, but my opinion is different, as I have said.
Also, bringing discussion of dinosaurs into the thread is breaking Tenet 3 of YMDC. I'd appreciate it if you could stick to the tenets. Thanks.
I know it may never get answered, but I feel like doing that helps remind them "Hey, uh, there's some gak that don't make sense"
