We have been debating the Jink rule in the sense of blasts. The idea is you cover 2 units with a blast... would both of them be able to jink (if possible).

Arguments (against)

Shooting phase dictates that you choose a single unit as a target before selecting which weapons to fire with. This means you would declare a target before placing a blast marker... then the player would have the option of jinking. There is no way to target more than one unit or know how many units were going to be targeted. Therefore only the unit selected as a target is able to jink.

Arguments (For)

The blast is covering two units before it rolls scatter... therefore there are two targets of this blast. Blast rules are unique in that they are placed specifically over a model. Both units would get the cover save.


Please add your commentary below. This is for our local meta and we are having a heated discussion.

There isn't any argument possible, really. You can only junk when targeted. Being covered by a blast is not sufficient to state you are targeted.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There isn't any argument possible, really. You can only junk when targeted. Being covered by a blast is not sufficient to state you are targeted.

This. The rules are pretty clear on this one.

RAW only the targeted. That being said, I think it's pretty TFGish to do it that way in a casual game. RAI seems like they should be given the option to Jink before pen rolls are made.

For tourney play only atm.

Blast describes allocating wounds against units that are hit as being against the target unit, though it's not necessarily then the case that once covered by a blast marker, a non-selected unit becomes selected as a target to fulfil Jink's requirements.

^ That only happens after the roll-to hit has been made. Jink must be declared before to-hit rolls are made, and so by the time the unit that wasn't originally targeted becomes a target, it is too late to jink.

Bojazz wrote:
^ That only happens after the roll-to hit has been made. Jink must be declared before to-hit rolls are made, and so by the time the unit that wasn't originally targeted becomes a target, it is too late to jink.

Blast weapons are explicitly stated as not rolling to hit.

It's not an interpretation I agree with, but given you never roll to hit with a Blast weapon, provided no other firing weapon of the unit has been selected and to hit rolls made, you could elect to Jink at any point in resolving a Blast weapon, presumably. Jink says nothing about actions you perform instead of rolling to hit.

Hmm. You got me there.

 Jimsolo wrote:
RAW only the targeted. That being said, I think it's pretty TFGish to do it that way in a casual game. RAI seems like they should be given the option to Jink before pen rolls are made.

This. RAW you shouldn't be able to Jink, but I'm willing to bet GW's wonderful rules writers simply failed to account for this scenario.

It seems to me that when firing Blast weapons there could be two points at which a unit becomes targeted; being selected per the shooting sequence rules and then further in the Blast rules when allocating against units with models under the marker (referred to as the 'target unit')

Considering no To Hit rolls are made, assuming no other weapons have been fired, can units then not elect to Jink at either of these points, and thus a 'secondary target' then too could in fact Jink?

 Mr. Shine wrote:
It seems to me that when firing Blast weapons there could be two points at which a unit becomes targeted; being selected per the shooting sequence rules and then further in the Blast rules when allocating against units with models under the marker (referred to as the 'target unit')

Considering no To Hit rolls are made, assuming no other weapons have been fired, can units then not elect to Jink at either of these points, and thus a 'secondary target' then too could in fact Jink?

It also targets a model between those two points.

 jokerkd wrote:
It also targets a model between those two points.

Absolutely. It'd be reasonable to consider targeting a model as also targeting the unit said model is part of, but you know how it can go

Hiwpi is always ask if they want to jink when i choose the target unit. No one has ever declined to choose at that point

iirc you have to get as many models of the target unit under the blast, so you can't target one guy next to the invisible squad and get more invisibles than the target squad. Only somewhat related to the convo, but maximising target models would negate the problem most of the time.

 mekugi wrote:
iirc you have to get as many models of the target unit under the blast, so you can't target one guy next to the invisible squad and get more invisibles than the target squad. Only somewhat related to the convo, but maximising target models would negate the problem most of the time.

That's the case with templates but not blast markers.

Technically this is correct.
Around here, we play that whichever models are touched by the blast at its initial location are allowed to Jink, but not after it scatters.

Trasvi wrote:
Technically this is correct.
Around here, we play that whichever models are touched by the blast at its initial location are allowed to Jink, but not after it scatters.

Then you also play that when a large blast scatters off a single model unit onto a densely packed multiple model unit all those hits/wounds get assigned to the single model, as the rules state assign wounds to the target unit?

Breton wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
Technically this is correct.
Around here, we play that whichever models are touched by the blast at its initial location are allowed to Jink, but not after it scatters.

Then you also play that when a large blast scatters off a single model unit onto a densely packed multiple model unit all those hits/wounds get assigned to the single model, as the rules state assign wounds to the target unit?

Nope

 jokerkd wrote:

Breton wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
Technically this is correct.
Around here, we play that whichever models are touched by the blast at its initial location are allowed to Jink, but not after it scatters.

Then you also play that when a large blast scatters off a single model unit onto a densely packed multiple model unit all those hits/wounds get assigned to the single model, as the rules state assign wounds to the target unit?

Nope

But it says target unit. If the Jinkers aren't targetted because of scatter, then neither is the larger group and thus can't have the wounds assigned to them.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Bojazz wrote:
^ That only happens after the roll-to hit has been made. Jink must be declared before to-hit rolls are made, and so by the time the unit that wasn't originally targeted becomes a target, it is too late to jink.

Blast weapons are explicitly stated as not rolling to hit.

It's not an interpretation I agree with, but given you never roll to hit with a Blast weapon, provided no other firing weapon of the unit has been selected and to hit rolls made, you could elect to Jink at any point in resolving a Blast weapon, presumably. Jink says nothing about actions you perform instead of rolling to hit.

Jink is declared when a unit is targeted, regardless of blasts.
If you are the target then you can declare jink, if you are not targeted then you cannot.

I.E.
Bro 1: my vindicator is going to shoot at wave serpent A

Bro 2: alright, wave serpent A will jink

Bro 1 rolls for scatter and full scatters into wave serpent B

Wave serpent B cannot jink because it was not the primary target and it has passed the time to declare jink.
Its not TFG to say you cant redeclare jink once past the time to do so

I'd say no, the skimmer in question is being shot at, the pilot is jinking around, one several hundred metres away isn't being shot at and a lucky ricochet hits him, wasn't expecting it, wasn't jinking.

die toten hosen wrote:

I.E.
Bro 1: my vindicator is going to shoot at wave serpent A

Bro 2: alright, wave serpent A will jink

Bro 1 rolls for scatter and full scatters into wave serpent B

Wave serpent B cannot jink because it was not the primary target and it has passed the time to declare jink.
Its not TFG to say you cant redeclare jink once past the time to do so

This was my first shot on my first turn yesterday and it exploded the wave serpent carrying a seer council and basically won me the game it was awesome that's my story hope that helps

I would say no jink. You have to declare jink when targeted.

Make it cinematic - target 1 yells incoming, they jink, blast weapon takes a weird bounce and hits target 2, who were not ready for the strange happening.

Sadly it's a bummer for the jinker, but it happens. Keep on playing.

die toten hosen wrote:
Jink is declared when a unit is targeted, regardless of blasts.
If you are the target then you can declare jink, if you are not targeted then you cannot.

I.E.
Bro 1: my vindicator is going to shoot at wave serpent A

Bro 2: alright, wave serpent A will jink

Bro 1 rolls for scatter and full scatters into wave serpent B

Wave serpent B cannot jink because it was not the primary target and it has passed the time to declare jink.
Its not TFG to say you cant redeclare jink once past the time to do so

So why can Wave Serpent B not declare jink when, as per the rules for blast weapons, it has become a target unit? Does "being a target unit" for the purposes of allocating wounds and vehicle damage not count for "being targeted"?

That is the only requirement, with the restriction that no To Hit rolls have yet been made, and Blast weapons do not roll To Hit.

If you disagree please provide rules support, rather than just your opinion

I don't see how the "before any hits are rolled" changes the fact that you must choose when the unit is selected as a target.
If anything happens, whether rolling to hit or rolling scatter, you have failed to declare when the unit was selected as the target.
It's a point in the game that you dont get to just ignore and wait to find out if you even got hit.

"Selected as a target" also means that only the unit that was selected by the attacker as the target can jink

 jokerkd wrote:
"Selected as a target" also means that only the unit that was selected by the attacker as the target can jink

This is the sort of relevant point I was looking for, thanks. I don't have my book to hand so was unsure if the wording was being targeted or "selected as a target".

Does the point still stand however if you place the marker in such a way as to deliberately try to cover two different units? I would say yes, if the player is deliberately placing the marker such that the second unit would become a "target unit".

 Mr. Shine wrote:


Does the point still stand however if you place the marker in such a way as to deliberately try to cover two different units? I would say yes, if the player is deliberately placing the marker such that the second unit would become a "target unit".

It would certainly make a sensible house rule, but RAW i believe the second unit is not counted as the target until wound allocation. The attacking unit can only choose one target, therefore that is the only "selected target"

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
"Selected as a target" also means that only the unit that was selected by the attacker as the target can jink

This is the sort of relevant point I was looking for, thanks. I don't have my book to hand so was unsure if the wording was being targeted or "selected as a target".

Does the point still stand however if you place the marker in such a way as to deliberately try to cover two different units? I would say yes, if the player is deliberately placing the marker such that the second unit would become a "target unit".

And again you'd then have to count hits on the covered unit and apply that number to the original unit if you're going to claim they aren't selected as a target when it scatters over them.

Either at some point they are selected as a target, or they can't have wounds applied to them per the blast rules

Breton wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
"Selected as a target" also means that only the unit that was selected by the attacker as the target can jink

This is the sort of relevant point I was looking for, thanks. I don't have my book to hand so was unsure if the wording was being targeted or "selected as a target".

Does the point still stand however if you place the marker in such a way as to deliberately try to cover two different units? I would say yes, if the player is deliberately placing the marker such that the second unit would become a "target unit".

And again you'd then have to count hits on the covered unit and apply that number to the original unit if you're going to claim they aren't selected as a target when it scatters over them.

Either at some point they are selected as a target, or they can't have wounds applied to them per the blast rules

Who selects the second unit as a target?

Who? The firing player. When? I don't know.

But without the scattered unit being selected as a target hits/wounds can't be allocated to it

The attacking player only selects the unit he places the blast over as a target. he Does not select which unit the blast scatters on to

Breton wrote:

But without the scattered unit being selected as a target hits/wounds can't be allocated to it

ok i'll bite is this in the BRB?

axisofentropy wrote:

Breton wrote:

But without the scattered unit being selected as a target hits/wounds can't be allocated to it

ok i'll bite is this in the BRB?

"Remember that any Wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit..."

So either we have permission to allocate wounds resulting from hits against a unit to another unit, or more sensibly units that take hits from blast weapons become target units, although they are not selected as targets (hence no Jink).

It's quite simple.
1 Nominate a unit to shoot.
2 Declare a target.
2.5 Target decides to Jink
3. Choose a weapon
3.5 Last chance for target to Jink
4 Roll To Hit (or roll scatter)
5 Roll To Wound
6 Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties
7 Choose another weapon.

As you can see, secondary units may become "targets", however the wording of Jink prevents any unit other than the original target from declaring Jink.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
Jink is declared when a unit is targeted, regardless of blasts.
If you are the target then you can declare jink, if you are not targeted then you cannot.

I.E.
Bro 1: my vindicator is going to shoot at wave serpent A

Bro 2: alright, wave serpent A will jink

Bro 1 rolls for scatter and full scatters into wave serpent B

Wave serpent B cannot jink because it was not the primary target and it has passed the time to declare jink.
Its not TFG to say you cant redeclare jink once past the time to do so

So why can Wave Serpent B not declare jink when, as per the rules for blast weapons, it has become a target unit? Does "being a target unit" for the purposes of allocating wounds and vehicle damage not count for "being targeted"?

That is the only requirement, with the restriction that no To Hit rolls have yet been made, and Blast weapons do not roll To Hit.

If you disagree please provide rules support, rather than just your opinion

I litteraly just did what you are asking, but ill do it again,

Declaring a target is litterally pointing at a unit and saying
"Thats my target"
Whether its a unit, vehicle or single infantry model, declaring a target is a requirment before rolling to hit, scatter, etc.

This issue is cut and dry, just because some people dislike it doesnt make it a contentious rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
Who? The firing player. When? I don't know.

But without the scattered unit being selected as a target hits/wounds can't be allocated to it

No, thats not correct at all.
You declare a target
Target jinks or doesnt
Scatter either hits or doesnt
If blast scatters resolve wounds or hull points for where it lands if it covers an enemy unit. If it scatters onto a secondary unit that unit cannot jink as the time for declaring targets has passed and so has the time to declare jink

die toten hosen wrote:


No, thats not correct at all.
You declare a target
Target jinks or doesnt
Scatter either hits or doesnt
If blast scatters resolve wounds or hull points for where it lands if it covers an enemy unit. If it scatters onto a secondary unit that unit cannot jink as the time for declaring targets has passed and so has the time to declare jink

I assume you can quote the part in the rule book that says the scattered unit is now a/the target unit?
That a blast weapon already mentioned to never roll to hit has somehow rolled to hit making it too late to declare jink?

Rolling to hit has nothing to do with jink.
Jink is declared after a target is declared.
Not when to hit rolls are made.

Blasts have to have a primary target, but can scatter and hit other units.

When i get off work i will cite all of this in the brb, which nobody on this forum seems to either own or read.

Jink, what units can jink, what units are eligeable to declare jink are all detailed in the brb.
I dont see any legit rebuttal in this thread, because there is not one.

The description for jink states its declared before to hit rolls and after targets are declared.

die toten hosen wrote:
I litteraly just did what you are asking, but ill do it again,

Declaring a target is litterally pointing at a unit and saying
"Thats my target"
Whether its a unit, vehicle or single infantry model, declaring a target is a requirment before rolling to hit, scatter, etc.

This issue is cut and dry, just because some people dislike it doesnt make it a contentious rule.

If you'd actually read the following posts you would see that the issue has been properly resolved with reference to the rules so there's zero need for you to come in and make so overbearing a reply.

Your post to which I replied was actually wrong because you hadn't noted the important part at issue, that Jink is only eligible in response to a unit being selected as a target. It has nothing to do with primary targets or whatever, which have nothing to do with the rules at all.

Next time make sure your initial point is correct and properly stated before coming back and trying to play the know it all - after it had already been explained and agreed, at that.

If blast scatters resolve wounds or hull points for where it lands if it covers an enemy unit. If it scatters onto a secondary unit that unit cannot jink as the time for declaring targets has passed and so has the time to declare jink

Wrong. As above it's actually because the secondary unit was not selected as a target. If there were a mechanism for allowing a second target to be actually selected for a blast weapon then they would be eligible to Jink, provided no To Hit rolls had yet been made (which would require a non-Blast or non-Template weapon to have been fired, because neither make To Hit rolls).

die toten hosen wrote:
Rolling to hit has nothing to do with jink.
Jink is declared after a target is declared.
Not when to hit rolls are made.

Then why did you finish this post with, "The description for jink states its declared before to hit rolls and after targets are declared."?

Blasts have to have a primary target, but can scatter and hit other units.

When i get off work i will cite all of this in the brb, which nobody on this forum seems to either own or read.

Jink, what units can jink, what units are eligeable to declare jink are all detailed in the brb.
I dont see any legit rebuttal in this thread, because there is not one.

The description for jink states its declared before to hit rolls and after targets are declared.

We've already discussed the relevant parts which you'd have already known if you'd read the rest of the thread, rather than firing off replies to people who'd quoted you. We've already established several points where you're talking nonsense as far as the rules are concerned though, so you may not need to bother

Nothing you just said refuted anything i said.

Just to clarify, im saying that a non primary target that is hit by a blast via a scatter cannot jink.

I stated to hit rolls because its part of the rules for jink. Its in the process.

There is one time and one time only when you can jink a shooting attack and that is when you are selected as a target which is prior to any rolls(scatter, to hit,) being made.

Its in the jink section of the rules. Pretty sure that others kept this thread going long past its conclusion due to ignorance of said jink rules.

die toten hosen wrote:
Nothing you just said refuted anything i said.

Just to clarify, im saying that a non primary target that is hit by a blast via a scatter cannot jink.

And you're wrong. There's no such thing as a primary target anywhere in the rules except for multiple combats in the Assault Phase.

There is one time and one time only when you can jink a shooting attack and that is when you are selected as a target which is prior to any rolls(scatter, to hit,) being made.

Correct, but you never said that. What you said was, "Jink is declared when a unit is targeted" which, while correct, is not actually the important part of the rule. Being selected as a target is the relevant part, which you have not actually said until now.

What you're missing is that a unit becomes a target unit (is targeted) when a blast scatters onto it, so from what you originally said I was questioning why they would not be allowed to Jink. When you actually note that being selected as a target is required, then obviously a blast scattering is not the unit actually being selected, which is the important distinction.

 Mr. Shine wrote:


What you're missing is that a unit becomes a target unit (is targeted) when a blast scatters onto it, so from what you originally said I was questioning why they would not be allowed to Jink. When you actually note that being selected as a target is required, then obviously a blast scattering is not the unit actually being selected, which is the important distinction.

No, it doesn't. At no point does the rule for blast say it changes the target unit. I freely admit it should. But then Jinkers should also be able to declare junking when the target declared changes.

Breton wrote:
No, it doesn't. At no point does the rule for blast say it changes the target unit. I freely admit it should. But then Jinkers should also be able to declare junking when the target declared changes.

"...each unit suffers one hit for each of their models which is fully or partially beneath the blast marker, even if those models are not within the firer's line of sight.

Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll To Wound and save as normal. Remember that any Wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit..."

It's not explicit, but it's pretty sensibly implicit in the context of the Blast rules that the 'target unit' in question is the unit (one or more of) whose models were underneath the blast marker.

Unless you're suggesting we're given permission to resolve hits against one unit as resulting wounds against another unit, which I'd be open to if you'd like to follow the logic and steps of within the rules...

That is what he is suggesting; and RAW he has a point.

It still has no bearing on the original subject however, as whether or not the second unit becomes a target, it is still not "selected as a target"

 Mr. Shine wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
Nothing you just said refuted anything i said.

Just to clarify, im saying that a non primary target that is hit by a blast via a scatter cannot jink.

And you're wrong. There's no such thing as a primary target anywhere in the rules except for multiple combats in the Assault Phase.

There is one time and one time only when you can jink a shooting attack and that is when you are selected as a target which is prior to any rolls(scatter, to hit,) being made.

Correct, but you never said that. What you said was, "Jink is declared when a unit is targeted" which, while correct, is not actually the important part of the rule. Being selected as a target is the relevant part, which you have not actually said until now.

What you're missing is that a unit becomes a target unit (is targeted) when a blast scatters onto it, so from what you originally said I was questioning why they would not be allowed to Jink. When you actually note that being selected as a target is required, then obviously a blast scattering is not the unit actually being selected, which is the important distinction.

You are arguing semantics.
Only the declared target can jink.
We are arguing the same point you just dislike my wording

 jokerkd wrote:
That is what he is suggesting; and RAW he has a point.

Well that depends how much weight you give to both context and regular English when reading rules, but like I said I'd absolutely be open to being presented with where that leads in terms of rolling to wound and save as normal while allocating wounds resulting from hits against one unit to another unit. I'm not in a position to actually read and follow that up at the moment, unfortunately.

It still has no bearing on the original subject however, as whether or not the second unit becomes a target, it is still not "selected as a target"

Agreed.

 jokerkd wrote:
That is what he is suggesting; and RAW he has a point.

It still has no bearing on the original subject however, as whether or not the second unit becomes a target, it is still not "selected as a target"

Actually it does. As there's still no RAW way to get a non selected unit as the target of a blast weapon. Either being covered by the template selects them and allows them to jink, or they're never selected as a target and wounds can't be applied to them. Either through scatter or TFG template placement they're either targets or not.

A relevant point that has not been mentioned - if the secondary target has already chosen to Jink earlier (as a result of a different attack), it still benefits from that cover save even though it was not explicitly targeted.

Breton wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
That is what he is suggesting; and RAW he has a point.

It still has no bearing on the original subject however, as whether or not the second unit becomes a target, it is still not "selected as a target"

Actually it does. As there's still no RAW way to get a non selected unit as the target of a blast weapon. Either being covered by the template selects them and allows them to jink, or they're never selected as a target and wounds can't be applied to them. Either through scatter or TFG template placement they're either targets or not.

Becoming a target due to the rule is not the same as being selected as a target

And where does the blast rule say the new units are targets? The same RAW rules lawyering that says they can't jink because they weren't selected as a target says they aren't a target at all and hits/wounds can't be applied to them.

You a re still not acknowledging he difference between being a target and being "selected as a target"

I agree that the blast rule does not describe the second unit as a target, and that it stipulates wounds be allocated to the target unit. This is a problem, but not a problem related to jink at all

We can assume the second unit is a target without it having to consider it "selected". The unit is never selected. It is a random occurrence. There is no choice involved.

I also agreed that when placing the template over two units, a reasonable house rule would be to consider both selected targets. But that also doesn't change the fact that this would occur after the point where you are told to declare whether you are jinking.

And how can we assume that? Where is the rule?

What rule allows a unit to become a blast weapon target without being selected as one?

It would be a house rule, or RAI

So I was ignoring your house rule about some difference you created between being selected as a target and being a target that isn't mentioned anywhere in the rules?

If you're going to try and abuse a technicality to take away the jink save, the other player should just as freely abuse the technicality that they're not the target and can't be wounded anyway.

Now me, I'm more friendly than that. Whether I roll randomly to decide who he shoots at, play eeny meeny meinny moe, roll scatter, or pick them myself I'm picking the target, and any unit that becomes a target gets to react as such.

No. You were, and still are ignoring the difference between being a target, and being selected as a target. It is not something i have created. It is plain english. To select is to have a choice. To become requires no such choice. Indeed in this case it is random.



Rai is never 100% clear, but in this case you are safe in assuming that hits and wounds from one unit should not be allocated to another.

Well then where is the difference defined and what does and does not apply because of the difference in the rule book?

Does that mean if someone always randomizes their shooting phase no one gets a jink save ever?

According to this D20 roll I'm shooting at your white scars. D20 selected them, not me, no jinks

Breton wrote:
Well then where is the difference defined and what does and does not apply because of the difference in the rule book?

The difference is in the simple, common English definition of the words put together in a sentence.

Does that mean if someone always randomizes their shooting phase no one gets a jink save ever?

According to this D20 roll I'm shooting at your white scars. D20 selected them, not me, no jinks

I think you'll find the rules instruct you to choose a unit to shoot, and that you have to choose their target. Obviously Blasts scattering is a specific exception to this general rule.

If you had a special rule or effect which caused a unit to have to have their shooting target randomly determined though then sure, depending on the wording.

Common English says what rules apply to this non target target you're making up?

Blasts are an exception? Funny my brb starts blasts with chose a target.

Either a junking unit is selected as a target and can jink, or is never the target and can't be damaged. Common English as you say.

Also page 370. Randomly selecting is still selecting

Breton wrote:
Common English says what rules apply to this non target target you're making up?

Instead of putting up irrelevant strawman questions, why don't you actually just simply state your disagreement?

Blasts are an exception? Funny my brb starts blasts with chose a target.

I'm not sure which rulebook you're referring to, but the first line of Blasts (skipping the flavour text) states, "When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit. Instead, just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the 3" blast marker with its hole entirely over the base of the target model (see diagram), or its hull if the target is a vehicle."

Target models are not the same as target units, although it's safe to assume the target model you pick before rolling for scatter must be from the target unit per the shooting sequence.

Either a junking unit is selected as a target and can jink, or is never the target and can't be damaged. Common English as you say.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If you're talking about a "jinking unit" then obviously they must have been selected as a target and declared Jink or they would not be a "jinking unit".

Also page 370. Randomly selecting is still selecting

Then you've disproven your own previous post. Good job.

Random selection isn't the same as scattering onto another unit, though.

EDIT:

Reading through the 'General Principles' for 'Blast Markers and Templates' I think I may have found a simple solution:

"Some weapons are so powerful that they don’t just target a single model or unit, but have an ‘area effect’ which might encompass (and often utterly devastate!) several different units."

This to me puts it to rest as far as positioning a blast marker over multiple units before rolling for scatter, as clearly the player is using the blast marker to select more than a single model or unit as the target, as described.

I don't think it's the same if the blast marker scatters on to another unit entirely however, as that unit was obviously not selected as a target.

page 370?

am i missing something?

 jokerkd wrote:
page 370?

am i missing something?

Yeah I really have no idea what rulebook he's referring to.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
page 370?

am i missing something?

Yeah I really have no idea what rulebook he's referring to.

That would be the Interactive Digital Rulebook.
Sadly the page numbers are not the same as the printed version.
P370 covers random selection.

I have always had the biggest problem with Jink and the timing of the whole affair.

Too many times someone says I'm shooting at this, blam, dice get rolled and before I have time to think for a second its already too late. Now if I say anything... I look like jerk. That's not fair.

In this instance the rules are pretty clear. As to whether or not that's how it should play? Well... I hate to say it but this is another bad one. You could argue that both vehicles would see the shot coming and therefore be able to Jink. This is after all the premise of the rule, that and an innate agility. However one could also argue that target 2 did not see the incoming fire, but this I feel is less solid. After all if a unit can Jink, and they are able to do so, aren't they ready to take action anyways?

This may be one situation that you can actually use a roll off to decide.

If a blast would strike more than one unit that can Jink, or a model that can Jink that was not the original target , roll a d6 to see whether or not that unit may use Jink. If the d6 roll fails then the model did not see the shot coming and cannot Jink. If the d6 roll succeeds then the model may declare a Jink and resolve damage as normal, the defending player may then take a Jink roll as if they had activated the rule normally.

There, I think that would work.

I was just thinking, the Jink roll ought to be made right after its declared. That makes sense in that the jinking unit sees incoming fire and takes action to avoid it and thus if the roll succeeds the shot is said to have missed entirely. This also alleviates the OPs problem because the blast marker targets the Jinker, who then makes a Jink roll. If they succeed then the blast would be resolved as normal, simply discounting any hits that strike the Jinker. Then you could say that other Jink units hit by that blast would be unable to Jink, as they clearly thought the shot would land elsewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The latter also solves my problem of being to slow to shout Jink somewhat.

I'm shooting your landspe....

Jink! 4+ bam!

What was that, sorry?

Oh wait... I see now. The OP isn't asking about scatter he is asking about someone directly placing a blast so that it hits multiple units. I am assuming that we're talking about shooting down bikes here huh? Lol

Well in that case I would say that definitely if a blast initially covers more than one jink unit all units could declare a Jink.

This would have never come up if Jink had been left alone. Sure it was a backwards way of replicating that concept but it worked well.

 darkcloak wrote:

Too many times someone says I'm shooting at this, blam, dice get rolled and before I have time to think for a second its already too late. Now if I say anything... I look like jerk. That's not fair.

Both players are responsible for following the rules, If the attacker does not give you time to declare, (most people don't do it intentionally) you have every right to say something..... and take your jink rolls

 Mr. Shine wrote:


Instead of putting up irrelevant strawman questions, why don't you actually just simply state your disagreement?

As he was saying they were a target without being a selected target, you may want to familiarize yourself with the straw man concept.

I'm not sure which rulebook you're referring to, but the first line of Blasts (skipping the flavour text) states, "When firing a Blast weapon, models do not roll To Hit. Instead, just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the 3" blast marker with its hole entirely over the base of the target model (see diagram), or its hull if the target is a vehicle."

Target models are not the same as target units, although it's safe to assume the target model you pick before rolling for scatter must be from the target unit per the shooting sequence.
[\quote]

so you're saying blast rules do start with picking a target like I said? Um. Ok, thanks for that I guess.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If you're talking about a "jinking unit" then obviously they must have been selected as a target and declared Jink or they would not be a "jinking unit". [\quote]

would jink-able have been more clear for you?

Then you've disproven your own previous post. Good job. [\quote]

I've disproven the post you weren't sure what it said? But you're sure it's disproven. Ok.

Random selection isn't the same as scattering onto another unit, though. [\quote]

Really? Scatter isn't random? The new target wasn't selected by the new template?

Reply by: darkcloak - click to view full reply 

80243

Jink Question (POLL) @ 2015/07/10 06:53:33

Post by: darkcloak

Well that's just it. If a player does that unintentionally and I call it that's fine, but if it happens a few times where the other player is genuinely forgetting and I keep saying oh right, Jink, that could be viewed as bad behavior on my part. Which I assure you is not the case!

We played a lot of 6th and not a lot of 7th, so this happens more than you might think.

Reply by: Mr. Shine - click to view full reply 

76402

Jink Question (POLL) @ 2015/07/10 07:16:00

Post by: Mr. Shine

Breton wrote:
As he was saying they were a target without being a selected target, you may want to familiarize yourself with the straw man concept.

You were rambling off about common English about rules relating to non-targets as if it were an argument against something else. Pretty sure that's a strawman.

so you're saying blast rules do start with picking a target like I said? Um. Ok, thanks for that I guess.

Yeah, no, what you actually said was that Blast weapons start off by stating they pick a target, and they do not, and no one is actually arguing Blast weapons do not select a target model. Once more you're either on about ground we've already covered, are not actually disputing or even discussing, or bringing in other matters that are not relevant.

Really? Scatter isn't random? The new target wasn't selected by the new template position?

Scatter is not 'Randomising'. Even a simpleton should recognise that distinction in a rules discussion.

Then the unit it was scattered over isn't able to be wounded? If it's not a target, you can't wound it. At whatever point the unit becomes a target they have the option to jink or not

Wrong again. Here, I'll provide the exact wording for Jink, with emphasis added:

"When a unit with any models with the Jink special rule is selected as a target for a shooting attack, you may declare that it will Jink."

We already know a unit scattered onto becomes a target unit, but that's not the same as selecting it as a target. It's really that simple. If you disagree, please provide rules support and not just your opinion.

Reply by: Breton - click to view full reply 

8824

Jink Question (POLL) @ 2015/07/10 07:33:00

Post by: Breton

No, that's not what a straw man is.

You just said if you skip the fluff you select a target.

We know a unit scattered onto becomes the target? And how do we know that? When did the target change according to the rules?

As long as you RAW selected, I'll RAW target.

Ironic you mention rules support and not just opinion while trying to change the target of a blast with zero rule support for it. Keep reading blast. Allocate wounds to the target unit. Not once does it say the target unit changes. Or how.

Reply by: Mr. Shine - click to view full reply 

76402

Jink Question (POLL) @ 2015/07/10 07:39:39

Post by: Mr. Shine

Breton wrote:
And again you'd then have to count hits on the covered unit and apply that number to the original unit if you're going to claim they aren't selected as a target when it scatters over them.

Either at some point they are selected as a target, or they can't have wounds applied to them per the blast rules

And that is your incorrect opinion. Please supply rules support to state that selection must occur for the unit to become a target.

The Blast rules are sufficient to result in a scattered-onto unit becoming a target without being selected; they have become a target by virtue of being randomly (but not by Randomising, because obviously we all recognise that's a completely different and specific process!) scattered onto.

Selection does not occur, nor is it necessary.

Again, if you disagree, as per the Tenets of You Make Da Call please provide rules support to back up your argument, or otherwise state it is simply your unsupported and/or uninformed opinion.

Reply by: die toten hosen - click to view full reply 

93526

Jink Question (POLL) @ 2015/07/10 13:41:30

Post by: die toten hosen

Breton wrote:
No, that's not what a straw man is.

You just said if you skip the fluff you select a target.

We know a unit scattered onto becomes the target? And how do we know that? When did the target change according to the rules?

As long as you RAW selected, I'll RAW target.

Ironic you mention rules support and not just opinion while trying to change the target of a blast with zero rule support for it. Keep reading blast. Allocate wounds to the target unit. Not once does it say the target unit changes. Or how.

The originally selected unit is the only unit that can jink.
Blasts can end up targeting a different unit instead of or in addition too their originally selected unit because thats how blasts work.
Any unit outside of the original unit that is hit by a scattering blast cannot declare jink as it is not the initially selected unit
Jink declarations happen prior to rolls to scatter or wound, not after based on scatters.

Reply by: Xenomancers - click to view full reply 

91128

Jink Question (POLL) @ 2015/07/10 14:03:33

Post by: Xenomancers

 darkcloak wrote:
Well that's just it. If a player does that unintentionally and I call it that's fine, but if it happens a few times where the other player is genuinely forgetting and I keep saying oh right, Jink, that could be viewed as bad behavior on my part. Which I assure you is not the case!

We played a lot of 6th and not a lot of 7th, so this happens more than you might think.

I'd say there is a clear intelligent move to be made - if jinking was the intelligent move at this time - only TFG wouldn't allow you to take the rolls he didn't ask you if you wanted to take.

The correct way to play it as the attacker is to declare your target and ask if hes going to jink. It's also nice at this point to say - I'm firing with an ignore cover weapon. LOL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

die toten hosen wrote:

Breton wrote:
No, that's not what a straw man is.

You just said if you skip the fluff you select a target.

We know a unit scattered onto becomes the target? And how do we know that? When did the target change according to the rules?

As long as you RAW selected, I'll RAW target.

Ironic you mention rules support and not just opinion while trying to change the target of a blast with zero rule support for it. Keep reading blast. Allocate wounds to the target unit. Not once does it say the target unit changes. Or how.

The originally selected unit is the only unit that can jink.
Blasts can end up targeting a different unit instead of or in addition too their originally selected unit because thats how blasts work.
Any unit outside of the original unit that is hit by a scattering blast cannot declare jink as it is not the initially selected unit
Jink declarations happen prior to rolls to scatter or wound, not after based on scatters.

Exactly. Another point to be made is that the decision to jink happens before the blast marker is even placed! Theres no way of knowing what others units might potentially be covered at this point. The most simple way to avoid this is to keep your units at least 2 1/2 inches apart...Jezz...how does this stuff even come up for you guys?

Reply by: die toten hosen - click to view full reply 

93526

Jink Question (POLL) @ 2015/07/10 15:42:10

Post by: die toten hosen

 Xenomancers wrote:

 darkcloak wrote:
Well that's just it. If a player does that unintentionally and I call it that's fine, but if it happens a few times where the other player is genuinely forgetting and I keep saying oh right, Jink, that could be viewed as bad behavior on my part. Which I assure you is not the case!

We played a lot of 6th and not a lot of 7th, so this happens more than you might think.

I'd say there is a clear intelligent move to be made - if jinking was the intelligent move at this time - only TFG wouldn't allow you to take the rolls he didn't ask you if you wanted to take.

The correct way to play it as the attacker is to declare your target and ask if hes going to jink. It's also nice at this point to say - I'm firing with an ignore cover weapon. LOL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

die toten hosen wrote:

Breton wrote:
No, that's not what a straw man is.

You just said if you skip the fluff you select a target.

We know a unit scattered onto becomes the target? And how do we know that? When did the target change according to the rules?

As long as you RAW selected, I'll RAW target.

Ironic you mention rules support and not just opinion while trying to change the target of a blast with zero rule support for it. Keep reading blast. Allocate wounds to the target unit. Not once does it say the target unit changes. Or how.

The originally selected unit is the only unit that can jink.
Blasts can end up targeting a different unit instead of or in addition too their originally selected unit because thats how blasts work.
Any unit outside of the original unit that is hit by a scattering blast cannot declare jink as it is not the initially selected unit
Jink declarations happen prior to rolls to scatter or wound, not after based on scatters.

Exactly. Another point to be made is that the decision to jink happens before the blast marker is even placed! Theres no way of knowing what others units might potentially be covered at this point. The most simple way to avoid this is to keep your units at least 2 1/2 inches apart...Jezz...how does this stuff even come up for you guys?

I dont event know man, i ask myself that everytime i look in YMDC.
I think mostly because some people disagree with RAW and want to be backed up on it wether its true or not

Reply by: Breton - click to view full reply 

8824

Jink Question (POLL) @ 2015/07/10 18:21:33

Post by: Breton

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Breton wrote:
And again you'd then have to count hits on the covered unit and apply that number to the original unit if you're going to claim they aren't selected as a target when it scatters over them.

Either at some point they are selected as a target, or they can't have wounds applied to them per the blast rules

And that is your incorrect opinion. Please supply rules support to state that selection must occur for the unit to become a target.

The Blast rules are sufficient to result in a scattered-onto unit becoming a target without being selected; they have become a target by virtue of being randomly (but not by Randomising, because obviously we all recognise that's a completely different and specific process!) scattered onto.

. Really? They are? By all means, as your post mentions, please back that up with rules. Blast says scatter the template, count hits, work them out against target. In never says the scattered onto unit is the new target.

While you're doing that, please support your claim that models/units can be a target without being selected. I've already backed up my position that even randomized is selected, ergo selection does not require full controlled informed choice from the player. Can you find any (other undisputed) target function that doesn't require selecting?

Reply by: jokerkd - click to view full reply 

93621

Jink Question (POLL) @ 2015/07/10 23:00:23

Post by: jokerkd

Can you please tell me what section pg370 covers so i can find it in my book

Reply by: Mr. Shine - click to view full reply 

76402

Jink Question (POLL) @ 2015/07/10 23:17:18

Post by: Mr. Shine

 jokerkd wrote:
Can you please tell me what section pg370 covers so i can find it in my book

I think he's referring to 'Randomising' under 'General Principles'.

Breton wrote:
Really? They are? By all means, as your post mentions, please back that up with rules. Blast says scatter the template, count hits, work them out against target. In never says the scattered onto unit is the new target.

Actually the blast rules say scatter the template, units with models under the marker take hits, resolve wounds against target unit. Stop cherry picking rules and wrongly stating what they say.

Being consistent it's obvious they're referring to the unit(s) with models under the template as the target unit. It's RAW without trying to completely ignore the obvious context.

While you're doing that, please support your claim that models/units can be a target without being selected. I've already backed up my position that even randomized is selected, ergo selection does not require full controlled informed choice from the player. Can you find any (other undisputed) target function that doesn't require selecting?

Um... the Blast rules say so. Stop with the strawman; saying Randomisation is selection doesn't make blast marker scattering a form of selection. You're just simply wrong.

Reply by: Breton - click to view full reply 

8824

Jink Question (POLL) @ 2015/07/11 01:24:58

Post by: Breton

To help you stop misusing straw man - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Speaking of cherry picking, AGAIN where does the rule for blast say the target has changed?

Like pronouns referring to an earlier noun, there is only one target action (selected or otherwise) prior to assigning wounds/hits to the target unit. With only one unit being designated a target unit prior to the wound allocation step, that is the only place hits/wounds can be allocated to.

As you've displayed a less than strong grasp of straw man, I'm now forced to question your grasp of RAW. Changing the official target unit when you think you're supposed to, while not specifically being told/allowed to by the rules as written is RAI not RAW.

Reply by: Mr. Shine - click to view full reply 

76402

Jink Question (POLL) @ 2015/07/11 03:22:27

Post by: Mr. Shine

Breton wrote:
To help you stop misusing straw man - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."

Oh, like trying to refute my argument on the basis that I'm saying Randomising isn't selection? You're arguing against your misrepresentation of my argument.

Speaking of cherry picking, AGAIN where does the rule for blast say the target has changed?

Under 'Blast Markers and Templates' in 'General Principles':

"Some weapons are so powerful that they don’t just target a single model or unit, but have an ‘area effect’ which might encompass (and often utterly devastate!) several different units. To better represent these circumstances, Warhammer 40,000 uses a series of different blast markers and templates:"

Target units for blast markers are those with models under the blast marker. It's pretty straightforward.

As you've displayed a less than strong grasp of straw man, I'm now forced to question your grasp of RAW. Changing the official target unit when you think you're supposed to, while not specifically being told/allowed to by the rules as written is RAI not RAW.

Great job at attacking the person rather than their argument, and bandying about terms such as "official target" when the concept doesn't exist

Reply by: Breton - click to view full reply 

8824

Jink Question (POLL) @ 2015/07/12 17:52:59

Post by: Breton

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Breton wrote:
To help you stop misusing straw man - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."

Oh, like trying to refute my argument on the basis that I'm saying Randomising isn't selection? You're arguing against your misrepresentation of my argument.

Did you advance that argument? Then it cannot, by definition, be a straw man. A straw man would be if I were arguing you were wrong because you said bikes can't jink- which you didn't. See the difference?

Speaking of cherry picking, AGAIN where does the rule for blast say the target has changed?

Under 'Blast Markers and Templates' in 'General Principles':

"Some weapons are so powerful that they don’t just target a single model or unit, but have an ‘area effect’ which might encompass (and often utterly devastate!) several different units. To better represent these circumstances, Warhammer 40,000 uses a series of different blast markers and templates:"

Target units for blast markers are those with models under the blast marker. It's pretty straightforward.

then by all means quote the part of the rule that says so. At only one point does a unit become a target unit according to the RAW. When it's "selected" by the placement of the blast template.

As you've displayed a less than strong grasp of straw man, I'm now forced to question your grasp of RAW. Changing the official target unit when you think you're supposed to, while not specifically being told/allowed to by the rules as written is RAI not RAW.

Great job at attacking the person rather than their argument, and bandying about terms such as "official target" when the concept doesn't exist

Again, you're misusing the logical fallacy concept- this time of ad hominem. I didn't attack you personally, but your argument. I didn't say only and idiot wouldn't understand the concept - as has been used previously- I said your arguement to straw man was incorrect, and your definition of RAW was incorrect. Both of which are to the argument, not "to the man" as ad hominem is. You're claiming the change in target is RAW, but still have not ever pointed to the rules section that says the target changes.

All of which still boils down to my original point, if one is going to abuse a technicality over "selected" targets, the opponent should just as freely abuse the technicality of "target".

Reply by: jokerkd - click to view full reply 

93621

Jink Question (POLL) @ 2015/07/12 20:11:33

Post by: jokerkd

Lol. There is no abuse involved in what we are suggesting. It is quite clearly RAI. Being able to jink after the amount of hits is determined is clearly not.

I admitted very early on the the blast rule RAW says exactly what you say it does, but that RAI, reading the two blast sections, is that that is almost definitely not how it should be played.

Reply by: Mr. Shine - click to view full reply 

76402

Jink Question (POLL) @ 2015/07/12 20:23:00

Post by: Mr. Shine

Breton wrote:
Did you advance that argument? Then it cannot, by definition, be a straw man. A straw man would be if I were arguing you were wrong because you said bikes can't jink- which you didn't. See the difference?

No, I did not. I never said Randomising is not selection and yet you're arguing I'm claiming that's the case, so I'm sorry but that's exactly a straw man.

Speaking of cherry picking, AGAIN where does the rule for blast say the target has changed?

Under 'Blast Markers and Templates' in 'General Principles':

then by all means quote the part of the rule that says so. At only one point does a unit become a target unit according to the RAW. When it's "selected" by the placement of the blast template.

I just did, in the post you quoted. If you don't consider the rules for blast markers and templates stating they are used to represent the target of a weapon's attack is not stating that models/units with models under a blast marker are the target I'm not sure what would satisfy you.

Again, you're misusing the logical fallacy concept- this time of ad hominem. I didn't attack you personally, but your argument. I didn't say only and idiot wouldn't understand the concept - as has been used previously- I said your arguement to straw man was incorrect, and your definition of RAW was incorrect. Both of which are to the argument, not "to the man" as ad hominem is. You're claiming the change in target is RAW, but still have not ever pointed to the rules section that says the target changes.

Um, no. That was absolutely an irrelevant personal comment. "You can't even understand logical fallacies so I must necessarily question your grasp of this argument." Incorrect on both points, sorry.

[quoteAll of which still boils down to my original point, if one is going to abuse a technicality over "selected" targets, the opponent should just as freely abuse the technicality of "target".

You've still yet to provide any rules to support that scatter is selection. You've mentioned 'Randomising' but that's about a specific action which is not relevant to scatter, blasts or jink at all. I've pointed to where the rules explain how blast markers represent the target of the relevant shooting attack but unfortunately it appears you're simply unwilling to recognise anything other than what fits your own opinion.

Reply by: Breton - click to view full reply 

8824

Jink Question (POLL) @ 2015/07/12 20:25:12

Post by: Breton

Really? No abuse in putting the template over the tactical marine standing next to the biker so the biker can't get a jink save?

And to play your scenario out, as soon as the template is over a unit of bikers, even if it doesn't scatter, you're saying they shouldn't get a chance to jink, because you've already counted the number of hits by placing the template over one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Shine wrote:


I just did, in the post you quoted. If you don't consider the rules for blast markers and templates stating they are used to represent the target of a weapon's attack is not stating that models/units with models under a blast marker are the target I'm not sure what would satisfy you.

The part of the rules that says the target changes from the one previously established. You keep arguing the status "selected" does not transfer over. And by the SAME STANDARD of rules technicalities neither does "target" Otherwise you would have quoted the part saying the unit(s) covered by the template after scatter are the new target unit.

Reply by: jokerkd - click to view full reply 

93621

Jink Question (POLL) @ 2015/07/12 20:33:10

Post by: jokerkd

Breton wrote:
Really? No abuse in putting the template over the tactical marine standing next to the biker so the biker can't get a jink save?

As you know, we have already suggested a house rule to cover that.

And to play your scenario out, as soon as the template is over a unit of bikers, even if it doesn't scatter, you're saying they shouldn't get a chance to jink, because you've already counted the number of hits by placing the template over one.

You dont determine the number of hits until after scatter

Reply by: Breton - click to view full reply 

8824

Jink Question (POLL) @ 2015/07/12 20:50:29

Post by: Breton

 jokerkd wrote:

Breton wrote:
Really? No abuse in putting the template over the tactical marine standing next to the biker so the biker can't get a jink save?

As you know, we have already suggested a house rule to cover that.

I do, but that's part of what's being argued here.

You dont determine the number of hits until after scatter

But a template that doesn't scatter? You think I wasn't already adding them up in case you rolled (Hit)?

If you want to get into RAI-

You're a biker. How do you know to jink when the eagle eyed gunnery ace on Basilisk 1 fires at you, but not when the cross eyed hung over gunner of Basilisk 2 does?
Jinking, as a cover save, already has it's counter. Ignores cover weapons. If they wanted pie plates to ignore jinking they would have prohibited it against pie plates. Pie Plates that ignore cover (and thus jinking) are special and rare- TFC, Triple V. Blasts...

You dont know whether a blast will scatter any more than you know how many hits will be scored from 10 plasma guns.

RAI is fairly clear that you should only get the choice to jink before you know how many hits are landed

But I WOULD know how many hits you'd score if it doesn't scatter.

In other words, I have the same idea how many hits are scored when you hold the pie plate over Unit A before scatter as I would when you scatter it over Unit B.

I can call jink as you hold it over Unit A, before you roll scatter (or technically after but that's as bad as not allowing Unit B to jink in my mind)

There's no consistency to the RAI there, whether I can count while you're rolling, or while you're measuring the scatter.

What I might say is you pick a model, and don't place the template. then you roll scatter. And I declare or don't declare jink based on the dice and the model chosen having never seen the template over anything yet.

You are still required to jink at the point the target is selected.
When i choose a target that has jink, i ask at that point whether or not you will jink. That is the point you must declare or the game stops. You dont get to wait until just before i roll to hit, or until the blast has been placed. The rule says to declare when you are selected as a target.

If you think that you then have more than one opportunity to declare, (unit selected, blast placed, blast scatters) you know the argument against already. The unit has already been picked as a target before the blast is placed, and unit b was not selected as a target at all

Breton wrote:
Really? No abuse in putting the template over the tactical marine standing next to the biker so the biker can't get a jink save?

And to play your scenario out, as soon as the template is over a unit of bikers, even if it doesn't scatter, you're saying they shouldn't get a chance to jink, because you've already counted the number of hits by placing the template over one.

If you were paying attention you would see that I've come to the conclusion that placing the marker over two units is selecting both units as targets, so you're mistaken there. My only issue relating to selection now is when it scatters onto a completely different unit.

As jokerkd has pointed out, you do not count the number of hits until after rolling for scatter. Sure, as you say, you may pre-count in case it doesn't scatter, but you also seem to be claiming that knowing how many hits you score before scatter tells you how many hits you'll score after scatter, which doesn't make sense.

The part of the rules that says the target changes from the one previously established. You keep arguing the status "selected" does not transfer over. And by the SAME STANDARD of rules technicalities neither does "target" Otherwise you would have quoted the part saying the unit(s) covered by the template after scatter are the new target unit.

Given the rules clearly tell us the marker represents the taget of the shooting attack but says nothing about selecting I'm not sure how this follows. Could you please explain with rules support?

but you also seem to be claiming that knowing how many hits you score before scatter tells you how many hits you'll score after scatter, which doesn't make sense

Because I can watch the pie plate float over the tape measure to it's final resting place? It's even got demarcated lines on top to show me about how big that template will be in one direction for an easy eyeball circle.

Given the rules clearly tell us the marker represents the taget of the shooting attack but says nothing about selecting I'm not sure how this follows. Could you please explain with rules support?

If the rules for the template says nothing about selecting, it also says nothing about the models under it being the target. The blast rule says pick a target. Then scatter. It never ever ever ever says the models under the template after it scatters is the target.

"... place the 3" blast marker with it's hole over the target model, or it's hull if if the target is a vehicle" At no point in the entire rest of the rule does any other model get labeled target. In fact the only reference to target after that is to assign the results to the target. So you can count the hits on the new unit. You can even roll to wound the new unit. but you have to assign them to the target unit- The one it began over.

When i choose a target that has jink, i ask at that point whether or not you will jink. That is the point you must declare or the game stops. You dont get to wait until just before i roll to hit, or until the blast has been placed

Actually I DO get to wait until just before you roll to hit. The rules for jink is up to the point rolls to hit have been made.

The flip side of this is, you select some bikers, they jink, your shot scatters, they're no longer the target, had no reason to jink and therefore shouldn't have been able to jink, leaving us with a jinking set of bikers not being shot at by the giant ball of plasma 30 meters away, and a shot up unit of bikers that wasn't allowed to jink away from the big ball of plasma heading straight for them? So we have a Selected Non-Target, and a Non-Selected Target that way?

Breton wrote:
Because I can watch the pie plate float over the tape measure to it's final resting place? It's even got demarcated lines on top to show me about how big that template will be in one direction for an easy eyeball circle.

You seemed to be suggesting that knowing how many models are hit in unit A before rolling scatter would somehow tell you how many would be hit in unit B after rolling scatter.

If the rules for the template says nothing about selecting, it also says nothing about the models under it being the target. The blast rule says pick a target. Then scatter. It never ever ever ever says the models under the template after it scatters is the target.

"... place the 3" blast marker with it's hole over the target model, or it's hull if if the target is a vehicle" At no point in the entire rest of the rule does any other model get labeled target. In fact the only reference to target after that is to assign the results to the target. So you can count the hits on the new unit. You can even roll to wound the new unit. but you have to assign them to the target unit- The one it began over.

And you're completely ignoring what I've already quoted and referred you to at least twice from the first half of the rules for blast markers and templates, under 'General Principles'. That tells us the marker is used to represent the target of weapons which affect an area rather than just one model or unit.

Actually I DO get to wait until just before you roll to hit. The rules for jink is up to the point rolls to hit have been made.

The flip side of this is, you select some bikers, they jink, your shot scatters, they're no longer the target, had no reason to jink and therefore shouldn't have been able to jink, leaving us with a jinking set of bikers not being shot at by the giant ball of plasma 30 meters away, and a shot up unit of bikers that wasn't allowed to jink away from the big ball of plasma heading straight for them? So we have a Selected Non-Target, and a Non-Selected Target that way?

Given that no rolls To Hit are made for blast weapons, the way I see it you're entitled to hold off electing to Jink with the first unit until after scatter has been rolled.

If you want to imagine your scenario as something other than a rules abstraction, think of it as the first unit of bikers going, "Incoming frag missile! Let's dodge!" Meanwhile the second unit don't see it getting blown their way until it's too late, or something. But this is of course beside the point.

You seemed to be suggesting that knowing how many models are hit in unit A before rolling scatter would somehow tell you how many would be hit in unit B after rolling scatter.

No, I'm saying that I can look at you hold the tape measure over the table in the direction of the arrow from initial Point A, see where it hovers over Final Point B, and look at the tape measure's tick marks to have a pretty good idea how many models will be hit while you grab the template to hold over that Final Point B.

And you're completely ignoring what I've already quoted and referred you to at least twice from the first half of the rules for blast markers and templates, under 'General Principles'. That tells us the marker is used to represent the target of weapons which affect an area rather than just one model or unit.

No, I'm not, because it doesn't say that. The Blast rule itself says target model. Scatter. Count models hit. Resolve Hits. Apply results to target. The blast rule establishes a target. It never changes the target. Even Blast Markers and Templates doesn't say the unit under the template is the target. It says the "area of effect" might encompass these units, but does not say they are the target. It says you can count hits on the unit under the template. The blast rule even says you can resolve those hits against the models covered. But you apply the results to the target. Which is STILL the first model/unit covered.

The general principles section even allows these blasts don't just target a single model or unit. (emphasis mine) However the general principles doesn't tell us what it DOES target. It just says count the hits under the template. It doesn't say what to do with those hits. The Blast USR does.

So you think the first unit of bikers is going to jink the frag missile that's going to miss them by 30 meters to the right but the one watching the smoke trail headed straight for them is too dumb to do so?

Breton wrote:
The general principles section even allows these blasts don't just target a single model or unit. (emphasis mine) However the general principles doesn't tell us what it DOES target. It just says count the hits under the template. It doesn't say what to do with those hits. The Blast USR does.

"Some weapons are so powerful that they don’t just target a single model or unit, but have an ‘area effect’ which might encompass (and often utterly devastate!) several different units. To better represent these circumstances, Warhammer 40,000 uses a series of different blast markers and templates:"

What is your actual objection or difficulty with this sentence? It seems to me you're trying to make the claim that not targeting a single unit but "encompassing" several units means something other than targeting several units, which to me is ignoring the context of the sentence as a whole.

So you think the first unit of bikers is going to jink the frag missile that's going to miss them by 30 meters to the right but the one watching the smoke trail headed straight for them is too dumb to do so?

Who says a frag missile makes a beeline for the unit that it scattered onto rather than where it was initially pointed before going off-course for whatever imagined reason? That's precisely why imagining a scenario from a rules abstraction is stupid; I'm possibly correctly imagining one thing while you're possibly correctly imagining another.

What is your actual objection or difficulty with this sentence? It seems to me you're trying to make the claim that not targeting a single unit but "encompassing" several units means something other than targeting several units, which to me is ignoring the context of the sentence as a whole.

No, I'm making the claim that it doesn't say it's targetting any units, single or multiple. Just like scatter doesn't select a target. You've read these rules pretty strictly for concepts like "selected" and refuting my attempt to differentiate the "official target" (as opposed to say an eventual target just to keep them seperate) and "selected target" which also doesn't have a glossary entry. I'm just applying that same level of strict reading to "target" period.

Breton wrote:
No, I'm making the claim that it doesn't say it's targetting any units, single or multiple. Just like scatter doesn't select a target. You've read these rules pretty strictly for concepts like "selected" and refuting my attempt to differentiate the "official target" (as opposed to say an eventual target just to keep them seperate) and "selected target" which also doesn't have a glossary entry. I'm just applying that same level of strict reading to "target" period.

So when the rule effectively says it represents attacks which don't necessarily target just one unit unit but potentially target several units and that we use the marker to represent that targeting, you're saying it... doesn't say that?

"Effectively says", in your opinion, is not says. I could say the rule effectively says scatter selects a new target, but that doesn't mean it says that. Doesn't mean it doesn't. Depends on how strictly you want to RAW the rules.

I have a unit of Guardian Defenders, equipped with a Eldar Missile Launcher platform. Please tell me where in the following steps your bikes can choose to Jink.

Step 1: Nominate a unit to shoot. (I choose my Guardians)
Step 2: Declare a target. (I choose your Tactical Marines next to a Bike squad)
Step 3: Choose a weapon. (I choose the Eldar Missile Launcher, Plasma Missile (Blast weapon)
Step 4: Roll To Hit (Instead of rolling to hit, I roll scatter)
Step 5: Roll To Wound
Step 6: Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties
Step 7: Choose another weapon. (I repeat steps 4-6 with any remaining weapons)

Well that depends on you and how flexible you are.

Also one of the technical points is that blast weapons never roll to hit.

That aside, most people in here have agreed if you pick the tactical marine, and cover the biker next to him, the biker can declare. Some go so far as to say he can declare because he was covered initially but can wait to declare until he's (possibly) wounded, which I'm also not too fond of, and think it goes too far the other way.

Breton wrote:
"Effectively says", in your opinion, is not says. I could say the rule effectively says scatter selects a new target, but that doesn't mean it says that. Doesn't mean it doesn't. Depends on how strictly you want to RAW the rules.

When I wrote, "effectively says" I was using the phrase in the context of rewording the sentence while retaining its meaning, so yes, says. Reading the rules as they are written is not the same as taking an obtuse reading, expecting the rules to be written in an unnecessarily explicit manner and considering them to not work otherwise.

It also seems apparent to me that you agree with the reading and are simply insisting that selection be inserted into the interpretation. From where, I'm unsure.

From the same place you get effectively says. the ordinary common usage of the words. You're willing to use similar meanings to establish your target argument, but draw a line in the sand on "selected" when the definition of target has the word selected in it. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=target%20definition

As far as I'm concerned it can go either way. If you want to strictly read selected target, then you don't get to paraphrase what it "essentially says" at other times. I'll play as strict or as flexible as you want to for the most part. But the WHOLE game plays that way.

I think that's a very... erm, selective definition, but I suppose we agree to disagree.

It's also Oxford's dictionary. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/target


It's the same in the UK definition where the rules are written http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/target?q=Target

And again, all I'm saying is it goes both ways. If you want to tell me all that Blast rules means the new unit(s) covered after scatter are the target without actually saying it's the target, then by the same "words mean" logic, target by definition includes selection, so any and every target is selected.

You can play it however you want, but if you want to play it honest, you have to play it the same way for both sides.

If selected has to be there, then the same strict reading says target has to be there. If "all of that" means target, then "target" means selected.

And yet that's not the only definition for the word. If target as a noun necessarily included selection we wouldn't have phrases like, "select a target" or "selected as a target" throughout the rules.

But anyway...

 Mr. Shine wrote:
And yet that's not the only definition for the word. If target as a noun necessarily included selection we wouldn't have phrases like, "select a target" or "selected as a target" throughout the rules.

But anyway...

So your objection to MY using the meaning of words after you did, is you think they meant a tiny shied, and not a person, place or thing selected for an attack? Well rather, you think they mean that when I want to use the definition, and you want to use the OTHER meaning when you're using the "meaning of words" apparently and the new unit covered is selected but not selected for an attack as opposed to becoming a small round shield on someone's forearm. OK then.

Don't be obtuse.

Obtuse? I cherry picked a less prestigious authority to appeal to that does not have a both US and UK definition version?


But hey, that works too. Because a scatter is missed, the final unit covered wasn't the one fired at. Can't be the target.

I can apply your logic to counter you for as long as you try and only apply it in one direction. How much longer do you want to do this?

You know. RAW here, I actually agree with Breton.

Well speaking for myself, RAW is a dog's breakfast. I think Mr. Shine thinks so too, but I can't speak for him. I think we're arguing more RAI than RAW, I just don't think he's applying the same level of I from RAI to both sides.

Breton wrote:
Well speaking for myself, RAW is a dog's breakfast. I think Mr. Shine thinks so too, but I can't speak for him. I think we're arguing more RAI than RAW.

Agreed