Hi All,

The Optimized Stealth Cadre formation have the special rule where Ghostkeels and any Stealth Battlesuit unit in the formation at 6″ of the Ghostkeel ignore cover, add +1 to BS and hit vehicles in the rear.

My question is, how does this work with an Imperial Knight Ion Shield, which gives a 4+ Invulnerable save against a chosen facing each shooting phase?

If the Stealth Cadre is shooting me from the front arc and my shield is on my front arc, would I get the Ion Sheild save even though the shots are applied to my rear armor? Would have I have to declare the Ion Shield to be covering my rear arc for me to get the save?

The shield is a save. Not a LOS blocker. It specifically says hits rear armour though not facing. IE it doesnt matter what side you face whether it has a shield or not.

Actually, me and a friend discussed this at length and decided it could go either way, here is why: the rule does not state that it hits the rear armor. It says "as if hitting the rear armor."
The whole "as if" leads us to believe that shields would still work (against the eldar wave serpent shields as well) because it is still hitting whatever facing, just using the rear armor value. But a valud argument could be made the other way as well.

Loki, any time the "as if" phrase comes into play you should resolve it as if that is what is actually happening. The shots are resolved against the rear facing.

The question here really is how the Imperial Knight's shield rules are worded. Could anyone do us a solid and throw the excerpt from the shielding rules in here? I don't have that book in front of me. The important item will be if it mentions the player having to choose a facing or simply a direction - which could then make it ambiguous. If it says the user must pick a facing, well then an Imperial Knight user will want to pick the rear in this case, as all shots from the formation will automatically be resolved on that facing.

If the Knight was hit in the rear armour would it get a save if you had the shield on a non-rear facing?

You treat the shot "as if" they hit the Knight on the rear.

Grey, I hear you and as I stated, it can be valid either way. "As if" does not necessarily mean that it hits the rear. I know this is a fantasy game, however, unguided rounds/plasma bolts usually don't do a u-turn mid air. We believe the intent was more of the stealth cadre is hitting vital points, giving it a slight advantage.
Me and my group came to the agreement that the shield would still work (if on the facing that the firing unit was using), otherwise it would just negate people bringing knight's anymore when it can be felled so easily by small arms fire (we had a battle were an Ork battlewagon was decimated by S5 shots in one turn). :-)

It is to represent them using multiple holograms and appearing everywhere, and then striking from behind.

"As if" is exactly the same as "is," but only for that instance. Games Workshop has being using "as if" rules for years.

Grey Dragoon it is facing the Imp Knight uses.

It doesn't matter which facing the attack technically hits, the Ion Shield is used versus attacks originating from a specific facing. If the Tau units firing are in the arc covered by the Shield, the Knight gets the save. This has been discussed quite a bit in regards to Barrage and scattering Blast markers.

However, with Coordinated Fire, Tau should always be firing from more than one facing anyway.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
It doesn't matter which facing the attack technically hits, the Ion Shield is used versus attacks originating from a specific facing. If the Tau units firing are in the arc covered by the Shield, the Knight gets the save. This has been discussed quite a bit in regards to Barrage and scattering Blast markers.

However, with Coordinated Fire, Tau should always be firing from more than one facing anyway.

SJ

you are 100% wrong. OSC hits REAR ARMOR. if you do not have the shield on the rear armor, you do not get the inv. save. Its as simple as that. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to cheat


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lokithefool wrote:
Grey, I hear you and as I stated, it can be valid either way. "As if" does not necessarily mean that it hits the rear. I know this is a fantasy game, however, unguided rounds/plasma bolts usually don't do a u-turn mid air. We believe the intent was more of the stealth cadre is hitting vital points, giving it a slight advantage.
Me and my group came to the agreement that the shield would still work (if on the facing that the firing unit was using), otherwise it would just negate people bringing knight's anymore when it can be felled so easily by small arms fire (we had a battle were an Ork battlewagon was decimated by S5 shots in one turn). :-)

You guys can play it however you like, but RAW and RAI, you would not get the inv. save as the shield is on the front armor, not the rear armor. When any model from the OSC shoots, it is as if hitting the rear armor, meaning the shots are coming from behind and hitting the rear armor.

GW is quite consistent in the use of as if. The two rules don't really match here too well. I'd go with the shots coming from whichever facing the Ghostkeel & co were at but always hitting against the rear AV.

Naw wrote:
GW is quite consistent in the use of as if. The two rules don't really match here too well. I'd go with the shots coming from whichever facing the Ghostkeel & co were at but always hitting against the rear AV.

Explain to me then how would the rear armor be hit.... if they shoot from the front. That literally makes no sense. The only logical way for the rear armor to be hit, is to be shooting from the direction of the rear armor. Unless you think that their bullets shoot past them and spin around 180 degrees to hit their back lol.

"As if" means they aren't actually behind them shooting, but hit their back armor like they are shooting from behind for all intensive purposes, including direction of shot.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
It doesn't matter which facing the attack technically hits, the Ion Shield is used versus attacks originating from a specific facing. If the Tau units firing are in the arc covered by the Shield, the Knight gets the save. This has been discussed quite a bit in regards to Barrage and scattering Blast markers.

However, with Coordinated Fire, Tau should always be firing from more than one facing anyway.

SJ

Knights get a save against shots that hit a facing. The OSC hits the rear facing what facing the shots come from is irrelevant.

Someone asked for the actual Ion Shield rule, this is the meaty part: "controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's ion shield is covering. The choices are: front, left side, right side or rear. The Knight has a 4+ Invulnerable save against all hits on that facing..."

 Havoc Knight wrote:
Someone asked for the actual Ion Shield rule, this is the meaty part: "controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's ion shield is covering. The choices are: front, left side, right side or rear. The Knight has a 4+ Invulnerable save against all hits on that facing..."

HITS ON THE FACING

its as simple as that

are the shots from OSC HITTING the front facing? NO. they are hitting the rear facing

It is "as if" which can be to interpreted to mean it is hitting as if the front facing is the rear.

So in effect it would get the Ion save.

 Quickjager wrote:
It is "as if" which can be to interpreted to mean it is hitting as if the front facing is the rear.

So in effect it would get the Ion save.

You are 100% incorrect lol. Which side of the vehicle is the OSC hitting. It hits the rear. You are merely trying to twist the rules to suit you because you don't want your precious knights be hurt by it

Then instead of calling me out personally, like I can do to you, prove it by using other rules that have similar wording.

I cannot believe this is even up for debate. It is so black and white it is laughable.

The ACTUAL wording of OSC:

"... In addition, their weapons are assumed to STRIKE THE REAR ARMOUR OF ANY VEHICLE THAT THEY HIT, NO MATTER WHAT ITS ACTUAL FACING"

So even if they are facing the front armor, They STRIKE THE REAR ARMOUR.

That wording is much different than what was presented in the thread.

The correct term is Assume, not as if. I just got home and looked it up as well. I apologize for that part. I love discussing rules and trying to play devil's advocate here and there.
However, the idea of the OSC using holofields and actually being behind the knight is a little difficult to swallow. In that case the OSC units would need a minimum of about a 20" move and 20" run. At max 18" gun range, would need about 20" to move to get to rear arc, then another 20" to get back to same position.
This is not about "saving a precious knight", but actually trying to keep games competitive and fun. Also, right or wrong is subjective and jaded by personal bias. I could counter that statement with the old, tired counter of, you just want you ez I Ein button. My group is 100% correct, and I can prove it... BRB page 14, black box at start of page and page 10, "the most basic rule".

lokithefool wrote:
The correct term is Assume, not as if. I just got home and looked it up as well. I apologize for that part. I love discussing rules and trying to play devil's advocate here and there.
However, the idea of the OSC using holofields and actually being behind the knight is a little difficult to swallow. In that case the OSC units would need a minimum of about a 20" move and 20" run. At max 18" gun range, would need about 20" to move to get to rear arc, then another 20" to get back to same position.
This is not about "saving a precious knight", but actually trying to keep games competitive and fun. Also, right or wrong is subjective and jaded by personal bias. I could counter that statement with the old, tired counter of, you just want you ez I Ein button. My group is 100% correct, and I can prove it... BRB page 14, black box at start of page and page 10, "the most basic rule".

I understand that! And thats why I said if thats how you want to play it great! But in a RAW discussion, I was arguing my points for the official rules and how it SHOULD work. Which in this case is ion shield on front armor not usable for OSC since it hits back armor.

Notredame you were being rude for no reason.

You guys have got to stop trying to rules lawyer the "as if" section of rules. I have been amazed over the past 3 weeks how this is now something people are arguing since it's used at a number of places in the Tau rules.

The rules have, over the past 20+ years, been absolutely litered with "As If" and it has always meant the exact same thing. you resolve Y as if X. It's almost always temporary or instantaneous in nature. But there's no ambiguity in it. If it says it resolves AS IF the shot was to the rear facing, then you resolve the shot to the rear facing. End of story.

Let's see if we can find an example, shall we? Emphasis is mine.

(BRB) Strikedown - "Any non-vehicle model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds or passes one or more saving throws against an attack with the Strikedown special rule moves AS IF it is in difficult terrain until the end of the next turn..." There is no ambiguity here with if the unit being in difficult terrain, next turn correct? If you get hit with strikedown, next turn you take any applicable difficult terrain tests. I don't see anyone arguing that's not the case because actual terrain isn't under your unit.

Getting back on track - OSC means that shots by those suits in the formation are, if the terms earlier in the rule are met, resolved against the rear facing of the vehicle and will ignore cover. This means those shots will NEVER be resolved against the front or side facing if those terms are met. Hence, the Knight pilot will always want to place his shielding on the rear at the start of the shooting face if a Tau player has moved this formation within range of their Knight. The shield rule does not say that it impacts shots originating from a direction, just those resolving against the chosen facing. Normally those are the same thing, but that is not true in this case.

"As if" never was actually in the rule, are you saying it WAS? Because if you are not then you are wasting time on a matter that was already decided.

In conclusion, when Optimized Stealth Cadre units benefitting from Wall of Mirrors shoot at a Knight with an Ion Shield, they hit rear armour, and so an Ion Shield save may only be taken if the controlling player nominated "rear" facing for the Shield. (If the Knight does place the Ion Shield in the rear arc, the Tau units using Wall of Mirrors MUST hit it though, as they cannot choose which facing they hit.)

Wave Serpents hit in the rear arc by Wall of Mirrors attacks also do not benefit from the Serpent Shield.

wow, just wow, after buying 5 imperial knights GW pulls this crap? I hate you GW. I should have walked away from this game when I sold a large part of my CSM but instead I spent it on 5 Imperial Knights like an idiot. Imperial Knights are supper easy to kill. A 85 pt model can one shot a knight. Its a called a shokk attack cannon with a lucky STR D vortex shot. On top of that any melta or lascannon can pen and get a 6 on the damage table and take away d3 hull points where as a Wraith Knight giggles and shrugs of a hit with a invul save followed by a FNP.

Imperial Knights should just be treated like a Gargantuan Creature like the OP Wraith Knight and have a 4++ invul save.

I hate GW and I dont understand why I keep buying and playing this game.

 Quickjager wrote:
"As if" never was actually in the rule, are you saying it WAS? Because if you are not then you are wasting time on a matter that was already decided.

You'll note I said at the end of the little as if bit that I was getting back on track. The rule states simply that it resolves against the rear, as has been agreed to. But in general people need to stop trying to re-think how as if works. Sorry about that Jager!

GreyDragoon wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
"As if" never was actually in the rule, are you saying it WAS? Because if you are not then you are wasting time on a matter that was already decided.

You'll note I said at the end of the little as if bit that I was getting back on track. The rule states simply that it resolves against the rear, as has been agreed to. But in general people need to stop trying to re-think how as if works. Sorry about that Jager!

No problem, I was just wondering if a rules misquote happened again. Didn't mean to sound gruff.

 ibushi wrote:
In conclusion, when Optimized Stealth Cadre units benefitting from Wall of Mirrors shoot at a Knight with an Ion Shield, they hit rear armour, and so an Ion Shield save may only be taken if the controlling player nominated "rear" facing for the Shield. (If the Knight does place the Ion Shield in the rear arc, the Tau units using Wall of Mirrors MUST hit it though, as they cannot choose which facing they hit.)

Wave Serpents hit in the rear arc by Wall of Mirrors attacks also do not benefit from the Serpent Shield.

This is correct. However, Wall of mirrors can be chosen to be active or inactive IIRC. Therefore the knight player needs to choose carefully where his shielding is.

And also @Filch, maybe its time to sell those knights and buy tau models?

frag this game!

bleak wrote:

 ibushi wrote:
In conclusion, when Optimized Stealth Cadre units benefitting from Wall of Mirrors shoot at a Knight with an Ion Shield, they hit rear armour, and so an Ion Shield save may only be taken if the controlling player nominated "rear" facing for the Shield. (If the Knight does place the Ion Shield in the rear arc, the Tau units using Wall of Mirrors MUST hit it though, as they cannot choose which facing they hit.)

Wave Serpents hit in the rear arc by Wall of Mirrors attacks also do not benefit from the Serpent Shield.

This is correct. However, Wall of mirrors can be chosen to be active or inactive IIRC. Therefore the knight player needs to choose carefully where his shielding is.

And also @Filch, maybe its time to sell those knights and buy tau models?

Nope, they are "assumed to strike the rear armour of any vehicle that they hit, no matter what its actual facing." They cannot choose to disable it, even when it would be detrimental to shoot the rear armor of a vehicle.

I thought it just meant the OSC gets to shoot at a lower Armor Value. Most Vehicles have lower armor in the rear so I just thought it was like a Lance kinda thing where it ignored av14 and hits av12.

 Filch wrote:
I thought it just meant the OSC gets to shoot at a lower Armor Value. Most Vehicles have lower armor in the rear so I just thought it was like a Lance kinda thing where it ignored av14 and hits av12.

If there was a vehicle that had AV14 on the back, but 10 on the sides, they would still have to hit the 14 on the back.

notredameguy10 wrote:

Naw wrote:
GW is quite consistent in the use of as if. The two rules don't really match here too well. I'd go with the shots coming from whichever facing the Ghostkeel & co were at but always hitting against the rear AV.

Explain to me then how would the rear armor be hit.... if they shoot from the front. That literally makes no sense. The only logical way for the rear armor to be hit, is to be shooting from the direction of the rear armor. Unless you think that their bullets shoot past them and spin around 180 degrees to hit their back lol.

"As if" means they aren't actually behind them shooting, but hit their back armor like they are shooting from behind for all intensive purposes, including direction of shot.

And here I thought that is what I just said.

Nilok wrote:

bleak wrote:

 ibushi wrote:
In conclusion, when Optimized Stealth Cadre units benefitting from Wall of Mirrors shoot at a Knight with an Ion Shield, they hit rear armour, and so an Ion Shield save may only be taken if the controlling player nominated "rear" facing for the Shield. (If the Knight does place the Ion Shield in the rear arc, the Tau units using Wall of Mirrors MUST hit it though, as they cannot choose which facing they hit.)

Wave Serpents hit in the rear arc by Wall of Mirrors attacks also do not benefit from the Serpent Shield.

This is correct. However, Wall of mirrors can be chosen to be active or inactive IIRC. Therefore the knight player needs to choose carefully where his shielding is.

And also @Filch, maybe its time to sell those knights and buy tau models?

Nope, they are "assumed to strike the rear armour of any vehicle that they hit, no matter what its actual facing." They cannot choose to disable it, even when it would be detrimental to shoot the rear armor of a vehicle.

Ok reread that, it states,

Wall of Mirrors: At the start of the shooting phase, this formation can network their stealth fields to create a wall of mirrors. So you DO NOT have to shoot the rear. Looks like knights are really gonna have a bad time. Landraiders however still laughs at this, unless a lucky melta comes up.

bleak wrote:

Nilok wrote:

bleak wrote:

 ibushi wrote:
In conclusion, when Optimized Stealth Cadre units benefitting from Wall of Mirrors shoot at a Knight with an Ion Shield, they hit rear armour, and so an Ion Shield save may only be taken if the controlling player nominated "rear" facing for the Shield. (If the Knight does place the Ion Shield in the rear arc, the Tau units using Wall of Mirrors MUST hit it though, as they cannot choose which facing they hit.)

Wave Serpents hit in the rear arc by Wall of Mirrors attacks also do not benefit from the Serpent Shield.

This is correct. However, Wall of mirrors can be chosen to be active or inactive IIRC. Therefore the knight player needs to choose carefully where his shielding is.

And also @Filch, maybe its time to sell those knights and buy tau models?

Nope, they are "assumed to strike the rear armour of any vehicle that they hit, no matter what its actual facing." They cannot choose to disable it, even when it would be detrimental to shoot the rear armor of a vehicle.

Ok reread that, it states,

Wall of Mirrors: At the start of the shooting phase, this formation can network their stealth fields to create a wall of mirrors. So you DO NOT have to shoot the rear. Looks like knights are really gonna have a bad time. Landraiders however still laughs at this, unless a lucky melta comes up.

Ah, derp.
It does however cost their ignore cover too.

 Filch wrote:
wow, just wow, after buying 5 imperial knights GW pulls this crap? I hate you GW. I should have walked away from this game when I sold a large part of my CSM but instead I spent it on 5 Imperial Knights like an idiot. Imperial Knights are supper easy to kill. A 85 pt model can one shot a knight. Its a called a shokk attack cannon with a lucky STR D vortex shot. On top of that any melta or lascannon can pen and get a 6 on the damage table and take away d3 hull points where as a Wraith Knight giggles and shrugs of a hit with a invul save followed by a FNP.

Imperial Knights should just be treated like a Gargantuan Creature like the OP Wraith Knight and have a 4++ invul save.

I hate GW and I dont understand why I keep buying and playing this game.

Honestly, you have no one but yourself to blame for buying 5 knights without knowing their strengths and weaknesses. They have been out for over a year now and have been well analyzed by the tournament community, message boards, and various pages like frontline. Buying that many and then being upset by their rules is just silly.

Naw wrote:
GW is quite consistent in the use of as if. The two rules don't really match here too well. I'd go with the shots coming from whichever facing the Ghostkeel & co were at but always hitting against the rear AV.

As the rule was quoted incorrectly and I did not check the wording, it is now quite obvious that the knight must place the shield to its backside to benefit from it. This is very bad news also to Wave Serpents, which is positive

If the "as if" wording was correct nothing changes. You are aware of that right? "As if" "treated as"counts as" etc are all the same as "is" from a rules perspective. Also the Knight's shield cares nothing for where the shots come from only what facing is hit.

Obviously the solution, when playing against Tau, is to run Gallants backwards at them. Only turn around when it is time to charge.

Well, that and they are running the OSC, of course.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Obviously the solution, when playing against Tau, is to run Gallants backwards at them. Only turn around when it is time to charge.

Well, that and they are running the OSC, of course.

Nothing beats moonwalking knights

 FlingitNow wrote:
If the "as if" wording was correct nothing changes. You are aware of that right? "As if" "treated as"counts as" etc are all the same as "is" from a rules perspective. Also the Knight's shield cares nothing for where the shots come from only what facing is hit.

My comment was how I would play it but there was not any ambiguity in the rules. So yes, only if the shield was placed behind would it protect.

 IngenuityGap wrote:

 Filch wrote:
wow, just wow, after buying 5 imperial knights GW pulls this crap? I hate you GW. I should have walked away from this game when I sold a large part of my CSM but instead I spent it on 5 Imperial Knights like an idiot. Imperial Knights are supper easy to kill. A 85 pt model can one shot a knight. Its a called a shokk attack cannon with a lucky STR D vortex shot. On top of that any melta or lascannon can pen and get a 6 on the damage table and take away d3 hull points where as a Wraith Knight giggles and shrugs of a hit with a invul save followed by a FNP.

Imperial Knights should just be treated like a Gargantuan Creature like the OP Wraith Knight and have a 4++ invul save.

I hate GW and I dont understand why I keep buying and playing this game.

Honestly, you have no one but yourself to blame for buying 5 knights without knowing their strengths and weaknesses. They have been out for over a year now and have been well analyzed by the tournament community, message boards, and various pages like frontline. Buying that many and then being upset by their rules is just silly.

OReally? Did the community predict this wall of mirrors shenanigans a year ago? Did Front line leak Ghost Keel wandering in a Wall of Mirors like bruce lee? before a year ago it was just Paladin and Errants with the Adamantine Lance.

 Filch wrote:

 IngenuityGap wrote:

 Filch wrote:
wow, just wow, after buying 5 imperial knights GW pulls this crap? I hate you GW. I should have walked away from this game when I sold a large part of my CSM but instead I spent it on 5 Imperial Knights like an idiot. Imperial Knights are supper easy to kill. A 85 pt model can one shot a knight. Its a called a shokk attack cannon with a lucky STR D vortex shot. On top of that any melta or lascannon can pen and get a 6 on the damage table and take away d3 hull points where as a Wraith Knight giggles and shrugs of a hit with a invul save followed by a FNP.

Imperial Knights should just be treated like a Gargantuan Creature like the OP Wraith Knight and have a 4++ invul save.

I hate GW and I dont understand why I keep buying and playing this game.

Honestly, you have no one but yourself to blame for buying 5 knights without knowing their strengths and weaknesses. They have been out for over a year now and have been well analyzed by the tournament community, message boards, and various pages like frontline. Buying that many and then being upset by their rules is just silly.

OReally? Did the community predict this wall of mirrors shenanigans a year ago? Did Front line leak Ghost Keel wandering in a Wall of Mirors like bruce lee? before a year ago it was just Paladin and Errants with the Adamantine Lance.

Christ on a crutch. If you bought five Knights, you probably did it for one of two reasons: to be "that guy" or have an awesome looking army of gigantic robots with big guns and bigger chainswords. The first one was never viable because Necrons and Eldar. That's been the case for nearly every release. So please, listen to Arnold and "stop whining". If you did it for the second reason, you still have a group of badass looking robots. I hope you spent a good amount of time painting them to the level they deserve.

Also, it seems like this has been resolved (or at least the thread has derailed). Someone declare time of death?

nothing in the rules for optimised stealth cadre tell you to change where the shooting attack comes from, just that it hits rear armor. It does not state to treat the attack as if coming from the rear.

They would have to state such a thing, because it has implications for cover saves, ie vehicles may be behind cover on their front facing but not the rear facing. the vehicles overall cover save is based on where the attack comes from, not which facing is hit. So a vehicle right behind a low wall, would have cover from a model infront of it, even if the model had a special rule letting it hit the rear armor.

as for the knights shield, it gives a save to a facing on the knight, so unless the knight chose rear armor a shoot that hits the rear armor coming from a different facing, would still hit the rear armor and not the facing protected. Or, the knight cannot protect a facing of armor it did not nominate to protect.

the idea of running knights backwards would not work within the RAW to stop this ability. The optimised stealth cadre rules does not say it hits the opposite facing from which they are targetting, it says it hits the rear armor. If you run knights backwards [rear armor is forward] it will still hit the rear armor facing, which would be what is in front in this case.

blaktoof wrote:
nothing in the rules for optimised stealth cadre tell you to change where the shooting attack comes from, just that it hits rear armor. It does not state to treat the attack as if coming from the rear.

They would have to state such a thing, because it has implications for cover saves, ie vehicles may be behind cover on their front facing but not the rear facing. the vehicles overall cover save is based on where the attack comes from, not which facing is hit. So a vehicle right behind a low wall, would have cover from a model infront of it, even if the model had a special rule letting it hit the rear armor.

as for the knights shield, it gives a save to a facing on the knight, so unless the knight chose rear armor a shoot that hits the rear armor coming from a different facing, would still hit the rear armor and not the facing protected. Or, the knight cannot protect a facing of armor it did not nominate to protect.

the idea of running knights backwards would not work within the RAW to stop this ability. The optimised stealth cadre rules does not say it hits the opposite facing from which they are targetting, it says it hits the rear armor. If you run knights backwards [rear armor is forward] it will still hit the rear armor facing, which would be what is in front in this case.

OSC ignores all cover as well

the idea of running knights backwards would not work within the RAWto stop this ability. The optimised stealth cadre rules does not say it hits the opposite facing from which they are targetting, it says it hits the rear armor. If you run knights backwards [rear armor is forward] it will still hit the rear armor facing, which would be what is in front in this case. 

You know you've explained exactly why it WOULD work right? Run the Knights backwards so you can choose rear armour shield and get protection from the Ghostkeels AND the Stormsurge/Broadsides etc.

 Filch wrote:
wow, just wow, after buying 5 imperial knights GW pulls this crap? I hate you GW. I should have walked away from this game when I sold a large part of my CSM but instead I spent it on 5 Imperial Knights like an idiot. Imperial Knights are supper easy to kill. A 85 pt model can one shot a knight. Its a called a shokk attack cannon with a lucky STR D vortex shot. On top of that any melta or lascannon can pen and get a 6 on the damage table and take away d3 hull points where as a Wraith Knight giggles and shrugs of a hit with a invul save followed by a FNP.

Imperial Knights should just be treated like a Gargantuan Creature like the OP Wraith Knight and have a 4++ invul save.

I hate GW and I dont understand why I keep buying and playing this game.

lol

5 Knights right now lets you play at 2k points. $ wise the cost of the army is one of the lowest to get a 2kpt army, or even 1850pt army. You ignore most armies basic weapons, completely, as well as most armies basic assault units, completely.

the 85pt model you talk about, almost no one takes, because the 3.5" radius large blast marker it fires scatters 2d6-2, so about 40% of the time it scatters off the target(miss), the chance to get a D str shot is by rolling double 6's on 2d6, so a 12. I doubt you or anyone you have ever played with has ever seen this happen in a tournament with this model, if they did it was one person one time.

Yes a lascannon that hits a knight, and then pens armor, and then doesn't get stopped by shield/cover, and then rolls a 6 for the effect can cause d3 hps, which has a 33% chance to still be just 1.
and Yes a WK hit by the same lascannon(which is wounded easier than a knight on front facing is penned/glanced...) might also get a worse invulnerable save, if it bought the shield and gave up its D ranged weapons, and would then get a 5+ fnp. Considering any weapon with the instant death ability does no additional damage to a Knight, but does D3 wounds to a WK(doesn't need to roll explodes) and ignores FnP there are some obvious trade offs here, I would rather be the knight personally.

Anyways, if you think an IK army is not very powerful, maybe you should sell your knights and buy a farseer on a jetbike, and some squads of min sized scatter bikes, and then a bunch of WKs. or move on to a different hobby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

the idea of running knights backwards would not work within the RAWto stop this ability. The optimised stealth cadre rules does not say it hits the opposite facing from which they are targetting, it says it hits the rear armor. If you run knights backwards [rear armor is forward] it will still hit the rear armor facing, which would be what is in front in this case. 

You know you've explained exactly why it WOULD work right? Run the Knights backwards so you can choose rear armour shield and get protection from the Ghostkeels AND the Stormsurge/Broadsides etc.

the OSC doesn't hit the facing that is rear from the firing unit, it hits the rear armor facing...if the rear armor is the facing closest to them and right infront of them, they would still hit the rear armor with their special rule, not the front armor because its now on the other side of the model from the firer.

If I drive my rhino backwards the front isn't the rear. The front is still front armor, even though it is not backwards, and the rear is still rear armor even though it is the side closer to the enemy firing at it.

blaktoof wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

the idea of running knights backwards would not work within the RAWto stop this ability. The optimised stealth cadre rules does not say it hits the opposite facing from which they are targetting, it says it hits the rear armor. If you run knights backwards [rear armor is forward] it will still hit the rear armor facing, which would be what is in front in this case. 

You know you've explained exactly why it WOULD work right? Run the Knights backwards so you can choose rear armour shield and get protection from the Ghostkeels AND the Stormsurge/Broadsides etc.

the OSC doesn't hit the facing that is rear from the firing unit, it hits the rear armor facing...if the rear armor is the facing closest to them and right infront of them, they would still hit the rear armor with their special rule, not the front armor because its now on the other side of the model from the firer.

If I drive my rhino backwards the front isn't the rear. The front is still front armor, even though it is not backwards, and the rear is still rear armor even though it is the side closer to the enemy firing at it.

You are both saying the same thing and don't realize it

notredameguy10 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

the idea of running knights backwards would not work within the RAWto stop this ability. The optimised stealth cadre rules does not say it hits the opposite facing from which they are targetting, it says it hits the rear armor. If you run knights backwards [rear armor is forward] it will still hit the rear armor facing, which would be what is in front in this case. 

You know you've explained exactly why it WOULD work right? Run the Knights backwards so you can choose rear armour shield and get protection from the Ghostkeels AND the Stormsurge/Broadsides etc.

the OSC doesn't hit the facing that is rear from the firing unit, it hits the rear armor facing...if the rear armor is the facing closest to them and right infront of them, they would still hit the rear armor with their special rule, not the front armor because its now on the other side of the model from the firer.

If I drive my rhino backwards the front isn't the rear. The front is still front armor, even though it is not backwards, and the rear is still rear armor even though it is the side closer to the enemy firing at it.

You are both saying the same thing and don't realize it

Shhh, let them argue.

notredameguy10 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

the idea of running knights backwards would not work within the RAWto stop this ability. The optimised stealth cadre rules does not say it hits the opposite facing from which they are targetting, it says it hits the rear armor. If you run knights backwards [rear armor is forward] it will still hit the rear armor facing, which would be what is in front in this case. 

You know you've explained exactly why it WOULD work right? Run the Knights backwards so you can choose rear armour shield and get protection from the Ghostkeels AND the Stormsurge/Broadsides etc.

the OSC doesn't hit the facing that is rear from the firing unit, it hits the rear armor facing...if the rear armor is the facing closest to them and right infront of them, they would still hit the rear armor with their special rule, not the front armor because its now on the other side of the model from the firer.

If I drive my rhino backwards the front isn't the rear. The front is still front armor, even though it is not backwards, and the rear is still rear armor even though it is the side closer to the enemy firing at it.

You are both saying the same thing and don't realize it

We are agreeing on how the rules work but he is incapable of understanding how that works on the field for some reason...

Okay first thing is a moonwalking knight would not be able to fire at anything due to fire arcs. Second (as a Knight player) I agree that unless I declare rear arc I don't get the save and it pretty black and white to me. The bigger question to me is the Countermeasures. The rule states that once the unit declares countermeasures the enemy unit can only snapfire (it does not dictate snap fire at that unit it just states the enemy unit can now only snap fire). Seems to me that even if I fire my Knight at another unit I am still stuck with snap fire. This is more potent to an all knight army than the Ion Shield thing to me hehe.

 Fishboy wrote:
Okay first thing is a moonwalking knight would not be able to fire at anything due to fire arcs. Second (as a Knight player) I agree that unless I declare rear arc I don't get the save and it pretty black and white to me. The bigger question to me is the Countermeasures. The rule states that once the unit declares countermeasures the enemy unit can only snapfire (it does not dictate snap fire at that unit it just states the enemy unit can now only snap fire). Seems to me that even if I fire my Knight at another unit I am still stuck with snap fire. This is more potent to an all knight army than the Ion Shield thing to me hehe.

The obvious solution being don't fire your Knights at them...

 Fishboy wrote:
Okay first thing is a moonwalking knight would not be able to fire at anything due to fire arcs. Second (as a Knight player) I agree that unless I declare rear arc I don't get the save and it pretty black and white to me. The bigger question to me is the Countermeasures. The rule states that once the unit declares countermeasures the enemy unit can only snapfire (it does not dictate snap fire at that unit it just states the enemy unit can now only snap fire). Seems to me that even if I fire my Knight at another unit I am still stuck with snap fire. This is more potent to an all knight army than the Ion Shield thing to me hehe.

You HAVE to continue firing at the Ghostkeels as snap shots. You can no longer switch targets either.

Could you explain why they can't change targets? Not sure I understand that.

 Fishboy wrote:
Could you explain why they can't change targets? Not sure I understand that.

For the same reason that you can't change targets after you roll badly and decide you'd like to try again.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Fishboy wrote:
Could you explain why they can't change targets? Not sure I understand that.

For the same reason that you can't change targets after you roll badly and decide you'd like to try again.

Nothing in the rules require all of a Super-Heavy's targets to be declared at the same time. The only rulebook requirement is for weapons of the same group, and that is only because you have to use them all at the same time or lose the opportunity to fire them.

 Fishboy wrote:
Could you explain why they can't change targets? Not sure I understand that.

You have to snapfire with whatever weapons you originally targeted the Ghostkeels with. Any other weapons not yet fire can be fired at different targets, but must also snap fire.

If a 6" moving JSJ unit with melta weapons at 18/9" are getting that close to your knight to kill it in one round then you're doing something wrong. The knight moves 12", assault 2d6, and has good firepower (choose your targets carefully to avoid the Ghostkeels snap fire shenanigans and thin out the overwatch capabilities). The formations maximum threat range is 18" so you should be able to assault them and with 5 knights that increases your odds for assault dramatically.

 IngenuityGap wrote:

 Filch wrote:
wow, just wow, after buying 5 imperial knights GW pulls this crap? I hate you GW. I should have walked away from this game when I sold a large part of my CSM but instead I spent it on 5 Imperial Knights like an idiot. Imperial Knights are supper easy to kill. A 85 pt model can one shot a knight. Its a called a shokk attack cannon with a lucky STR D vortex shot. On top of that any melta or lascannon can pen and get a 6 on the damage table and take away d3 hull points where as a Wraith Knight giggles and shrugs of a hit with a invul save followed by a FNP.

Imperial Knights should just be treated like a Gargantuan Creature like the OP Wraith Knight and have a 4++ invul save.

I hate GW and I dont understand why I keep buying and playing this game.

Honestly, you have no one but yourself to blame for buying 5 knights without knowing their strengths and weaknesses. They have been out for over a year now and have been well analyzed by the tournament community, message boards, and various pages like frontline. Buying that many and then being upset by their rules is just silly.

That is entirely unfair of you to say that. If he bought 5 Knights because they are cool or because they are effective shouldn't matter in the least, what matters is GW created an entire faction that this formation utterly neuters. I felt exactly the same when my Dark Eldar became irrelevant competitively due to all of Taus ignore cover. GW has created a power creep that alienates and discourages Pre-Necron armies and it is completely reasonable for Flitch to complain about that. His Knights have just hit the wall a little while after my Dark Eldar, it's still the same stupid power creeping wall.

On the actual rule, it seems to me that the shots are resolved against rear armour no matter what side they actually face. It's stupid, terrible fluff but that is how the rules seem to be.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:

 IngenuityGap wrote:

 Filch wrote:
wow, just wow, after buying 5 imperial knights GW pulls this crap? I hate you GW. I should have walked away from this game when I sold a large part of my CSM but instead I spent it on 5 Imperial Knights like an idiot. Imperial Knights are supper easy to kill. A 85 pt model can one shot a knight. Its a called a shokk attack cannon with a lucky STR D vortex shot. On top of that any melta or lascannon can pen and get a 6 on the damage table and take away d3 hull points where as a Wraith Knight giggles and shrugs of a hit with a invul save followed by a FNP.

Imperial Knights should just be treated like a Gargantuan Creature like the OP Wraith Knight and have a 4++ invul save.

I hate GW and I dont understand why I keep buying and playing this game.

Honestly, you have no one but yourself to blame for buying 5 knights without knowing their strengths and weaknesses. They have been out for over a year now and have been well analyzed by the tournament community, message boards, and various pages like frontline. Buying that many and then being upset by their rules is just silly.

That is entirely unfair of you to say that. If he bought 5 Knights because they are cool or because they are effective shouldn't matter in the least, what matters is GW created an entire faction that this formation utterly neuters. I felt exactly the same when my Dark Eldar became irrelevant competitively due to all of Taus ignore cover. GW has created a power creep that alienates and discourages Pre-Necron armies and it is completely reasonable for Flitch to complain about that. His Knights have just hit the wall a little while after my Dark Eldar, it's still the same stupid power creeping wall.

On the actual rule, it seems to me that the shots are resolved against rear armour no matter what side they actually face. It's stupid, terrible fluff but that is how the rules seem to be.

I wouldn't say this completely invalidates knights, or even neuters them. Its not like the 5th edition GK versus Daemons matchup. In fact saying its really a threats to knights at all is simply ignorant.

Knights are Armor 13/12/12 so their rear armor is the same as their side armor. 12.

The basic optimised stealth cadre is 310 pts before any additions, and only 1 model in it can hurt armor 12 at that point which is the single ghostkeel. It will be firing either 6 str 7 shots(average 4 hits, which will be 1 hp if there are no saves...) or 1 fusion shot, and the stealth team will fire a bunch of S5 shots which will do nothing.

Lets say you run into a very expensive Optimized stealth cadre. It has a squad of 3 ghostkeels with ion rakers and twin linked fusion, and 2 squads of 6 stealth suits with 2 fusion blasters each. This formation is 800pts without any further upgrades than those I just listed.

It has 3 twin linked fusion shots from the ghostkeels, another 18 str7 ap 4 shots from the ghost keels, and 4 fusion shots from all the suits, when they all get within 18".

Outside of 9" they do not get the bonus die for melta, so thats an average of 12 str7 hits, (4 HP) and 3 fusion hits (averge 1 pen, has a 33% chance to do d3 hp) and another 3 fusion hits which will average 1 more pen(another d3hp) for an average of 8hps done. If you put your shield in the rear, you took an average 4 hps.....

Obviously if they all get within 9" they will kill a knight, maybe even two. However your knights are probably shooting as they move up, and with a 12" move not slowed by terrain and a 2d6" charge the chance for tau to get within 9" untouched is very very low. Also as stated the above is 800pts without any support system upgrades etc, which is more than the cost of 2 knights.

Out of all the vehicles this affects knights aren't the ones bothered, its things like brass scorpions which are very expensive and have rear armor 10. As well as various imperial/ork vehicles with Armor 12-14 front but 10 on the rear- because the volume of fire from burst cannons which can glance/pen AV 10 is high. A ghostkeel and 6 stealth suits, fire off 24 str5 shots and 6 str7 shots. Against AV10 if they are in range, your looking at 16 str 5 hits, and 4 str 7 hits- against say a squad of leman russes this will trash a squadron of 3 pretty easy in one go.

Doesnt this formation allow a riptide to get the bonus of ignore cover and hit rear?

 Filch wrote:
Doesnt this formation allow a riptide to get the bonus of ignore cover and hit rear?

No.

The Wall of Mirrors: At the start of your shooting phase, this Formation can network their stealth fields to create a Wall of Mirrors. If you do so, then the weapons used by the Formation's Ghostkeels and by any unit of Stealth Battlesuits from this formation that are within 6" of a Ghostkeel from this Formation, have the Ignores Cover special rule, and these models add 1 to their BS for that Shooting phase. In addition, their weapons are assumed to strike the rear armour of any vehicle that they hit, no matter what its actual facing.

Unless a riptide is a ghostkeel or stealth suit unit in that formation.

even if the rule could be shared through 'coordinated firepower' the result would not benefit other models/units- because -if- the the rule is shared, and the rule states within itself who can benefit. "ghostkeels and stealth battlesuits from this formation within 6" of a ghostkeel from this formation" which if you check for a riptide or any other unit in the 'coordinated firepower' attack would not be a ghostkeel from the optimized stealth cadre formation, nor would it be a stealth suit unit from the optimized stealth cadre formation within 6" of a ghostkeel from the optimized stealth cadre formation.

Its not the same as markerlight, or monster hunter, in who it can benefit.

Charistoph wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Fishboy wrote:
Could you explain why they can't change targets? Not sure I understand that.

For the same reason that you can't change targets after you roll badly and decide you'd like to try again.

Nothing in the rules require all of a Super-Heavy's targets to be declared at the same time. The only rulebook requirement is for weapons of the same group, and that is only because you have to use them all at the same time or lose the opportunity to fire them.

This is exactly incorrect. You are required to declare all of your targets before a single shot is resolved

 luke1705 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Fishboy wrote:
Could you explain why they can't change targets? Not sure I understand that.

For the same reason that you can't change targets after you roll badly and decide you'd like to try again.

Nothing in the rules require all of a Super-Heavy's targets to be declared at the same time. The only rulebook requirement is for weapons of the same group, and that is only because you have to use them all at the same time or lose the opportunity to fire them.

This is exactly incorrect. You are required to declare all of your targets before a single shot is resolved

Nope not true in the slightest. What Charistoph said is correct. There is nothing in the rules that states you must pick all of your targets first. I can fire one weapon, and when that is done, choose the target for my next weapon.

 luke1705 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Fishboy wrote:
Could you explain why they can't change targets? Not sure I understand that.

For the same reason that you can't change targets after you roll badly and decide you'd like to try again.

Nothing in the rules require all of a Super-Heavy's targets to be declared at the same time. The only rulebook requirement is for weapons of the same group, and that is only because you have to use them all at the same time or lose the opportunity to fire them.

This is exactly incorrect. You are required to declare all of your targets before a single shot is resolved

And where does it state this? The Shooting Sequence only specifies selecting A target, and does not allow for multiple Targetting. The Super-Heavy rules do not state how the Shooting Sequence is modified to account for their multiple targets.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 luke1705 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Fishboy wrote:
Could you explain why they can't change targets? Not sure I understand that.

For the same reason that you can't change targets after you roll badly and decide you'd like to try again.

Nothing in the rules require all of a Super-Heavy's targets to be declared at the same time. The only rulebook requirement is for weapons of the same group, and that is only because you have to use them all at the same time or lose the opportunity to fire them.

This is exactly incorrect. You are required to declare all of your targets before a single shot is resolved

Nope not true in the slightest. What Charistoph said is correct. There is nothing in the rules that states you must pick all of your targets first. I can fire one weapon, and when that is done, choose the target for my next weapon.

Please show where permission to fire at different targets give you permission to perform step 2 of the shooting phase sequence, choose a target, more than once

Given this is a permissive rule set, you must show permission to do this. Rules please.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 luke1705 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Fishboy wrote:
Could you explain why they can't change targets? Not sure I understand that.

For the same reason that you can't change targets after you roll badly and decide you'd like to try again.

Nothing in the rules require all of a Super-Heavy's targets to be declared at the same time. The only rulebook requirement is for weapons of the same group, and that is only because you have to use them all at the same time or lose the opportunity to fire them.

This is exactly incorrect. You are required to declare all of your targets before a single shot is resolved

Nope not true in the slightest. What Charistoph said is correct. There is nothing in the rules that states you must pick all of your targets first. I can fire one weapon, and when that is done, choose the target for my next weapon.

Please show where permission to fire at different targets give you permission to perform step 2 of the shooting phase sequence, choose a target, more than once

Given this is a permissive rule set, you must show permission to do this. Rules please.

Show me where it says you cannot or says you must choose all at once?

You pick your GC/SH and then go from steps 2-7 and then repeat. GC/SH can shoot each of its weapons, at a different target. Step 2 is select a target. AS IN SINGULAR TARGET. This means you would repeat step 2 with each weapon as they are being fired at a different target.

You're reading quite a bit into that. The shooting steps are:
1. select unit
2: select target
3: select weapon
...
7. select another weapon

Step 7 is very clear - go back to step 3.

The super heavy rules give you permission to select multiple targets (modifying step 2) - they don't tell you to change the order of operations for the shooting phase.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
You're reading quite a bit into that. The shooting steps are:
1. select unit
2: select target
3: select weapon
...
7. select another weapon

Step 7 is very clear - go back to step 3.

The super heavy rules give you permission to select multiple targets (modifying step 2) - they don't tell you to change the order of operations for the shooting phase.

Selecting another weapon and then I chose to target a different unit. It makes no sense to "select a weapon" after I have picked multiple targets. Otherwise I will select every single enemy unit on the board then decide in step 3 which weapons will fire at each target, leading to the same result as just firing one at a time

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
You're reading quite a bit into that. The shooting steps are:
1. select unit
2: select target
3: select weapon
...
7. select another weapon

Step 7 is very clear - go back to step 3.

The super heavy rules give you permission to select multiple targets (modifying step 2) - they don't tell you to change the order of operations for the shooting phase.

Selecting another weapon and then I chose to target a different unit. It makes no sense to "select a weapon" after I have picked multiple targets. Otherwise I will select every single enemy unit on the board then decide in step 3 which weapons will fire at each target, leading to the same result as just firing one at a time

Well if you select a unit as a target you must then fire at it with at least 1 weapon so you can't quite do that. To be honest we are all guessing as the rules don't tell us how we select multiple targets forthings like GMCs or target locks.

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
You're reading quite a bit into that. The shooting steps are:
1. select unit
2: select target
3: select weapon
...
7. select another weapon

Step 7 is very clear - go back to step 3.

The super heavy rules give you permission to select multiple targets (modifying step 2) - they don't tell you to change the order of operations for the shooting phase.

Selecting another weapon and then I chose to target a different unit. It makes no sense to "select a weapon" after I have picked multiple targets. Otherwise I will select every single enemy unit on the board then decide in step 3 which weapons will fire at each target, leading to the same result as just firing one at a time

Well if you select a unit as a target you must then fire at it with at least 1 weapon so you can't quite do that. To be honest we are all guessing as the rules don't tell us how we select multiple targets forthings like GMCs or target locks.

There is nothing in the rules that prevent me from selecting a target and then if I have no remaining weapons to fire at it, I do not have to fire at it. If have a unit out of range of an enemy unit, I can still "target" it and then if no weapons are in range I do not have to / cannot fire at it.

Ah so you're going by "it doesn't say I can't"

Permissive rule sets don't work like that.

There is nothing in the rules that prevent me from selecting a target and then if I have no remaining weapons to fire at it, I do not have to fire at it. If have a unit out of range of an enemy unit, I can still "target" it and then if no weapons are in range I do not have to / cannot fire at it.

You need to show permission not me show restriction. It is a permissive ruleset.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah so you're going by "it doesn't say I can't"

Permissive rule sets don't work like that.

Reread the step 3. "Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot". That is after step 2 of selecting targets. Therefore, I can select any target I want, and If I have no weapons that are in range of the enemy unit, I cannot shoot at that unit

notredameguy10 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah so you're going by "it doesn't say I can't"

Permissive rule sets don't work like that.

Reread the step 3. "Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot". That is after step 2 of selecting targets. Therefore, I can select any target I want, and If I have no weapons that are in range of the enemy unit, I cannot shoot at that unit

Actually the rule you quoted says you cannot shoot. It does not say you cannot shoot the target. Ergo, if you select Unit A and Unit B, and Unit B is out of sight, you cannot shoot at all.

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah so you're going by "it doesn't say I can't"

Permissive rule sets don't work like that.

Reread the step 3. "Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot". That is after step 2 of selecting targets. Therefore, I can select any target I want, and If I have no weapons that are in range of the enemy unit, I cannot shoot at that unit

Actually the rule you quoted says you cannot shoot. It does not say you cannot shoot the target. Ergo, if you select Unit A and Unit B, and Unit B is out of sight, you cannot shoot at all.

Nope. Step 2 is target selection. Aka i have already selected the unit as a target BEFORE I chose which weapons to fire. So I select target A, and if I have no weapons in range, I cannot shoot at target A. That is following the exact steps of the shooting phase sequence.

"Any weapon that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the target unit cannot shoot".

Not "cannot shoot at that target" - "cannot shoot".

What makes you think you get to have another go with that weapon at another target?

 Scott-S6 wrote:
"Any weapon that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the target unit cannot shoot".

Not "cannot shoot at that target" - "cannot shoot".

What makes you think you get to have another go with that weapon at another target?

Whats to say I even have any weapons left? I could have already shot all my weapons at other targets.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
"Any weapon that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the target unit cannot shoot".

Not "cannot shoot at that target" - "cannot shoot".

What makes you think you get to have another go with that weapon at another target?

Whats to say I even have any weapons left? I could have already shot all my weapons at other targets.

Except you lost the ability to shoot as soon as one of your targets were found to be out of range/sight.

notredameguy10 wrote:

Whats to say I even have any weapons left? I could have already shot all my weapons at other targets.

And why would you be selecting a target if there are no weapons remaining? The shooting resolution sequence cycles through weapons - not through targets.

 Happyjew wrote:

Except you lost the ability to shoot as soon as one of your targets were found to be out of range/sight.

Well, no - the rules say that the weapon cannot shoot - not the model or unit. P31 - check range.


As FlingItNow says, the rules simply do not tell us how to handle units that can split fire. In the case of super heavy vehicles all we have is a permission to target "multiple" enemy units. How many? At least enough for all weapons to be able to select a different target. So we have a number of options:

1. Change step 7 so that you return to step 2 (instead of 3) and repeat
2. Change step 2 to select a pool of targets and change step 3 to be select a weapon and a target from the pool
3. Do away with step 2 and change step 3 to be select a target and a weapon
4. Change step 2 to select a target for each weapon.

1-3 are identical in their results (baring some other interaction with this process) and all require a significant change to shooting resolution sequence - specifically that the repeating cycle is both target selection and weapon selection.
4 makes a change to how targets are selected but leaves everything else intact. This is, imo, a smaller change than the others as it leaves target selection in step 2 and keeps step 3 purely for weapon selection. It's also the least powerful interpretation. Both of these make it a more desirable selection for handling a genuinely ambiguous situation to my mind.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Except you lost the ability to shoot as soon as one of your targets were found to be out of range/sight.

Well, no - the rules say that the weapon cannot shoot - not the model or unit. P31 - check range.

And every unit must be in range and sight for each weapon, otherwise, the weapon cannot be fired.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Whats to say I even have any weapons left? I could have already shot all my weapons at other targets.

And why would you be selecting a target if there are no weapons remaining? The shooting resolution sequence cycles through weapons - not through targets.

thats exactly my point. People are saying you have to select every one of you targets for a GC/SH before you choose which weapoms to fire at each and not "pick target A and fire weapon #1, pick target B, fire weapon #2" due to the order of shooting being "Pick target, then fire a single weapon all the way through wounds and repeat at the fire single weapon part again".

If you have to pick the targets before picking weapons to fire at the targets, the rules permit picking all enemies and then choosing which to fire each weapon at.

I agree that the rules do not say what to do and I am just playing the devil's advocate


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Except you lost the ability to shoot as soon as one of your targets were found to be out of range/sight.

Well, no - the rules say that the weapon cannot shoot - not the model or unit. P31 - check range.

And every unit must be in range and sight for each weapon, otherwise, the weapon cannot be fired.

And if i already have fired all my weapons before reaching the rest of the targets that does not matter.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Whats to say I even have any weapons left? I could have already shot all my weapons at other targets.

And why would you be selecting a target if there are no weapons remaining? The shooting resolution sequence cycles through weapons - not through targets.

thats exactly my point. People are saying you have to select every one of you targets for a GC/SH before you choose which weapoms to fire at each and not "pick target A and fire weapon #1, pick target B, fire weapon #2" due to the order of shooting being "Pick target, then fire a single weapon all the way through wounds and repeat at the fire single weapon part again".

If you have to pick the targets before picking weapons to fire at the targets, the rules permit picking all enemies and then choosing which to fire each weapon at.

I agree that the rules do not say what to do and I am just playing the devil's advocate

Absolutely and that interpretation (select a pool of enemies in step 2 and then select both a weapon and a target from the pool in step 3) does lead to some odd circumstances. This is why I think that selecting each weapon's target in step 2 is the best resolution - it's the smoothest mechanically, it's the least powerful and it's how previous editions handled it - that adds up to fewest arguments.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Whats to say I even have any weapons left? I could have already shot all my weapons at other targets.

And why would you be selecting a target if there are no weapons remaining? The shooting resolution sequence cycles through weapons - not through targets.

thats exactly my point. People are saying you have to select every one of you targets for a GC/SH before you choose which weapoms to fire at each and not "pick target A and fire weapon #1, pick target B, fire weapon #2" due to the order of shooting being "Pick target, then fire a single weapon all the way through wounds and repeat at the fire single weapon part again".

If you have to pick the targets before picking weapons to fire at the targets, the rules permit picking all enemies and then choosing which to fire each weapon at.

I agree that the rules do not say what to do and I am just playing the devil's advocate

Absolutely and that interpretation (select a pool of enemies in step 2 and then select both a weapon and a target from the pool in step 3) does lead to some odd circumstances. This is why I think that selecting each weapon's target in step 2 is the best resolution - it's the smoothest mechanically, it's the least powerful and it's how previous editions handled it - that adds up to fewest arguments.

Except imagine now with the Tau codex and coordinated Firepower. Use the stormsurge as the main firing unit and choose 5 different targets. Do you now have to pick 10 other units and who is firing at who all at the same time? That is going to lead to way too much headache... It would be much simpler to just pick a target, fire a weapon, and repreat.

notredameguy10 wrote:

Except imagine now with the Tau codex and coordinated Firepower. Use the stormsurge as the main firing unit and choose 5 different targets. Do you now have to pick 10 other units and who is firing at who all at the same time? That is going to lead to way too much headache... It would be much simpler to just pick a target, fire a weapon, and repreat.

Except for how easy to abuse that .
Shoot super killer super weapon #1 at unit 1 . Roll poorly . Shoot sub-super killy weapon #2 at unit 1 again cause you botched the rolls Versus Shoot super killy super weapon #1 at unit 1. Roll poorly. Unit 1 gets to live cause of luck . Shoot sub-super killy weapon #2 at unit 2 cause you thought for sure the first weapon would have wiped that first unit off by itself

Select TARGET is singular

Show permission to repeat step 2

Page and graph.

notredameguy10 wrote:

Except imagine now with the Tau codex and coordinated Firepower. Use the stormsurge as the main firing unit and choose 5 different targets. Do you now have to pick 10 other units and who is firing at who all at the same time? That is going to lead to way too much headache... It would be much simpler to just pick a target, fire a weapon, and repreat.

This is how super heavy vehicles worked in every previous edition explicitly and all vehicles worked like that in several previous editions.

kambien wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Except imagine now with the Tau codex and coordinated Firepower. Use the stormsurge as the main firing unit and choose 5 different targets. Do you now have to pick 10 other units and who is firing at who all at the same time? That is going to lead to way too much headache... It would be much simpler to just pick a target, fire a weapon, and repreat.

Except for how easy to abuse that .
Shoot super killer super weapon #1 at unit 1 . Roll poorly . Shoot sub-super killy weapon #2 at unit 1 again cause you botched the rolls Versus Shoot super killy super weapon #1 at unit 1. Roll poorly. Unit 1 gets to live cause of luck . Shoot sub-super killy weapon #2 at unit 2 cause you thought for sure the first weapon would have wiped that first unit off by itself

To an extent you can already do that. Fire stormraven multimelta at target blow it up then don't fire one use missiles, don't blow it up then do fire missiles. Use combi meltas in sternguard squad get unlucky take vehicle down to 1 HP use combi plasmas to finish off etc. The process of seeing the result before you commit resources is already part of the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Page and graph.

This is somewhat hilarious coming form you. Since you haven't quoted and/or reference a rule in about a year , love to spout this line and then point to the tenants , of which you break with just about every post.

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Page and graph.

This is somewhat hilarious coming form you. Since you haven't quoted and/or reference a rule in about a year , love to spout this line and then point to the tenants , of which you break with just about every post.

Would you care to back up that lie, or care to retract it?

I can supply a few threads recently where i cited, refered to and quote rules.

Oh, and "tenets". Slightly different word

For giggles:

here, here again, oops and again, and again and lastly here as I cant be bothered to do more.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Page and graph.

This is somewhat hilarious coming form you. Since you haven't quoted and/or reference a rule in about a year , love to spout this line and then point to the tenants , of which you break with just about every post.

Would you care to back up that lie, or care to retract it?

I can supply a few threads recently where i cited, refered to and quote rules.

Oh, and "tenets". Slightly different word

For giggles:

here, here again, oops and again, and again and lastly here as I cant be bothered to do more.

i would like to refute you , but alas you haven't quoted and reference a rule yet , so we are at a standstill

Ah so you're adding nothing at all of value. Good to know

I'd still like to see a rule allowing you to repeatedly process step two. Do you have anything, or would someone able to contribute positively care to show this?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah so you're adding nothing at all of value. Good to know

I'd still like to see a rule allowing you to repeatedly process step two. Do you have anything, or would someone able to contribute positively care to show this?

Since GC/SH can shoot at different targets with each weapon, and the shooting sequence step 2 is pick a target (as in SINGULAR), logic dictates you would start at step 2 for each weapon.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah so you're adding nothing at all of value. Good to know

I'd still like to see a rule allowing you to repeatedly process step two. Do you have anything, or would someone able to contribute positively care to show this?

What allows you to change Step 2? The same thing that allows for repeating step 2.

Well, as the RB does not give a clear statement on this topic this seems like a good place for a house rule. Perps a Vote or such. not one can claim to be right with the backup of a rule.

 _ghost_ wrote:
Well, as the RB does not give a clear statement on this topic this seems like a good place for a house rule. Perps a Vote or such. not one can claim to be right with the backup of a rule.

Are you talking about the topic? or about shooting order of GC/SH weapons? We have all already agreed on the topic. Optimized Stealth Cadre always HITS the rear armor. So if you do not put the shield up on the rear armor, you do not get an inv. save

i was reffering to the GC/SH weapon stuff..

Charistoph wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah so you're adding nothing at all of value. Good to know

I'd still like to see a rule allowing you to repeatedly process step two. Do you have anything, or would someone able to contribute positively care to show this?

What allows you to change Step 2? The same thing that allows for repeating step 2.

What allows you to repeat step two having already performed one weapons shooting attacks. Page and graph.

@nosferatu1001

where is the page and graph that supports your point?

why you don't show us this part of the rules?

Because it's a permissive system. You are told to process through 1 to 7 - that's the base permission

If you claim you can repeat step 2, having gone through 3-7 for one weapon, you have to provide permission to do so.

So I don't have to provide any special rules - that's already covered by the basic rules.

rules are rules....

So you still got nothing that prooved your words rule wise. nothing against you but. why you dont show the rules you reffer?

U made a claim. and you don't show the rules thats it. yelling at each other to show evidence is.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Because it's a permissive system. You are told to process through 1 to 7 - that's the base permission

If you claim you can repeat step 2, having gone through 3-7 for one weapon, you have to provide permission to do so.

So I don't have to provide any special rules - that's already covered by the basic rules.

You need a quote that allows you to change step 2 and provides rules about how we do that.

 _ghost_ wrote:
rules are rules....

So you still got nothing that prooved your words rule wise. nothing against you but. why you dont show the rules you reffer?

U made a claim. and you don't show the rules thats it. yelling at each other to show evidence is.

Sigh

Page 30. Step two, choose a target.

Step 7 select another weapon. "...select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6 "

I didn't think it was necessary to point out such a clearly written and referenced rule here, but apparently I wa wrong

So, please show permission to go back to step 2. Page and graph. Or, concede you cannot do so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
rules are rules....

So you still got nothing that prooved your words rule wise. nothing against you but. why you dont show the rules you reffer?

U made a claim. and you don't show the rules thats it. yelling at each other to show evidence is.

Sigh

Page 30. Step two, choose a target.

Step 7 select another weapon. "...select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6 "

I didn't think it was necessary to point out such a clearly written and referenced rule here, but apparently I wa wrong

So, please show permission to go back to step 2. Page and graph. Or, concede you cannot do so.

he'll reference the GMC rule. Can you reference a rule that allows you to change step 2 and tells you how to do that?

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
rules are rules....

So you still got nothing that prooved your words rule wise. nothing against you but. why you dont show the rules you reffer?

U made a claim. and you don't show the rules thats it. yelling at each other to show evidence is.

Sigh

Page 30. Step two, choose a target.

Step 7 select another weapon. "...select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6 "

I didn't think it was necessary to point out such a clearly written and referenced rule here, but apparently I wa wrong

So, please show permission to go back to step 2. Page and graph. Or, concede you cannot do so.

he'll reference the GMC rule. Can you reference a rule that allows you to change step 2 and tells you how to do that?

I'll let them make their own case, rather than second guessing.

You could contribute positively here. Or not. Your call.

My point is that the GMCs and Target Lock rules are hopelessly vague and could be read as permission to repeat step 2 with each weapon/model or to alter step 2 to nominate each target then, or to alter step 2 to nominate each target and assign what weapons/models will fire at each target. No of those interpretations IMO is any more correct or wrong RaW than another.

But nice deflection from being asked to support your position with rules. So it tells me all I need to know about your motivation in this discussion as someone tries to help explain why you two are at crossed wires and your response is to attack that person.

As has been pointed out, the basic rules are expanded by GMC and Target Lock rules without saying how to do it. It's not written anywhere, but logically the second step must be repeated. Anyone arguing otherwise is doing so just for an argument's sake.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah so you're adding nothing at all of value. Good to know

I'd still like to see a rule allowing you to repeatedly process step two. Do you have anything, or would someone able to contribute positively care to show this?

What allows you to change Step 2? The same thing that allows for repeating step 2.

What allows you to repeat step two having already performed one weapons shooting attacks. Page and graph.

As I stated, the same thing that allows you to change Step 2.

The only rule that actually provides any textual changes to the Shooting Sequence and multiple targeting is Split Fire. All other multi-targeting rules do not state HOW it is changed. It does not state that we repeat Step 2, nor do they directly change Step 2. No matter which way you go to make multi-targeting to work (aside from Split Fire), it is a House Rule. I cannot list something is not there, just as you have not been able to post anything on changing Step 2.

The only thing the rules actually "demand" in this situation of multi-targeting is that all targets of a Weapon Name Group be declared at the same time, and that's because of how Weapon Selection works where you cannot select to shoot that Weapon Name Group from that unit a second time, and not anything listed in the multi-targeting rules.

Naw wrote:
As has been pointed out, the basic rules are expanded by GMC and Target Lock rules without saying how to do it. It's not written anywhere, but logically the second step must be repeated. Anyone arguing otherwise is doing so just for an argument's sake.

Why is that logical, instead of declaring all targets at step two and the iterating through? Least change and all that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Naw wrote:
As has been pointed out, the basic rules are expanded by GMC and Target Lock rules without saying how to do it. It's not written anywhere, but logically the second step must be repeated. Anyone arguing otherwise is doing so just for an argument's sake.

Why is that logical, instead of declaring all targets at step two and the iterating through? Least change and all that.

Because step 2 is select a TARGET (as in singular). That is the first step in the sequence that is invalidated by MC/GC being able to shoot at multiple targets. Since that is the 1st step that is now no longer valid, that is the step you would repeat. You cannot just assume to change step 2 to "pick all you targets"

I have to say I'm not convinced by wither argument. So I would just play it however a tournament ruled (or in a pick up game however my opponent preferred). Obviously how I would play it is a HIWPI not a raw argument, raw game breaks.

Pretty sure all it does is change "select a target" to "select targets", which makes the rest work without issue. You would still select all of your targets in step 2, and repeat steps 3-7 until you run out of weapon types to fire.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Pretty sure all it does is change "select a target" to "select targets", which makes the rest work without issue. You would still select all of your targets in step 2, and repeat steps 3-7 until you run out of weapon types to fire.

SJ

Nowhere does it say to do that in the BRB.

In fact, the most logical sequence would be:

1. Choose the GH/SH you want to shoot with
2. Choose a SINGLE TARGET
3-6. Choose a weapon you want to fire at that target and finish dice rolls
7. Repeat 3-6 with any other weapons YOU WANT TO FIRE AT THE SINGLE TARGET

now that you are done with that target, you select another target (step 2) and proceed with the shooting sequence


And if we follow your logic, then we are back to me selecting every single one of your units in step 2 and then in step 3 i can pick which ones I want to fire at with my weapons

Not so much. You pick your targets based on the specific weapons you intend to shot at those specific targets.

SJ

jeffersonian000 wrote:Pretty sure all it does is change "select a target" to "select targets", which makes the rest work without issue. You would still select all of your targets in step 2, and repeat steps 3-7 until you run out of weapon types to fire.

SJ

It is the simplest way to avoid shenanigans, but it is not written as such.

Even if you declare multiple targets at Step 2, you must still announce for each Weapon modelled when its group comes up, to avoid confusion, at the very least.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Naw wrote:
As has been pointed out, the basic rules are expanded by GMC and Target Lock rules without saying how to do it. It's not written anywhere, but logically the second step must be repeated. Anyone arguing otherwise is doing so just for an argument's sake.

Why is that logical, instead of declaring all targets at step two and the iterating through? Least change and all that.

You are correct. I'm looking at this also from the point of view that there is less chance for an argument when the targets of weapon groups change.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Not so much. You pick your targets based on the specific weapons you intend to shot at those specific targets.

SJ

that is 100% incorrect and an assumption. I can pick whoever the heck i want for my targets. step 2 merely states that I have to pick target in LoS. If I follow your logic and pick my targets all at once, I DO NOT CHOOSE WEAPONS YET in step 2. Therefore, if you want to change it to selecting multiple targets before any weapons enter into the equation then I can pick as many targets as I want

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Not so much. You pick your targets based on the specific weapons you intend to shot at those specific targets.

SJ

And you still need to identify which weapons are firing at which target, anyway.

Say a Knight is facing off against a squad of Hormagaunts, Termagaunts, and Warriors. It's carrying the Battlecannon, carapace missiles, and 2 Stubbers. If you plan on firing the Stubbers last, one Stubber at the Hormagaunts and the other Stubber at the Termagaunts, but leave the rest to the weapons to the Warriors, you still need to declare which are which for each Stubber. Weapon selection. The rules don't actually place any specific requirement of timing of target declaration here, save that they be announced by the time the Stubbers selection comes around.

Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Not so much. You pick your targets based on the specific weapons you intend to shot at those specific targets.

SJ

And you still need to identify which weapons are firing at which target, anyway.

Say a Knight is facing off against a squad of Hormagaunts, Termagaunts, and Warriors. It's carrying the Battlecannon, carapace missiles, and 2 Stubbers. If you plan on firing the Stubbers last, one Stubber at the Hormagaunts and the other Stubber at the Termagaunts, but leave the rest to the weapons to the Warriors, you still need to declare which are which for each Stubber. Weapon selection. The rules don't actually place any specific requirement of timing of target declaration here, save that they be announced by the time the Stubbers selection comes around.

You just agreed with me.

SJ

notredameguy10 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Not so much. You pick your targets based on the specific weapons you intend to shot at those specific targets.

SJ

that is 100% incorrect and an assumption. I can pick whoever the heck i want for my targets. step 2 merely states that I have to pick target in LoS. If I follow your logic and pick my targets all at once, I DO NOT CHOOSE WEAPONS YET in step 2. Therefore, if you want to change it to selecting multiple targets before any weapons enter into the equation then I can pick as many targets as I want

It cannot be "incorrect" when you have no support for your rules change either.

CHanging step 2 is the least change required. Your method requires changing steps 2 and 7, at a minimum. One is simpler.

There is no correct answer here, the rules simply do not tell us what to do.

Selecting a target for each weapon in step 2 is the smallest change, the less powerful interpretation and it's how previous editions did it. As such, it's much less likely to start an argument with your opponent.

Selecting targets as you go might be what was intended but without any rules to support it you might well find that people object to that method.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

It cannot be "incorrect" when you have no support for your rules change either.

It could be incorrect without having any support for an alternate position. If you want to analyse something logically you should analyse each proposition on its own merits. The lack of a supported alternative does not count as evidence for a proposed option.

Evidence such as 4th -> 6th edition SH/GC rules and the "least powerful" interpretation (or contra profentorum, sor tof - when changing rules that are unclear, you should not chaneg them to disadvantage others)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Evidence such as 4th -> 6th edition SH/GC rules and the "least powerful" interpretation (or contra profentorum, sor tof - when changing rules that are unclear, you should not chaneg them to disadvantage others)

That's better these are arguments in support of a position. They can then be evaluated, quite different from claiming that something cannot be incorrect if an alternative is unsupported.

Contra proferentem is, of course, not evidence for the validity of a stance, but rather an argument on which stance to take should there be equal support or lack thereof for conflicting interpretations. Its a good yardstick to use in this case I think as I cannot see either alternative as having any actual rules support, so using contra proferentem to select between house rules is a solid choice.

4th - 6th rules are not relevant, as the discussion is about 7th and the rules have changed. Using them as a guide for developing a house rule to cover the situation is again a solid option though.

Well, the ARE relevant - as you just poiinted out. They are not a direct source of evidence, but give some clue given the hole the current rules have in them.

The issue with 4th->6th is that you had to declare what weapons fired at the start, 7th has changed that. So the interpretation that allows selecting per weapon follows that pattern better and requires less of a rules change as changing just a single word in each steps 2 & 7 isless than a complete rewrite of step 2 and some additional verbiage on step 3.

Apologies nosferatu1001 I was less than clear in that sentence, in that I was stating they are not relevant to the RAW, I thought that was implied, but I was evidently insufficiently clear.

FlingitNow you appear to be advocating that the simplest, or least, change is preferable as a house rule is this correct?

Using both contra proferentem and the principle of simplicity together may lead us to the best interpretation.

I'm advocating the solution that most closely follows the existing processes/restrictions we have is the best solution. Least change was offered by Nos as a basis hence why I mentioned it.

jeffersonian000 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Not so much. You pick your targets based on the specific weapons you intend to shot at those specific targets.

SJ

And you still need to identify which weapons are firing at which target, anyway.

Say a Knight is facing off against a squad of Hormagaunts, Termagaunts, and Warriors. It's carrying the Battlecannon, carapace missiles, and 2 Stubbers. If you plan on firing the Stubbers last, one Stubber at the Hormagaunts and the other Stubber at the Termagaunts, but leave the rest to the weapons to the Warriors, you still need to declare which are which for each Stubber. Weapon selection. The rules don't actually place any specific requirement of timing of target declaration here, save that they be announced by the time the Stubbers selection comes around.

You just agreed with me.

SJ

Yes, and no. The paragraph I quoted did not mention timing, while I was clarifying that. Even if you announced every target in Step 2, you would have to reannounce the pertinent target(s) every time you selected a new weapon group. The assertion you prefer fails to take that in mind without announcing all the weapons at the same time you announce targets, which would be changing Step 2 AND Step 3 AND Step 6.

Scott-S6 wrote:There is no correct answer here, the rules simply do not tell us what to do.

Selecting a target for each weapon in step 2 is the smallest change, the less powerful interpretation and it's how previous editions did it. As such, it's much less likely to start an argument with your opponent.

Selecting targets as you go might be what was intended but without any rules to support it you might well find that people object to that method.

Smallest change? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Selecting targets as you go would really only change Step 2 and Step 6 to account for multiple target selection and go back to reselecting targets instead of selecting the next weapon group. Considering how the Shooting Sequence was changed, this actually matches more with the new process as well.

Whereas, in order to announce all targets at Step 2, would still require announcing the specific targets of the Weapon Group after Step 3, or reverting the Shooting Sequence back to 6th Edition or prior where all weapons are announced at the same time.

As it is, even when firing at a single target, the current Shooting Sequence can allow for the unit to preserve one-shot Weapons if they delay using them till after their continual use weapons, which is a huge difference compared to previous editions.

Charistoph wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:There is no correct answer here, the rules simply do not tell us what to do.

Selecting a target for each weapon in step 2 is the smallest change, the less powerful interpretation and it's how previous editions did it. As such, it's much less likely to start an argument with your opponent.

Selecting targets as you go might be what was intended but without any rules to support it you might well find that people object to that method.

Smallest change? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Selecting targets as you go would really only change Step 2 and Step 6 to account for multiple target selection and go back to reselecting targets instead of selecting the next weapon group. Considering how the Shooting Sequence was changed, this actually matches more with the new process as well.

Whereas, in order to announce all targets at Step 2, would still require announcing the specific targets of the Weapon Group after Step 3, or reverting the Shooting Sequence back to 6th Edition or prior where all weapons are announced at the same time.

As it is, even when firing at a single target, the current Shooting Sequence can allow for the unit to preserve one-shot Weapons if they delay using them till after their continual use weapons, which is a huge difference compared to previous editions.

We can still allow for that same preservation of single shot weapons. Assign a target for each weapon (2) and then step through the weapons (3-7) in any order. If the target for the single use weapons is gone before you get to them then you can't fire it (or you don't kill that target and you choose not to select that weapon).

It's not an ideal solution but I think it is the best compromise.

I'm curious how ITC, Nova, etc. handle it since their FAQs don't mention it...

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:There is no correct answer here, the rules simply do not tell us what to do.

Selecting a target for each weapon in step 2 is the smallest change, the less powerful interpretation and it's how previous editions did it. As such, it's much less likely to start an argument with your opponent.

Selecting targets as you go might be what was intended but without any rules to support it you might well find that people object to that method.

Smallest change? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Selecting targets as you go would really only change Step 2 and Step 6 to account for multiple target selection and go back to reselecting targets instead of selecting the next weapon group. Considering how the Shooting Sequence was changed, this actually matches more with the new process as well.

Whereas, in order to announce all targets at Step 2, would still require announcing the specific targets of the Weapon Group after Step 3, or reverting the Shooting Sequence back to 6th Edition or prior where all weapons are announced at the same time.

As it is, even when firing at a single target, the current Shooting Sequence can allow for the unit to preserve one-shot Weapons if they delay using them till after their continual use weapons, which is a huge difference compared to previous editions.

We can still allow for that same preservation of single shot weapons. Assign a target for each weapon (2) and then step through the weapons (3-7) in any order. If the target for the single use weapons is gone before you get to them then you can't fire it (or you don't kill that target and you choose not to select that weapon).

It's not an ideal solution but I think it is the best compromise.

I'm curious how ITC, Nova, etc. handle it since their FAQs don't mention it...

Or, you know, just pick a target, pick a weapon, and repeat like previously mentioned. As the sequence is 2) Pick a target (singular) 3) shoot a weapon.... 7(repeat 3-6). Now that I do not want to shoot at that target anymore, the shooting sequence is done. Now I pick another target and repeat

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:There is no correct answer here, the rules simply do not tell us what to do.

Selecting a target for each weapon in step 2 is the smallest change, the less powerful interpretation and it's how previous editions did it. As such, it's much less likely to start an argument with your opponent.

Selecting targets as you go might be what was intended but without any rules to support it you might well find that people object to that method.

Smallest change? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Selecting targets as you go would really only change Step 2 and Step 6 to account for multiple target selection and go back to reselecting targets instead of selecting the next weapon group. Considering how the Shooting Sequence was changed, this actually matches more with the new process as well.

Whereas, in order to announce all targets at Step 2, would still require announcing the specific targets of the Weapon Group after Step 3, or reverting the Shooting Sequence back to 6th Edition or prior where all weapons are announced at the same time.

As it is, even when firing at a single target, the current Shooting Sequence can allow for the unit to preserve one-shot Weapons if they delay using them till after their continual use weapons, which is a huge difference compared to previous editions.

We can still allow for that same preservation of single shot weapons. Assign a target for each weapon (2) and then step through the weapons (3-7) in any order. If the target for the single use weapons is gone before you get to them then you can't fire it (or you don't kill that target and you choose not to select that weapon).

It's not an ideal solution but I think it is the best compromise.

I was comparing it to the previous system where every weapon was to be declared at the same time, as they all fired at the same time. In this previous version of the game, declaring all targets at the same time was required, since all shooting by the unit was performed at the same time. One shot Weapons could not be saved till later in the Phase (with a couple very rare exceptions).

In the current Shooting Sequence, Weapons are only declared when you actually intend to fire them, and only one group at a time. And so, even if you declare all Targets at Step 2, they have to be specified again for each Weapon you fire as you select them to fire.

Not necessarially. If hou declare each target for each weapon, then go through each weapon per target, you follow tge rules as written without gaining any advantage.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Not necessarially. If hou declare each target for each weapon, then go through each weapon per target, you follow tge rules as written without gaining any advantage.

SJ

Then you are disregarding the entire order of the shooting phase, doing step 3 before step 2

So this thread hasn't been about the OSC in several pages...

LockeWatts wrote:
So this thread hasn't been about the OSC in several pages...

No, this horse is quite dead.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:There is no correct answer here, the rules simply do not tell us what to do.

Selecting a target for each weapon in step 2 is the smallest change, the less powerful interpretation and it's how previous editions did it. As such, it's much less likely to start an argument with your opponent.

Selecting targets as you go might be what was intended but without any rules to support it you might well find that people object to that method.

Smallest change? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Selecting targets as you go would really only change Step 2 and Step 6 to account for multiple target selection and go back to reselecting targets instead of selecting the next weapon group. Considering how the Shooting Sequence was changed, this actually matches more with the new process as well.

Whereas, in order to announce all targets at Step 2, would still require announcing the specific targets of the Weapon Group after Step 3, or reverting the Shooting Sequence back to 6th Edition or prior where all weapons are announced at the same time.

As it is, even when firing at a single target, the current Shooting Sequence can allow for the unit to preserve one-shot Weapons if they delay using them till after their continual use weapons, which is a huge difference compared to previous editions.

We can still allow for that same preservation of single shot weapons. Assign a target for each weapon (2) and then step through the weapons (3-7) in any order. If the target for the single use weapons is gone before you get to them then you can't fire it (or you don't kill that target and you choose not to select that weapon).

It's not an ideal solution but I think it is the best compromise.

I'm curious how ITC, Nova, etc. handle it since their FAQs don't mention it...

Or, you know, just pick a target, pick a weapon, and repeat like previously mentioned. As the sequence is 2) Pick a target (singular) 3) shoot a weapon.... 7(repeat 3-6). Now that I do not want to shoot at that target anymore, the shooting sequence is done. Now I pick another target and repeat

Yes, that will work but it's a significant power boost for super heavies and you might well find that it's a point of contention.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Not necessarially. If hou declare each target for each weapon, then go through each weapon per target, you follow tge rules as written without gaining any advantage.
SJ

Then you are disregarding the entire order of the shooting phase, doing step 3 before step 2

No, because step 3 is selecting the weapon that you're about to shoot. Allocating targets to weapons in step 2 does not change the shooting phase sequence - you're still free to select the order you use your weapons and to not select some of them if you wish.

Yes, that will work but it's a significant power boost for super heavies and you might well find that it's a point of contention.

Why would it be a point of contention? I'm sure my opponent would be happy to get to use his GMC/SH in such a way and it seems the most likely intent, closest to RaW and requires least made up rules interpretation.

Can we make a new thread to talk about whatever the heck you guys are talking about? I keep seeing 'unread' in this thread and it's not OSC related at all.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Yes, that will work but it's a significant power boost for super heavies and you might well find that it's a point of contention.

Why would it be a point of contention? I'm sure my opponent would be happy to get to use his GMC/SH in such a way and it seems the most likely intent, closest to RaW and requires least made up rules interpretation.

I would disagree that it's closest to RAW - it's a significant change to how the shooting phase works that is not explicitly permitted.

A lot of players are assuming that it works as per previous editions because the rules just don't specify. If you assume that you can use an interpretation that is significantly more powerful you will run into people that are not onboard for that.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Yes, that will work but it's a significant power boost for super heavies and you might well find that it's a point of contention.

Why would it be a point of contention? I'm sure my opponent would be happy to get to use his GMC/SH in such a way and it seems the most likely intent, closest to RaW and requires least made up rules interpretation.

I would disagree that it's closest to RAW - it's a significant change to how the shooting phase works that is not explicitly permitted.

A lot of players are assuming that it works as per previous editions because the rules just don't specify. If you assume that you can use an interpretation that is significantly more powerful you will run into people that are not onboard for that.

It is by far the least change to the RaW I thought that was well covered before. It is also closest to the existing processes, and therefore most likely RaI (as you can now see if a weapon kills your target before committing other weapons or choose to stop with weapons still to fire if you want yo have something left alive to charge).

Also why would someone be less likely to agree to having their unit be more powerful than it be less powerful? Also as power level is all comparative by choosing the less powerful option for this unit type you are making all other units types more powerful. So of as you believe people want to make everything less powerful then that is more reason to use this interpretation as it makes more stuff less powerful.

 Mulletdude wrote:
Can we make a new thread to talk about whatever the heck you guys are talking about? I keep seeing 'unread' in this thread and it's not OSC related at all.

I'm not a mod (not even kind of) but that does seem like a fair request - if we're talking about super-heavy targeting process, that's unrelated to OSC in every way (even if it did start off as a tangent from that topic). Probably worth creating a new topic to discuss it further.