If you have the somber sentinal masque form. if a model is shooting at you and shoots its first attack thus slaying your model, you roll a 4+ and shoots back, kills the attacking unit, does the attacking unit resolve the rest of its attacks even though it is removed from the battlefield.

Any remaining attacks are not resolved when a unit is removed from the battlefield.

Thanks for clearing this up, my opponent really didn't like that his repulser died after only 5 shots at my unit.

 p5freak wrote:
Any remaining attacks are not resolved when a unit is removed from the battlefield.

do you have a source for this ? My opponent from that game still doesn't believe me .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
another examples where this may be relevant,

If a vehicle is attacked, and on the first of many attacks the vehicle explodes, slaying the unit making the attacks,
do you resolve the rest of the attacks ?

A model that is no longer on the board cannot act further in that game. No idea if there's an actual rule to quote on this one, but it seems to be common sense to me.

ya, my opponent seems to disagree,
As attacks are declared all at once, and it says to roll for each attack, it doesn't say stop if the model is no longer on the board.

Kind of the opposite of the whole removing models until there is no longer line of sight. The attacks still happen, even though there are no more valid targets, because, the attacks were already declared.

This also begs to question, what if only half the unit is destroyed in the middle of shooting ?
I assumed that in that case all the shots continue.

A destroyed model is removed and doesn’t make any remaining shots. It sucks for your opponent, but the rules don’t allow dead things to do stuff.

B.c you have multi profiles shooting multi units, when resolving attacks you must resolve then unit by unit then profile by profile. This is clear in the rules and FAQ's.

B.c how attacking sequencing works, you do all the the shooting to unit 1 before unit 2 or 3, if you become destroyed between unit 1 and 2 you can no longer do the order of operations as you dont have a valid unit to pick to making the shooting attack as they are not on the table anymore.

Where it gets tricky is if you are fast rolling attacks.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
B.c you have multi profiles shooting multi units, when resolving attacks you must resolve then unit by unit then profile by profile. This is clear in the rules and FAQ's.

B.c how attacking sequencing works, you do all the the shooting to unit 1 before unit 2 or 3, if you become destroyed between unit 1 and 2 you can no longer do the order of operations as you dont have a valid unit to pick to making the shooting attack as they are not on the table anymore.

What happens if you are destroyed between attack 1 and attack 2 on the SAME unit. . . That is what happened.

I told him not to fast roll because it was possible I would blow the thing up.

You have to resolve it unit by unit when shooting at different targets you can not fast roll those, the point of fast rolling to roll the same profiles at the same target together to speed it up.

In Step 4 (Resolve Attacks), it states that "Each time a model makes an attack, roll a dice." If the model is no longer on the field, then it can no longer make an attack. When splitting shots, you have to do Step 4 separately for each unit you target. And, if a model dies before it can start Step 4, then it cannot make an attack.

What about if you have 2 plasma Cannons on your vehicle, and you shoot an enemy while overcharging.

If you fast roll, you can shoot both. If you roll one at a time you might die on the first one and therefore not get to shoot with the second.

Weird situation where it is worse to roll one at a time.

 Stux wrote:
What about if you have 2 plasma Cannons on your vehicle, and you shoot an enemy while overcharging.

If you fast roll, you can shoot both. If you roll one at a time you might die on the first one and therefore not get to shoot with the second.

Weird situation where it is worse to roll one at a time.

If its at 2 different targets you can not fast roll both units, you have to do it unit by unit before weapon by weapon, you must resolve all attacks vs 1 unit before moving to the 2nd unit.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Stux wrote:
What about if you have 2 plasma Cannons on your vehicle, and you shoot an enemy while overcharging.

If you fast roll, you can shoot both. If you roll one at a time you might die on the first one and therefore not get to shoot with the second.

Weird situation where it is worse to roll one at a time.

If its at 2 different targets you can not fast roll both units, you have to do it unit by unit before weapon by weapon, you must resolve all attacks vs 1 unit before moving to the 2nd unit.

I know, I'm talking about shooting at the same target.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
You have to resolve it unit by unit when shooting at different targets you can not fast roll those, the point of fast rolling to roll the same profiles at the same target together to speed it up.

You have to resolve it unit by unit when shooting at different targets you can not fast roll those, the point of fast rolling to roll the same profiles at the same target together to speed it up.

Again, the problem here, is they are firing at the SAME unit, not separate ones.

He allocates 5 attacks all on my unit of 5 harlies.
He starts attacking the harlies, so he rolls his first attack.
the first attack kills 1 harly and right before it is removed from the battlefield it gets to attack back.
The attack kills the unit who is doing the shooting.
He reached step 4, he allocated the attacks, he did his first attack, his unit was slain inbetween the first and second of the alocated attacks.
So step 4 has been started on the unit, but was interupted after the first attack, even though 5 attacks were successfully allocated.

What about if you have 2 plasma Cannons on your vehicle, and you shoot an enemy while overcharging.

If you fast roll, you can shoot both. If you roll one at a time you might die on the first one and therefore not get to shoot with the second.

Weird situation where it is worse to roll one at a time.

Being slain from plasma specifically says it happens after all attacks are resolved.

Ah yes, you're right on that.

Similar situation to yours though, if you're fast rolling you make all those attacks. If you aren't, anything you haven't rolled is lost.

 Type40 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
You have to resolve it unit by unit when shooting at different targets you can not fast roll those, the point of fast rolling to roll the same profiles at the same target together to speed it up.

You have to resolve it unit by unit when shooting at different targets you can not fast roll those, the point of fast rolling to roll the same profiles at the same target together to speed it up.

Again, the problem here, is they are firing at the SAME unit, not separate ones.

He allocates 5 attacks all on my unit of 5 harlies.
He starts attacking the harlies, so he rolls his first attack.
the first attack kills 1 harly and right before it is removed from the battlefield it gets to attack back.
The attack kills the unit who is doing the shooting.
He reached step 4, he allocated the attacks, he did his first attack, his unit was slain inbetween the first and second of the alocated attacks.
So step 4 has been started on the unit, but was interupted after the first attack, even though 5 attacks were successfully allocated.

What about if you have 2 plasma Cannons on your vehicle, and you shoot an enemy while overcharging.

If you fast roll, you can shoot both. If you roll one at a time you might die on the first one and therefore not get to shoot with the second.

Weird situation where it is worse to roll one at a time.

Being slain from plasma specifically says it happens after all attacks are resolved.

Ah i see, then it is resolved weapon by weapon, if he has a weapon that shoot 12 shots and he kills 3 of them and you shot back with those 3, if he dies then it stops if not then he does the next weapon.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
You have to resolve it unit by unit when shooting at different targets you can not fast roll those, the point of fast rolling to roll the same profiles at the same target together to speed it up.

You have to resolve it unit by unit when shooting at different targets you can not fast roll those, the point of fast rolling to roll the same profiles at the same target together to speed it up.

Again, the problem here, is they are firing at the SAME unit, not separate ones.

He allocates 5 attacks all on my unit of 5 harlies.
He starts attacking the harlies, so he rolls his first attack.
the first attack kills 1 harly and right before it is removed from the battlefield it gets to attack back.
The attack kills the unit who is doing the shooting.
He reached step 4, he allocated the attacks, he did his first attack, his unit was slain inbetween the first and second of the alocated attacks.
So step 4 has been started on the unit, but was interupted after the first attack, even though 5 attacks were successfully allocated.

What about if you have 2 plasma Cannons on your vehicle, and you shoot an enemy while overcharging.

If you fast roll, you can shoot both. If you roll one at a time you might die on the first one and therefore not get to shoot with the second.

Weird situation where it is worse to roll one at a time.

Being slain from plasma specifically says it happens after all attacks are resolved.

Ah i see, then it is resolved weapon by weapon, if he has a weapon that shoot 12 shots and he kills 3 of them and you shot back with those 3, if he dies then it stops if not then he does the next weapon.

Is it weapon by weapon, or attack by attack, it makes a big difference ?
as attacks are made one at a time.

 Stux wrote:
Where it gets tricky is if you are fast rolling attacks.

No, because when fast rolling you do all attacks and all wound rolls before the enemy gets to do a single sv. The attack sequence doesn't get interrupted by the masque form. That way you can avoid this weird rule scenario.

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Where it gets tricky is if you are fast rolling attacks.

No, because when fast rolling you do all attacks and all wound rolls before the enemy gets to do a single sv. The attack sequence doesn't get interrupted by the masque form. That way you can avoid this weird rule scenario.

Attacks can be made one at a time,or,in some cases,you can roll for multiple attacks together.The following sequence is used to make attacks one at a time

in some cases you can fast roll, this is a case where you can not.
do you also think FNP saves for multi-wound models should all be rolled before allocating wounds ?

not to mention, why bother having abilities that specifically say "deal damage after all attacks are resolved" v.s. abilities that do not say that.

 Type40 wrote:

in some cases you can fast roll, this is a case where you can not.

If all his firing from a particular weapon was at the same target, he can fast roll.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

in some cases you can fast roll, this is a case where you can not.

If all his firing from a particular weapon was at the same target, he can fast roll.

Source ?


did you miss

the rules for resolving attacks have been written assuming you will make them one at a time

BRB pg 179

meaning the resolve attacks sequences goes from step 1 hit roll to step 5 inflict damage for each attack separately.
and it is in the inflict damage step that harlequin ability triggers ?

 Type40 wrote:
Source ?

Here:

40K Battle Primer Page 5 top right sidebar wrote:Fast Dice Rolling
The rules for resolving attacks have been written assuming you will make them one at a time. However, it is possible to speed up your battles by rolling the dice for similar attacks together. In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack). They must also have the same Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics, and they must be directed at the same unit. If this is the case, make all of the hit rolls at the same time,

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Source ?

Here:

40K Battle Primer Page 5 top right sidebar wrote:Fast Dice Rolling
The rules for resolving attacks have been written assuming you will make them one at a time. However, it is possible to speed up your battles by rolling the dice for similar attacks together. In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack). They must also have the same Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics, and they must be directed at the same unit. If this is the case, make all of the hit rolls at the same time,

lol you didnt finish the paragraph.

... your opponent can then allocate the wounds one at a time, making saving throws and suffering damage each time as appropriate

so if I am alocating the wounds, making the saving throws, and suffering damage one at a time, when is my model slain ? before the subsequent attacks are fully resolved. As per the inflect damage step in the resolve attacks sequence.

If your going to quote a rule, quote the entire rule, don't just pick and choose the parts that are convenient for you .

I can fast roll when I meet the requirements of the fast dice rolls rule quoted above my post.

 p5freak wrote:
I can fast roll when I meet the requirements of the fast dice rolls rule quoted above my post.

Yes you can,

and then I will allocate wounds one at a time, make saving throws one at a time, and inflict damage one at a time, thus having my model removed for being slain before your other attacks are resolved,,, just like it says to in the paragraph you quoted.

 Type40 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I can fast roll when I meet the requirements of the fast dice rolls rule quoted above my post.

Yes you can,

and then I will allocate wounds one at a time, make saving throws one at a time, and inflict damage one at a time, thus having my model removed for being slain before your other attacks are resolved,,, just like it says to in the paragraph you quoted.

Which of course does not matter as wounds have been tallied...

You cant just stop allocating wounds once you reach that step.

 Type40 wrote:
lol you didnt finish the paragraph.

... your opponent can then allocate the wounds one at a time, making saving throws and suffering damage each time as appropriate

so if I am alocating the wounds, making the saving throws, and suffering damage one at a time, when is my model slain ? before the subsequent attacks are fully resolved. As per the inflect damage step in the resolve attacks sequence.

If your going to quote a rule, quote the entire rule, don't just pick and choose the parts that are convenient for you .

I did not "just pick and choose the parts that are convenient"

The rest of the rule was not needed. That is why I didn't quote the rest.

You cant just stop allocating wounds once you reach that step.

there is no tallied wounds step,

are you interpreting

However, it is possible to speed up your battles by rolling the dice for similar attacks together

trumps

the rules for resolving attacks have been written assuming you will make them one at a time.

?
that some real RAPI (rules as personally interpreted) stretch XD.

I allocate them one at a time
then I make the save,
then I inflict damage.
for the single wound. pg 179

now, normally, we move on from this step,

I allocate my next wound
then make the save
then inflict damage.

now lets say this time my model is slain, before I remove it from the battlefield I get to shoot your attacking model.
I happen to slay your attacking model. I remove your attacking model from the battlefield.

can a unit that is not on the battlefield make an attack ?
The fast rolling rules do not ignore the attack sequence, they consolidate it for speed. because according to the rules
EACH ATTACK =
make hit roll
makle wound roll
enemy allocates wound
saving throw
inflict damage.
Repeating one at a time.

Just because you roll them at the same time doesn't magically make them happen at the same time, if you lose your attacks halfway through, you lose your attacks, you just rolled a bunch of dice for nothing.

you can roll "the dice for similar attacks together"
it doesn't say, you can "ignore that each attack happens one at a time and make attacks simultaneously" it only says you can roll them together to speed up battles.

 Type40 wrote:

You cant just stop allocating wounds once you reach that step.

there is no tallied wounds step,

are you interpreting

Good thing there doesn't need to be. Once you get to assigning wounds, you need to assign all the wounds in the wound pool (For lack of a better term).

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Where it gets tricky is if you are fast rolling attacks.

No, because when fast rolling you do all attacks and all wound rolls before the enemy gets to do a single sv. The attack sequence doesn't get interrupted by the masque form. That way you can avoid this weird rule scenario.

Oh I agree with you. I'm saying it's tricky in the sense that you get a different outcome from fast rolling than you would from making the attacks one at a time.

Once the wounds are being allocated, you have to allocate them all, you can't stop due to some of the shooting models dying. I'm very much in agreement with this.

 Stux wrote:

Oh I agree with you. I'm saying it's tricky in the sense that you get a different outcome from fast rolling than you would from making the attacks one at a time.

Once the wounds are being allocated, you have to allocate them all, you can't stop due to some of the shooting models dying. I'm very much in agreement with this.

Yes, the outcome is different, and thats not fair. It should be the same regardless of fast rolling, or one attack at a time. A FAQ for clarification is needed.

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Oh I agree with you. I'm saying it's tricky in the sense that you get a different outcome from fast rolling than you would from making the attacks one at a time.

Once the wounds are being allocated, you have to allocate them all, you can't stop due to some of the shooting models dying. I'm very much in agreement with this.

Yes, the outcome is different, and thats not fair. It should be the same regardless of fast rolling, or one attack at a time. A FAQ for clarification is needed.

A FAQ for clarification is not needed. It clearly works and is not a "broken" rule.

The FAQ's tend to fix broken rules. This is not the case here.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Oh I agree with you. I'm saying it's tricky in the sense that you get a different outcome from fast rolling than you would from making the attacks one at a time.

Once the wounds are being allocated, you have to allocate them all, you can't stop due to some of the shooting models dying. I'm very much in agreement with this.

Yes, the outcome is different, and thats not fair. It should be the same regardless of fast rolling, or one attack at a time. A FAQ for clarification is needed.

A FAQ for clarification is not needed. It clearly works and is not a "broken" rule.

The FAQ's tend to fix broken rules. This is not the case here.

It would be difficult to 'fix' without breaking something else, I agree.

It would be fine if it used an Apoc style damage system!

 DeathReaper wrote:
A FAQ for clarification is not needed. It clearly works and is not a "broken" rule.

The FAQ's tend to fix broken rules. This is not the case here.

"dO i LosE if I coNCeDe?" kind of proves that trend wrong.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
A FAQ for clarification is not needed. It clearly works and is not a "broken" rule.

The FAQ's tend to fix broken rules. This is not the case here.

"dO i LosE if I coNCeDe?" kind of proves that trend wrong.

A single exception can actually prove the rule...

I literally said "tend to fix broken rules"

I wouldn't have any more wounds to assign, your unit is gone and what happens to any effects, abilities, or rules of a unit that is removed from the battlefield ? they are also removed from the game.

 Type40 wrote:
I wouldn't have any more wounds to assign, your unit is gone and what happens to any effects, abilities, or rules of a unit that is removed from the battlefield ? they are also removed from the game.

That is not how it works, when you fast roll you have a bunch (or group, or pool if you will) of wounds you need to allocate.

If you do not allocate them all, you are breaking the rules.

The rules on P. 5 confirm this.

40K Battle Primer P. 5 wrote:...If this is the case, make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls. Your opponent can then allocate the wounds one at a time, making the saving throws and suffering damage each time as appropriate.

Well, a model removed from the game "can not do anything or be affected in anyway" (transport rules, as the embarked model is also removed from the battlefield).

Your telling me, that this model, that can not do anything, or be affected in anyway, is able to resolve attacks ? isn't resolving attacks doing something ?

I am pretty sure if I do allocate them, I am breaking the rules. as then that removed from play model is doing things.

When fast rolling attacks and wounds already have happened, it doesnt matter if you kill the models who did the attacks and wounds afterwards. You cant make the attacks and wounds not happening that way.

 Type40 wrote:
Well, a model removed from the game "can not do anything or be affected in anyway" (transport rules, as the embarked model is also removed from the battlefield).

That is for models in transports. This is not the same situation so those rules do not apply.

Your telling me, that this model, that can not do anything, or be affected in anyway, is able to resolve attacks ? isn't resolving attacks doing something ?

Why can it 'not do anything, or be affected in anyway"? it is not embarked so those rules do not apply.

I am pretty sure if I do allocate them, I am breaking the rules. as then that removed from play model is doing things.

No, as you already rolled to hit and wound. There is nothing that says to go back in time.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Well, a model removed from the game "can not do anything or be affected in anyway" (transport rules, as the embarked model is also removed from the battlefield).

That is for models in transports. This is not the same situation so those rules do not apply.

Your telling me, that this model, that can not do anything, or be affected in anyway, is able to resolve attacks ? isn't resolving attacks doing something ?

Why can it 'not do anything, or be affected in anyway"? it is not embarked so those rules do not apply.

I am pretty sure if I do allocate them, I am breaking the rules. as then that removed from play model is doing things.

No, as you already rolled to hit and wound. There is nothing that says to go back in time.

HIWPI is fast rolling all the attacks with the same BS and SvT and whatever wounds are generated are allocated and resolved. if the attacking model is slian in this process i'd still resolve the wounds that have already been generated, but the attacking model would be unable to make any further attacks with the rest of its weapons etc.

So in conclusion, the killed unit resolves the rest of the particular weapons attack.

Now to further the question,

Lets say you are fighting a unit of SM, 4 have bolters and one has a plasma cannon.
If you kill the model with the plamsa cannon before it gets to fire but after its targets has been declared. does it still get to fire ?
How about if you kill one of the models with a bolter ?

or does the unit continue with it's declared attacks if it is not totally removed ?

Same answer as before: a dead model can’t do anything - it’s dead. It has been removed and takes no further part in the game.

I see, will keep all this in mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What if this happens during CC
Do you finish resolving the CC attacks with the same weapon or is there a different interaction ?

 Type40 wrote:

What if this happens during CC
Do you finish resolving the CC attacks with the same weapon or is there a different interaction ?

Dead model is removed, and no longer part of the game.

 Type40 wrote:
ya, my opponent seems to disagree,
As attacks are declared all at once, and it says to roll for each attack, it doesn't say stop if the model is no longer on the board.

Kind of the opposite of the whole removing models until there is no longer line of sight. The attacks still happen, even though there are no more valid targets, because, the attacks were already declared.

This also begs to question, what if only half the unit is destroyed in the middle of shooting ?
I assumed that in that case all the shots continue.

You declare attacks a atones, but resolve them one by one. So if you are using something like that mask, you have to ask opponent to resolve attacks one by one.

Marin wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
ya, my opponent seems to disagree,
As attacks are declared all at once, and it says to roll for each attack, it doesn't say stop if the model is no longer on the board.

Kind of the opposite of the whole removing models until there is no longer line of sight. The attacks still happen, even though there are no more valid targets, because, the attacks were already declared.

This also begs to question, what if only half the unit is destroyed in the middle of shooting ?
I assumed that in that case all the shots continue.

You declare attacks a atones, but resolve them one by one. So if you are using something like that mask, you have to ask opponent to resolve attacks one by one.

You can ask, but they do not have to comply. If they are allowed to fast roll they can still fast roll.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Marin wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
ya, my opponent seems to disagree,
As attacks are declared all at once, and it says to roll for each attack, it doesn't say stop if the model is no longer on the board.

Kind of the opposite of the whole removing models until there is no longer line of sight. The attacks still happen, even though there are no more valid targets, because, the attacks were already declared.

This also begs to question, what if only half the unit is destroyed in the middle of shooting ?
I assumed that in that case all the shots continue.

You declare attacks a atones, but resolve them one by one. So if you are using something like that mask, you have to ask opponent to resolve attacks one by one.

You can ask, but they do not have to comply. If they are allowed to fast roll they can still fast roll.

Fast rolling is optional rule that is to speed up the game and most opponent should allow you to use the regular rules.

FAST DICE
ROLLING
The rules for resolving attacks (pg 181) have been written assuming you will make them one at a time. However, it is possible to speed up your battles by rolling the dice for similar attacks together. In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack). They must also have the same Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics, and they must be directed at the same unit. If this is the case, make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then
all of the wound rolls. Your opponent can then allocate the wounds one at a time, making the saving throws and suffering damage each time as appropriate. Remember, if the target unit contains a model that has already lost any wounds, they must allocate further wounds to this model until either it is slain, or all the wounds have been saved or resolved.

Yeah, you're allowed to fast roll and your opponent can't stop you.

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, you're allowed to fast roll and your opponent can't stop you.

That is pointless argument, since you can also refuse to troll saves.
Fast dice rolling is to speed up the game, not to be abused to disallow use of a abilities.

Marin wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, you're allowed to fast roll and your opponent can't stop you.

That is pointless argument, since you can also refuse to troll saves.
Fast dice rolling is to speed up the game, not to be abused to disallow use of a abilities.

It's not abuse, it's just the rules of the game.

And that example makes no sense. The game says you roll saves, you have to do it. It says you can fast roll, so you can fast roll, the other player doesn't get a say in it provided you follow the rules for fast rolling.

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, you're allowed to fast roll and your opponent can't stop you.

100% this.

There is an allowance to fast roll to hit and wound under certain conditions. If those conditions are met then you are allowed to fast roll and there is nothing the opponent can do about it.

I do feel like the intent of the rule is that fast rolling doesn't trump the fact that attacks should be carried out one at a time, thus stopping the attacks that have already rolled hits and wounds, that aren't fully resolved.

however, I concede that the RAW is

Remember,if the target unit contains a model that has already lost any wounds,they must allocate further wounds to this model until either it is slain,or all the wounds have been saved or resolved.

Which states that remaining wounds must be resolved or saved.

So I concede that this is how it works.
Hopefully we get an FAQ clarifying this, and whether or not this is the intent of the interaction.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, you're allowed to fast roll and your opponent can't stop you.

100% this.

There is an allowance to fast roll to hit and wound under certain conditions. If those conditions are met then you are allowed to fast roll and there is nothing the opponent can do about it.

Reading this, I've just realized that you meet the fast roll requirements even when rapid firing plasma weapons on overcharge. I've always slow-rolled this to know exactly which models do or do not overheat, but i"m surprised that the rules will allow this to be fast rolled.

Aash wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, you're allowed to fast roll and your opponent can't stop you.

100% this.

There is an allowance to fast roll to hit and wound under certain conditions. If those conditions are met then you are allowed to fast roll and there is nothing the opponent can do about it.

Reading this, I've just realized that you meet the fast roll requirements even when rapid firing plasma weapons on overcharge. I've always slow-rolled this to know exactly which models do or do not overheat, but i"m surprised that the rules will allow this to be fast rolled.

Just because you fast roll that doesn't mean you don't have to keep track of which model is assigned which dice.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aash wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, you're allowed to fast roll and your opponent can't stop you.

100% this.

There is an allowance to fast roll to hit and wound under certain conditions. If those conditions are met then you are allowed to fast roll and there is nothing the opponent can do about it.

Reading this, I've just realized that you meet the fast roll requirements even when rapid firing plasma weapons on overcharge. I've always slow-rolled this to know exactly which models do or do not overheat, but i"m surprised that the rules will allow this to be fast rolled.

Just because you fast roll that doesn't mean you don't have to keep track of which model is assigned which dice.

This.

You are allowed to fast roll, but it is on you as a player to ensure you don't end up in an unresolvable game state. As such if you want to fast roll plasma you need to still track who's dice are who's, whether that's by colours or some other method.

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aash wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, you're allowed to fast roll and your opponent can't stop you.

100% this.

There is an allowance to fast roll to hit and wound under certain conditions. If those conditions are met then you are allowed to fast roll and there is nothing the opponent can do about it.

Reading this, I've just realized that you meet the fast roll requirements even when rapid firing plasma weapons on overcharge. I've always slow-rolled this to know exactly which models do or do not overheat, but i"m surprised that the rules will allow this to be fast rolled.

Just because you fast roll that doesn't mean you don't have to keep track of which model is assigned which dice.

This.

You are allowed to fast roll, but it is on you as a player to ensure you don't end up in an unresolvable game state. As such if you want to fast roll plasma you need to still track who's dice are who's, whether that's by colours or some other method.

Makes sense. I've always just rolled it individually in the past and hadn't considered fast rolling in this circumstance. I'll start doing this with different sized/coloured dice!

Its in the fast rolling rules that the attacks are still treated as being 1 by 1, fast dice doesnt change that.....

 Stux wrote:

Marin wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, you're allowed to fast roll and your opponent can't stop you.

That is pointless argument, since you can also refuse to troll saves.
Fast dice rolling is to speed up the game, not to be abused to disallow use of a abilities.

It's not abuse, it's just the rules of the game.

And that example makes no sense. The game says you roll saves, you have to do it. It says you can fast roll, so you can fast roll, the other player doesn't get a say in it provided you follow the rules for fast rolling.

The real question is does the change of attacker state(degrading, killed) change the starting state of the attacker profile or the profile is changed after the end of all attack.
Led`s assume you fast roll 5 wounds, i`m not obligate to fast role my saves, on the 3 saves i lost the model and i kill the attacker, i`m stopping trolling dice because there is no one attacking me any more.
Fast rolling main goal is to increase the speed of the attack sequence and there is no reason to think it allow you to bypass it, like you are trying to imply.

Maybe i`m wrong, but i`m not aware of rule that force me to take all the saves from death model.

Marin wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Marin wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, you're allowed to fast roll and your opponent can't stop you.

That is pointless argument, since you can also refuse to troll saves.
Fast dice rolling is to speed up the game, not to be abused to disallow use of a abilities.

It's not abuse, it's just the rules of the game.

And that example makes no sense. The game says you roll saves, you have to do it. It says you can fast roll, so you can fast roll, the other player doesn't get a say in it provided you follow the rules for fast rolling.

The real question is does the change of attacker state(degrading, killed) change the starting state of the attacker profile or the profile is changed after the end of all attack.
Led`s assume you fast roll 5 wounds, i`m not obligate to fast role my saves, on the 3 saves i lost the model and i kill the attacker, i`m stopping trolling dice because there is no one attacking me any more.
Fast rolling main goal is to increase the speed of the attack sequence and there is no reason to think it allow you to bypass it, like you are trying to imply.

Maybe i`m wrong, but i`m not aware of rule that force me to take all the saves from death model.

But the shooting model isnt dead at the time when i fast roll. And when i fast rolled all hits and wounds are done. No going back in time. You can kill my shooting models afterwards, when making your saves.
This should be FAQed, because i think its unfair that fast rolling has an advantage over rolling one at a time. But until its FAQed we have to play by the rules that fast rolling avoids my models getting killed before they can shoot.

 p5freak wrote:

Marin wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Marin wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, you're allowed to fast roll and your opponent can't stop you.

That is pointless argument, since you can also refuse to troll saves.
Fast dice rolling is to speed up the game, not to be abused to disallow use of a abilities.

It's not abuse, it's just the rules of the game.

And that example makes no sense. The game says you roll saves, you have to do it. It says you can fast roll, so you can fast roll, the other player doesn't get a say in it provided you follow the rules for fast rolling.

The real question is does the change of attacker state(degrading, killed) change the starting state of the attacker profile or the profile is changed after the end of all attack.
Led`s assume you fast roll 5 wounds, i`m not obligate to fast role my saves, on the 3 saves i lost the model and i kill the attacker, i`m stopping trolling dice because there is no one attacking me any more.
Fast rolling main goal is to increase the speed of the attack sequence and there is no reason to think it allow you to bypass it, like you are trying to imply.

Maybe i`m wrong, but i`m not aware of rule that force me to take all the saves from death model.

But the shooting model isnt dead at the time when i fast roll. And when i fast rolled all hits and wounds are done. No going back in time. You can kill my shooting models afterwards, when making your saves.
This should be FAQed, because i think its unfair that fast rolling has an advantage over rolling one at a time. But until its FAQed we have to play by the rules that fast rolling avoids my models getting killed before they can shoot.

Fast rolling does not remove the sequence, i can kill the units before the wounds are depleted and i can just skip the rest of them. There is nothing that is forcing me to make saves from death unit.

No, that simply isn't how it works. Once you roll the dice, they stand.

 Stux wrote:
No, that simply isn't how it works. Once you roll the dice, they stand.

I am not sure I agree here. You may be able to roll the dice all at once, thus be able to "see into the future" (and thus have more information for deciding to use stratagems), but you still resolve the attacks one at a time.

Marin wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

Marin wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Marin wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, you're allowed to fast roll and your opponent can't stop you.

That is pointless argument, since you can also refuse to troll saves.
Fast dice rolling is to speed up the game, not to be abused to disallow use of a abilities.

It's not abuse, it's just the rules of the game.

And that example makes no sense. The game says you roll saves, you have to do it. It says you can fast roll, so you can fast roll, the other player doesn't get a say in it provided you follow the rules for fast rolling.

The real question is does the change of attacker state(degrading, killed) change the starting state of the attacker profile or the profile is changed after the end of all attack.
Led`s assume you fast roll 5 wounds, i`m not obligate to fast role my saves, on the 3 saves i lost the model and i kill the attacker, i`m stopping trolling dice because there is no one attacking me any more.
Fast rolling main goal is to increase the speed of the attack sequence and there is no reason to think it allow you to bypass it, like you are trying to imply.

Maybe i`m wrong, but i`m not aware of rule that force me to take all the saves from death model.

But the shooting model isnt dead at the time when i fast roll. And when i fast rolled all hits and wounds are done. No going back in time. You can kill my shooting models afterwards, when making your saves.
This should be FAQed, because i think its unfair that fast rolling has an advantage over rolling one at a time. But until its FAQed we have to play by the rules that fast rolling avoids my models getting killed before they can shoot.

Fast rolling does not remove the sequence, i can kill the units before the wounds are depleted and i can just skip the rest of them. There is nothing that is forcing me to make saves from death unit.

Fast rolling means i get to do the 4. resolve attacks including substeps 1. hit roll and 2. wound roll, for all of my shooting models, before you get to 3. allocate wound and 4. saving throw. See pg. 5 of the core rules. Your banner rule activates when a model is destroyed, which happens after you fail a saving throw, and the model has no wounds left. Which is after my hit and wound rolls are all done. There is nothing in the rules giving you permission to go back in time and make my hit and wound rolls not happening.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
No, that simply isn't how it works. Once you roll the dice, they stand.

I am not sure I agree here. You may be able to roll the dice all at once, thus be able to "see into the future" (and thus have more information for deciding to use stratagems), but you still resolve the attacks one at a time.

Fast dice rolling
...
If this is the
case, make all of the hit
rolls at the same time, then
all of the wound rolls. Your
opponent can then allocate
the wounds one at a time,
making the saving throws
and suffering damage
each time as appropriate.
...

You make all hit and wound rolls at the same time. The opponent then allocates the wounds one at a time, making the saving throws and suffering damage each time as appropriate. Then he can kill my shooting models with the astartes banner rule, but no going back in time.

 p5freak wrote:

Marin wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

Marin wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Marin wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, you're allowed to fast roll and your opponent can't stop you.

That is pointless argument, since you can also refuse to troll saves.
Fast dice rolling is to speed up the game, not to be abused to disallow use of a abilities.

It's not abuse, it's just the rules of the game.

And that example makes no sense. The game says you roll saves, you have to do it. It says you can fast roll, so you can fast roll, the other player doesn't get a say in it provided you follow the rules for fast rolling.

The real question is does the change of attacker state(degrading, killed) change the starting state of the attacker profile or the profile is changed after the end of all attack.
Led`s assume you fast roll 5 wounds, i`m not obligate to fast role my saves, on the 3 saves i lost the model and i kill the attacker, i`m stopping trolling dice because there is no one attacking me any more.
Fast rolling main goal is to increase the speed of the attack sequence and there is no reason to think it allow you to bypass it, like you are trying to imply.

Maybe i`m wrong, but i`m not aware of rule that force me to take all the saves from death model.

But the shooting model isnt dead at the time when i fast roll. And when i fast rolled all hits and wounds are done. No going back in time. You can kill my shooting models afterwards, when making your saves.
This should be FAQed, because i think its unfair that fast rolling has an advantage over rolling one at a time. But until its FAQed we have to play by the rules that fast rolling avoids my models getting killed before they can shoot.

Fast rolling does not remove the sequence, i can kill the units before the wounds are depleted and i can just skip the rest of them. There is nothing that is forcing me to make saves from death unit.

Fast rolling means i get to do the 4. resolve attacks including substeps 1. hit roll and 2. wound roll, for all of my shooting models, before you get to 3. allocate wound and 4. saving throw. See pg. 5 of the core rules. Your banner rule activates when a model is destroyed, which happens after you fail a saving throw, and the model has no wounds left. Which is after my hit and wound rolls are all done. There is nothing in the rules giving you permission to go back in time and make my hit and wound rolls not happening.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
No, that simply isn't how it works. Once you roll the dice, they stand.

I am not sure I agree here. You may be able to roll the dice all at once, thus be able to "see into the future" (and thus have more information for deciding to use stratagems), but you still resolve the attacks one at a time.

Fast dice rolling
...
If this is the
case, make all of the hit
rolls at the same time, then
all of the wound rolls. Your
opponent can then allocate
the wounds one at a time,
making the saving throws
and suffering damage
each time as appropriate.
...

You make all hit and wound rolls at the same time. The opponent then allocates the wounds one at a time, making the saving throws and suffering damage each time as appropriate. Then he can kill my shooting models with the astartes banner rule, but no going back in time.

I`m not going back in time, you are going in plausible feature that my action prevented.

Marin wrote:

I`m not going back in time, you are going in plausible feature that my action prevented.

You cant prevent what already happened. No going back in time.

 p5freak wrote:

Marin wrote:

I`m not going back in time, you are going in plausible feature that my action prevented.

You cant prevent what already happened. No going back in time.

Exactly this.

You can not prevent what already happened.

The wounds are there (even if the model that caused them is now dead) and the rules say you need to make a save for each wound.

So the wounds stand.

On second through i think the wounds really stand, but that is regardless the method you use to troll dice.
For instance if you see one model of unit and you declare multiple attacks, even if that model is removed you continue to resolve the attacks.
I guess the idea is the weapons fire at the some time and the masque interrelation is after that.

Marin wrote:
On second through i think the wounds really stand, but that is regardless the method you use to troll dice.
For instance if you see one model of unit and you declare multiple attacks, even if that model is removed you continue to resolve the attacks.
I guess the idea is the weapons fire at the some time and the masque interrelation is after that.

No, you don't roll declared but unresolved attacks if the model dies. But you do resolve ones that have already been rolled.

 Stux wrote:

Marin wrote:
On second through i think the wounds really stand, but that is regardless the method you use to troll dice.
For instance if you see one model of unit and you declare multiple attacks, even if that model is removed you continue to resolve the attacks.
I guess the idea is the weapons fire at the some time and the masque interrelation is after that.

No, you don't roll declared but unresolved attacks if the model dies. But you do resolve ones that have already been rolled.

And do you have a rules citation for that? To me, it seems that once you have declared the attacks and determined they are in range, they are resolved regardless of what happens to the model.

Marin wrote:
On second through i think the wounds really stand, but that is regardless the method you use to troll dice.
For instance if you see one model of unit and you declare multiple attacks, even if that model is removed you continue to resolve the attacks.
I guess the idea is the weapons fire at the some time and the masque interrelation is after that.

No, you dont continue to resolve attacks against a model no longer on the battlefield, when using the regular one dice at a time method. If you fast roll any excess wounds are lost.

There is an argument, that after the model rolling the attacks has been removed, the attacks have effectively stats of null and do not do anything.

i.e. "got to check the AP on these attacks,,, oh no AP", "got to check the damage on these attacks, oh no damage"
As a model not on the battlefield has no in game rules or stats.

 Stux wrote:

Marin wrote:
On second through i think the wounds really stand, but that is regardless the method you use to troll dice.
For instance if you see one model of unit and you declare multiple attacks, even if that model is removed you continue to resolve the attacks.
I guess the idea is the weapons fire at the some time and the masque interrelation is after that.

No, you don't roll declared but unresolved attacks if the model dies. But you do resolve ones that have already been rolled.

My bad i mean unit, you have 1 model that you can see and 9 that are out of vision.

I think its reasonable that any further attacks have damage - and ap - . as the model has been removed from the game, and all of its stats along with it.

Marin wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Marin wrote:
On second through i think the wounds really stand, but that is regardless the method you use to troll dice.
For instance if you see one model of unit and you declare multiple attacks, even if that model is removed you continue to resolve the attacks.
I guess the idea is the weapons fire at the some time and the masque interrelation is after that.

No, you don't roll declared but unresolved attacks if the model dies. But you do resolve ones that have already been rolled.

My bad i mean unit, you have 1 model that you can see and 9 that are out of vision.

Oh yes, that is correct. If the only target model you can see is killed, you can still resolve all further shooting attacks against that unit that were already declared.

Does anyone have any reason not to treat any further attacks, from a model that has been removed, incomplete or otherwise, as though they no longer have any valid or non null stats ? I don't see why you wouldn't or is there something I am missing ?

 Type40 wrote:
Does anyone have any reason not to treat any further attacks, from a model that has been removed, incomplete or otherwise, as though they no longer have any valid or non null stats ? I don't see why you wouldn't or is there something I am missing ?

Because in the example we are talking about the hit and wound rolls are already made and they are being allocated to the target unit. It is too late to stop it.

 Stux wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Does anyone have any reason not to treat any further attacks, from a model that has been removed, incomplete or otherwise, as though they no longer have any valid or non null stats ? I don't see why you wouldn't or is there something I am missing ?

Because in the example we are talking about the hit and wound rolls are already made and they are being allocated to the target unit. It is too late to stop it.

I agree , the wounds HAVE to be allocated. But the saves have not been made yet, and the damage has not been made yet.
According to the fast rolling rules, after the wound rolls have been made, we must do the saves and damage one at a time.

So when I got to check the stats for what AP i am making the save on and what damage I should apply, the AP is " - " and the damage is " - " because the model is no longer on the battlefield.

So yes, the wounds are absolutely allocated. I just have no stats for AP or damage to resolve the attacks on.

Before I removed the model those attacks could be resolved with its weapon stats, but those stats no longer exists for the remaining unfinished attack sequences. As those stats were on the datasheet of the model I removed... and its out of play.

 Type40 wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Does anyone have any reason not to treat any further attacks, from a model that has been removed, incomplete or otherwise, as though they no longer have any valid or non null stats ? I don't see why you wouldn't or is there something I am missing ?

So when I got to check the stats for what AP i am making the save on and what damage I should apply, the AP is " - " and the damage is " - " because the model is no longer on the battlefield.

There is nothing in the rules that suggest you can't refer to a datasheet of a unit for a model that has died. There's no rule or precedent I know of that suggests in any way that a null value would be returned.

 Stux wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Does anyone have any reason not to treat any further attacks, from a model that has been removed, incomplete or otherwise, as though they no longer have any valid or non null stats ? I don't see why you wouldn't or is there something I am missing ?

So when I got to check the stats for what AP i am making the save on and what damage I should apply, the AP is " - " and the damage is " - " because the model is no longer on the battlefield.

There is nothing in the rules that suggest you can't refer to a datasheet of a unit for a model that has died. There's no rule or precedent I know of that suggests in any way that a null value would be returned.

Exactly. What I am saying.

Your tank makes 6 attacks with the same profile.
You fast roll the hits and the wounds and you score all 6 (congrats).

I have 6 wounds to allocate.
I allocate the first, fail the save, my one harlie model is slain.
Before I remove the harlie I roll a 4+ and finish off that tank. The tank is now removed from play.
I allocate the next wound.
I got to check what AP I should resolve that next save on,,,, hmmm, well that unit is dead, I can't refer to its datasheet.
Some how I get to the next stage and try to allocate damage,,, hmmm, no damage,,, I can't refer to that tanks datasheet.

What values do I apply to the remaining attacks ? There is no datasheet left for me to check because that tank was removed from play.

I would have 5 wounds to allocate, but no AP or damage that I can apply, the model that had that datasheet is removed from the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

If this is the case,make all of the hit rolls at the same time,then all of the wound rolls. Your opponent can then allocate the wounds one at a time,making the saving throws and suffering damage each time as appropriate.

BRB 179 Fast Dice Rolling

The datasheet still exists when the unit is destroyed.

How can we possibly finish those rolls, even though they have been started, when there is no longer stats from the weapons that made them. I can't resolve my save when I do not have an AP of the weapon that was making them or the damage of the weapon making them still in the game.

The weapon stats still exist. The datasheet still exists.

I really don't know where you are getting any of this from.

 Stux wrote:
The datasheet still exists when the unit is destroyed.

So are you suggesting that a model that has been removed from play still has abilities, stats, rules, and a datasheet that can affect the game ?
Wouldn't that mean ALL the declared attacks go through, the process has been started for them too ? where do we draw the line ?
Can I target something in the psykik phase with my removed psyker ? it says to pick a psyker in my army and use a psykik ability that doesn't require a target, nothing mentions that psyker has to be on the battlefield ?
Can I use strategems that allow me to regain wounds on a model that has already been slain ? After they have been removed from the battlefield ?

Where is the line, if it isn't , when it is removed from play ?

What I am getting at, is that after the model is removed from play, it no longer has rules, or attacks, or abilities in any way shape or form. it is removed from the battlefield. It can no longer affect the game.
Those weapons attacks are associated with the model that has been removed. Therefor, even though the wounds have been rolled for, there is no longer an AP or Damage to check. The model, its abilities, rules, and stats are gone.
Unless we are allowed to affect models removed from play, use the rules of models removed from play, and have the abilities of models removed from play?
Where do we draw this line of when a model can have rules from the dead and when it can not ?

We draw the line with the attacks we haven't rolled to hit yet.

 Stux wrote:
We draw the line with the attacks we haven't rolled to hit yet.

Source ?


I know I have wounds to allocate, I just can't understand how those attacks can possible have any AP or D values, that models stats and rules were removed from affecting the game along with it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am not saying the RAW doesn't say to allocate the wounds ? but we resolve the rest of the attack sequences one at a time. Therefor we check the AP and D one at a time and therefor the timing for checking it is after the model has already been removed... We don't have any AP or D to check anymore.

It's an interpretation, there isn't an explicit citation. I admit that clarity would be appreciated.

I'm going to need a citation as well on the stats being removed from the game when a unit is destroyed. I'm not even playing a game right now and I can see the stats perfectly well.

 Stux wrote:
It's an interpretation, there isn't an explicit citation. I admit that clarity would be appreciated.

I'm going to need a citation as well on the stats being removed from the game when a unit is destroyed. I'm not even playing a game right now and I can see the stats perfectly well.

I think that's my point,
Would you agree or disagree that
A model removed from the game can no longer affect the game ?

Or do we have to revisit our understanding of tons and tons of rules ? Because if models can affect the game / be affected by the game after being removed, there are tons and tons of questions I have ?
Why can't I for example shoot with models already removed from the game ? either they are in the unit or they are not ? They either have accessible weapon stats or they do not ?

We check the AP and D one at a time ,,, even when fast rolling. So is that slain and removed model still able to affect the game, have stats, have abilities, have rules and most importantly, have weapon/attack values even after it has been removed from the game ?
Do we have a source that says these values, characteristics, and rules, persist during these unresolved attacks or do we play as though removed models no longer affect the game with any of their abilities or values ?

Id love to be able to shoot my plasma canons even if that model is removed from the battlefield. There is nothing in the rules that says it is no longer a part of the unit and if it being removed from play doesn't determine that, then clearly it can still shoot in later shooting phases (why not, if it was able to have characteristics and weapon values earlier even though it was removed)?

My point here, is if a model is removed from play, it has no values or rules to continue with. Every other rule in the game is based on a unwritten precedent that we treat removed models that way. I have no source to quote, because removed from the game is something we are supposed to have an understanding of. AKA model can not do anything in anyway, have no rules of any kind. the values of its weapons are a part of its rules. If the model isn't there, we can't check or interact with these values.

As a counterpoint to this:

Say I have a unit of Suppressors with 1 model left.

I shoot your Hellblasters who are next to your Ancient.

I kill a Hellblaster, you succeed the roll from the ancient and shoot me back, killing my last Suppressor.

Proceed to the charge phase, where another unit of mine charges your Hellblasters unit.

Do you get to shoot overwatch?

The Suppressors have a rule saying because I killed a model, your unit can't shoot overwatch. But the Suppressors are now dead, so by your interpretation their datasheet doesn't exist so I can't use the rule.

No where in the rules does it say to check all the stats of the weapons and lock them in at the beginning of the attack sequence.

It says to check the AP and D after allocating each wound one at a time.

"If this is the case,make all of the hit rolls at the same time,then all of the wound rolls. Your opponent can then allocate the wounds one at a time,making the saving throws and suffering damage each time as appropriate." brb

So the timing for when I check those values, is after the model is removed. If the model no longer exists, how is a value supposed to be returned to me ? unless we are somehow accepting that a removed model is able to affect the game, have stats, characteristics, abilities and rules ?

My example in the previous post proves that rules on a datasheet can affect the game after the unit with that datasheet is removed.

 Stux wrote:
As a counterpoint to this:

Say I have a unit of Suppressors with 1 model left.

I shoot your Hellblasters who are next to your Ancient.

I kill a Hellblaster, you succeed the roll from the ancient and shoot me back, killing my last Suppressor.

Proceed to the charge phase, where another unit of mine charges your Hellblasters unit.

Do you get to shoot overwatch?

The Suppressors have a rule saying because I killed a model, your unit can't shoot overwatch. But the Suppressors are now dead, so by your interpretation their datasheet doesn't exist so I can't use the rule.

Good point, I didn't think of this.

Well, then, the real question is, do we have any source telling us when we are /arn't supposed to acknowledge a models weapon stats and a models characteristics.
because if we can acknowledge that characteristics are still in the game after removal, whats to stop us from always using the highest leadership total in the moral phase, even when that model with the highest has been removed ?

We do not have a rule saying when the characteristics of models and weapons are officially removed. I argue, it is when the model is removed from the game. However, we have 0 RAW for this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, what stops us from finishing ALL of our declared attacks instead of just the ones that were just fast rolled.
Why do the AP and D get to continue to exists but not the rest of weapon profile, BS/WS, Attacks characteristic, S, and the unrolled, but declared, attacks themselves ? Those attacks have already been locked in after checking the range, its not like we have to do that again (and if the models characteristics persists, the only thing stooping it from shooting in the future is it has no range to check, in this case, we have already done that.)

We can't really have it both ways ?
not without a source saying when these characteristics officially cease to exist and affect the game. There are so many precedence that we need to take a look at concerning abilities, rules and characteristics that persist, If removed from the game doesn't remove a models characteristics and stats from affecting the game.

I agree that it could be clearer. Ultimately it is a matter of interpretation. While RAW purists won't like this as an answer, there is a consensus interpretation that you resolve attacks you have already begun to roll, and do not make attacks you haven't rolled yet.

But some do disagree. Without further comment from GW I don't think we can make any progress on this debate.

[quote=Type40 777867 10507657 9b2637343c9fedd8c3f2bb7558a4c55e.jpgAlso, what stops us from finishing ALL of our declared attacks instead of just the ones that were just fast rolled.
Why do the AP and D get to continue to exists but not the weapon profile and the unrolled attacks themselves ?

 Stux wrote:
I agree that it could be clearer. Ultimately it is a matter of interpretation. While RAW purists won't like this as an answer, there is a consensus interpretation that you resolve attacks you have already begun to roll, and do not make attacks you haven't rolled yet.

But some do disagree. Without further comment from GW I don't think we can make any progress on this debate.

Indeed,

Sorry to be a bother with this, I was really playing devils advocate.

I will still play where all rolls that have been started in fast rolling will be resolved in total. As it seems the most fair and streamlined way to interpret the RAW.

I'd hate to sit in front of a guard player and say, ya, your going to have to resolve each one of those attacks one at a time and declare which model is firing which because you need to keep track of who is shooting what and because I might kill some before they shoot and etc. . . It would be a pain.

However, I think its important for people who stumble upon this thread to know RAW this is not an answerable question until we have some input from GW.

@stux I thank you for the joust and discourse.

I think, if it was up to me, the ideal way to keep it streamlined and adress this would be to allow all declared attacks to go through (just like you do when you no longer have LoS to a model) but immediately stop all attacks if the entire unit is removed. <this is not what the rules say to do, but something along those lines would make good errata, IMHO . >





Automatically Appended Next Post:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Also, what stops us from finishing ALL of our declared attacks instead of just the ones that were just fast rolled.
Why do the AP and D get to continue to exists but not the weapon profile and the unrolled attacks themselves ?

Exactly this. Let's put it this way, the shooting rules have given us permission to resolve all of the attacks that we have declared. Having the model removed from the table does not revoke these permissions - nobody has provided a rules quote showing that these permissions are revoked despite prior assertions.

When a model is removed from the table it does not cease to have a stat line. Nor does it's weapons cease to have a profile. Ergo, the shooting rules are still fully resolvable in this situation.

Again its because we have to do the best at interpreting streamlining, intention, and a basic understanding of the overall mechanics of the game here.
There is also no rule saying that the model with the highest leadership is no longer in the unit if it was removed from the game, however, if it was, its generally accepted that we do not get to use that models leadership characteristic in the morale phase.

This is a classic, take it up with your opponent, stick to RAW as close as possible but here we have to determine some amount of intent. There are other rules that specifically say the wounds, attacks, or abilities resolve after all the attacks have been made. Abilities like somber sentinels seem to have been specifically designed without that wording. It is likely that is for a reason. Otherwise by now it would have been erated . I will argue that a model that is removed gets no further attacks, but they finish the attacks they started. As this is a fair and streamlined middle ground. I can see arguments justifiably on both sides and there is no RAW to answer when characteristics officially cease to exist.

If you try to say to your opponent that characteristics, stats, rules and abilities never cease to exist, expect your opponent to start cheesing all sorts of things with rules/abilities/and use of characteristics from long removed models.

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Also, what stops us from finishing ALL of our declared attacks instead of just the ones that were just fast rolled.
Why do the AP and D get to continue to exists but not the weapon profile and the unrolled attacks themselves ?

Exactly this. Let's put it this way, the shooting rules have given us permission to resolve all of the attacks that we have declared. Having the model removed from the table does not revoke these permissions - nobody has provided a rules quote showing that these permissions are revoked despite prior assertions.

When a model is removed from the table it does not cease to have a stat line. Nor does it's weapons cease to have a profile. Ergo, the shooting rules are still fully resolvable in this situation.

Again its because we have to do the best at interpreting streamlining, intention, and a basic understanding of the overall mechanics of the game here.
There is also no rule saying that the model with the highest leadership is no longer in the unit if it was removed from the game, however, if it was, its generally accepted that we do not get to use that models leadership in the morale phase.

This is a classic, take it up with your opponent, and stick to RAW as close as possible. However, I will argue that a model that is removed gets no further attacks, but they finish the attacks they started. As this is a fair and streamlined middle ground. I can see arguments justifiably on both sides and there is no RAW to answer when characteristics officially cease to exist.
If you try to say they never cease to exist, expect your opponent to start cheesing all sorts of things with rules/abilities/and use of characteristics from long removed models.

The rules are fairly clear on that specific "issue".

"Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models" (battle primer, page 2, header "Units")
"If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play." (battle primer, page 7, header "Inflict Damage")

Ergo, if the model is removed from the game, it can not make up part of a unit. Which means you can't use a dead models leadership.

The part that you seem to be getting stuck on is that you think that as soon as a model is removed that the effects it has triggered are immediately removed. Stux gave a great example of the Suppressors where this is not the case. A psyker casting a buff then dying doesn't cause the buff to disappear. Shooting is just another effect. A model commits attacks against a unit with a weapon. Once the model has done that then it doesn't matter if it dies - it's effects are still in the game state and continue to be resolved unless something explicitly says otherwise.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Also, what stops us from finishing ALL of our declared attacks instead of just the ones that were just fast rolled.
Why do the AP and D get to continue to exists but not the weapon profile and the unrolled attacks themselves ?

Exactly this. Let's put it this way, the shooting rules have given us permission to resolve all of the attacks that we have declared. Having the model removed from the table does not revoke these permissions - nobody has provided a rules quote showing that these permissions are revoked despite prior assertions.

When a model is removed from the table it does not cease to have a stat line. Nor does it's weapons cease to have a profile. Ergo, the shooting rules are still fully resolvable in this situation.

Again its because we have to do the best at interpreting streamlining, intention, and a basic understanding of the overall mechanics of the game here.
There is also no rule saying that the model with the highest leadership is no longer in the unit if it was removed from the game, however, if it was, its generally accepted that we do not get to use that models leadership in the morale phase.

This is a classic, take it up with your opponent, and stick to RAW as close as possible. However, I will argue that a model that is removed gets no further attacks, but they finish the attacks they started. As this is a fair and streamlined middle ground. I can see arguments justifiably on both sides and there is no RAW to answer when characteristics officially cease to exist.
If you try to say they never cease to exist, expect your opponent to start cheesing all sorts of things with rules/abilities/and use of characteristics from long removed models.

The rules are fairly clear on that specific "issue".

"Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models" (battle primer, page 2, header "Units")
"If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play." (battle primer, page 7, header "Inflict Damage")

Ergo, if the model is removed from the game, it can not make up part of a unit. Which means you can't use a dead models leadership.

The part that you seem to be getting stuck on is that you think that as soon as a model is removed that the effects it has triggered are immediately removed. Stux gave a great example of the Suppressors where this is not the case. A psyker casting a buff then dying doesn't cause the buff to disappear. Shooting is just another effect. A model commits attacks against a unit with a weapon. Once the model has done that then it doesn't matter if it dies - it's effects are still in the game state and continue to be resolved unless something explicitly says otherwise.

This is wrong,

there is no such thing as ERGO in RAW, you are now making an interpretation.

The models AP checks and Damage checks have not been triggered yet, they are triggered one at a time for each allocated wound.
The models remaining attacks are NOT triggered as you have not started making those attacks yet, those attacks are resolved in sections (as per the fast rolling rules and the rules outlined in "choose ranged weapons") .
Unless you have a source, you are interpreting and not going by RAW and in this case, it is impossible to go by raw, as there is no raw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can just as easily say, as I have said before,

The model is removed from the game ERGO it has no stats to continue making attacks with... yet again, this is an interpretation.
or we can have more fun with ERGO.
My model has shot at your unit last turn, ERGO they are suppressed by heavy fire and can not move during your turn.
Making logical or illogical leaps is not RAW it is an attempt to determine RAI. In the case of a removed model not being a part of the unit, I agree with you, that is most likely the RAI. However, in the case of continuing attacks, I disagree with you, as unlike the Suppressors, the length of existence for the effect/stat/characteristic is not defined. The Suppressors ability length is clearly defined to stay in effect until the end of the turn .

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Also, what stops us from finishing ALL of our declared attacks instead of just the ones that were just fast rolled.
Why do the AP and D get to continue to exists but not the weapon profile and the unrolled attacks themselves ?

Exactly this. Let's put it this way, the shooting rules have given us permission to resolve all of the attacks that we have declared. Having the model removed from the table does not revoke these permissions - nobody has provided a rules quote showing that these permissions are revoked despite prior assertions.

When a model is removed from the table it does not cease to have a stat line. Nor does it's weapons cease to have a profile. Ergo, the shooting rules are still fully resolvable in this situation.

Again its because we have to do the best at interpreting streamlining, intention, and a basic understanding of the overall mechanics of the game here.
There is also no rule saying that the model with the highest leadership is no longer in the unit if it was removed from the game, however, if it was, its generally accepted that we do not get to use that models leadership in the morale phase.

This is a classic, take it up with your opponent, and stick to RAW as close as possible. However, I will argue that a model that is removed gets no further attacks, but they finish the attacks they started. As this is a fair and streamlined middle ground. I can see arguments justifiably on both sides and there is no RAW to answer when characteristics officially cease to exist.
If you try to say they never cease to exist, expect your opponent to start cheesing all sorts of things with rules/abilities/and use of characteristics from long removed models.

The rules are fairly clear on that specific "issue".

"Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models" (battle primer, page 2, header "Units")
"If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play." (battle primer, page 7, header "Inflict Damage")

Ergo, if the model is removed from the game, it can not make up part of a unit. Which means you can't use a dead models leadership.

The part that you seem to be getting stuck on is that you think that as soon as a model is removed that the effects it has triggered are immediately removed. Stux gave a great example of the Suppressors where this is not the case. A psyker casting a buff then dying doesn't cause the buff to disappear. Shooting is just another effect. A model commits attacks against a unit with a weapon. Once the model has done that then it doesn't matter if it dies - it's effects are still in the game state and continue to be resolved unless something explicitly says otherwise.

This is wrong,

there is no such thing as ERGO in RAW, you are now making an interpretation.

The models AP checks and Damage checks have not been triggered yet, they are triggered one at a time for each allocated wound.
The models remaining attacks are NOT triggered as you have not started making those attacks yet, those attacks are resolved in sections (as per the fast rolling rules and the rules outlined in "choose ranged weapons") .
Unless you have a source, you are interpreting and not going by RAW and in this case, it is impossible to go by raw, as there is no raw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can just as easily say, as I have said before,

The model is removed from the game ERGO it has no stats to continue making attacks with... yet again, this is an interpretation.

A model not in play can not make up part of a unit. Otherwise you have a strange definition of "removed from play". So yeah, ergo.

Just because a model is removed from play doesn't mean it's stats stop existing. I can still reference the datasheet of the model that triggered the shooting effect for it's BS, the weapons strength, ap, and damage and be able to continue the shooting sequence without issue.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Also, what stops us from finishing ALL of our declared attacks instead of just the ones that were just fast rolled.
Why do the AP and D get to continue to exists but not the weapon profile and the unrolled attacks themselves ?

Exactly this. Let's put it this way, the shooting rules have given us permission to resolve all of the attacks that we have declared. Having the model removed from the table does not revoke these permissions - nobody has provided a rules quote showing that these permissions are revoked despite prior assertions.

When a model is removed from the table it does not cease to have a stat line. Nor does it's weapons cease to have a profile. Ergo, the shooting rules are still fully resolvable in this situation.

Again its because we have to do the best at interpreting streamlining, intention, and a basic understanding of the overall mechanics of the game here.
There is also no rule saying that the model with the highest leadership is no longer in the unit if it was removed from the game, however, if it was, its generally accepted that we do not get to use that models leadership in the morale phase.

This is a classic, take it up with your opponent, and stick to RAW as close as possible. However, I will argue that a model that is removed gets no further attacks, but they finish the attacks they started. As this is a fair and streamlined middle ground. I can see arguments justifiably on both sides and there is no RAW to answer when characteristics officially cease to exist.
If you try to say they never cease to exist, expect your opponent to start cheesing all sorts of things with rules/abilities/and use of characteristics from long removed models.

The rules are fairly clear on that specific "issue".

"Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models" (battle primer, page 2, header "Units")
"If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play." (battle primer, page 7, header "Inflict Damage")

Ergo, if the model is removed from the game, it can not make up part of a unit. Which means you can't use a dead models leadership.

The part that you seem to be getting stuck on is that you think that as soon as a model is removed that the effects it has triggered are immediately removed. Stux gave a great example of the Suppressors where this is not the case. A psyker casting a buff then dying doesn't cause the buff to disappear. Shooting is just another effect. A model commits attacks against a unit with a weapon. Once the model has done that then it doesn't matter if it dies - it's effects are still in the game state and continue to be resolved unless something explicitly says otherwise.

This is wrong,

there is no such thing as ERGO in RAW, you are now making an interpretation.

The models AP checks and Damage checks have not been triggered yet, they are triggered one at a time for each allocated wound.
The models remaining attacks are NOT triggered as you have not started making those attacks yet, those attacks are resolved in sections (as per the fast rolling rules and the rules outlined in "choose ranged weapons") .
Unless you have a source, you are interpreting and not going by RAW and in this case, it is impossible to go by raw, as there is no raw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can just as easily say, as I have said before,

The model is removed from the game ERGO it has no stats to continue making attacks with... yet again, this is an interpretation.

A model not in play can not make up part of a unit. Otherwise you have a strange definition of "removed from play". So yeah, ergo.

Just because a model is removed from play doesn't mean it's stats stop existing. I can still reference the datasheet of the model that triggered the shooting effect for it's BS, the weapons strength, ap, and damage and be able to continue the shooting sequence without issue.

I would argue that you have a strange definition of "removed from play" if you think a model that is removed from play still has rules that can allow it to move on to its next attack(s) when its not on the battlefield... So yeah, ERGO,

Do you really not understand that you are implying interpretation here and not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You have triggered nothing, Attacks are resolved one at a time, and can be started together in sections (as per the fast dice rolling rules and the choose ranged weapon rules on page 179 of the BRB).
If you do not have a source, you can not claim anything else as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again suppressors have a very clearly defined piece of timing for when their rule stops. This, does not, neither does "when a model is considered to be a part of a unit" we need to make interpretations for these things.
We can not call that interpretation RAW no mater how obvious it might seem.
We agree on when a model stops being a part of a unit.
We do not agree in the interpretation of when a model stops being allowed to make attacks.,,, i think its weird you think removed models should be allowed to make attacks that they havnt started though, very strange interpretation.

 Type40 wrote:


I would argue that you have a strange definition of "removed from play" if you think a model that is removed from play still has rules that can allow it to move on to its next attack(s) when its not on the battlefield... So yeah, ERGO,

Do you really not understand that you are implying interpretation here and not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You have triggered nothing, Attacks are resolved one at a time, and can be started together in sections (as per the fast dice rolling rules and the choose ranged weapon rules on page 179 of the BRB).
If you do not have a source, you can not claim anything else as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again suppressors have a very clearly defined piece of timing for when their rule stops. This, does not, neither does "when a model is considered to be a part of a unit" we need to make interpretations for these things.
We can not call that interpretation RAW no mater how obvious it might seem.
We agree on when a model stops being a part of a unit.
We do not agree in the interpretation of when a model stops being allowed to make attacks.,,, i think its weird you think removed models should be allowed to make attacks that they havnt started though, very strange interpretation.

But the models have started to make the attacks, what do you call sections. 1, 2 and 3 under the shooting phase? Once they have been declared you are locked into resolving them. Being removed fron play doesn't interrupt this sequence.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


I would argue that you have a strange definition of "removed from play" if you think a model that is removed from play still has rules that can allow it to move on to its next attack(s) when its not on the battlefield... So yeah, ERGO,

Do you really not understand that you are implying interpretation here and not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You have triggered nothing, Attacks are resolved one at a time, and can be started together in sections (as per the fast dice rolling rules and the choose ranged weapon rules on page 179 of the BRB).
If you do not have a source, you can not claim anything else as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again suppressors have a very clearly defined piece of timing for when their rule stops. This, does not, neither does "when a model is considered to be a part of a unit" we need to make interpretations for these things.
We can not call that interpretation RAW no mater how obvious it might seem.
We agree on when a model stops being a part of a unit.
We do not agree in the interpretation of when a model stops being allowed to make attacks.,,, i think its weird you think removed models should be allowed to make attacks that they havnt started though, very strange interpretation.

But the models have started to make the attacks, what do you call sections. 1, 2 and 3 under the shooting phase? Once they have been declared you are locked into resolving them. Being removed fron play doesn't interrupt this sequence.

What rule says that ?
Other things can interrupt the sequence ? why would we assume being removed from play doesn't ?
Nothing says you are locked into resolving them, it says "... resolve all shots against one target before moving on to the next" and " ... in order to make several attack at once all the attacks must have the same ..." and "your opponent can then allocate the wounds one at a time"
You still have to have a model there to make the attacks, Yes you "declared" all your attacks, but that doesn't mean things can not change. For example you can play a strat that gives you +1 to something or your opponent can give you -1 to hit. Just because you declared an attack doesn't mean the attack or its stats have been locked in. Where are you getting that from ? It just means, if you can make the attacks, you have to make them on what you declared.
There is plenty of time to be interrupted, as attacks are resolved one at a time, and are started in sections. Again, the rules we are talking about in particular do not have "resolve this after all attacks have been made" however other rules do have this.
Seems like a bit of a stretch to try and say this is the only effect/set of rules in the game that can't interrupt a rule sequence without explicitly saying it wouldn't do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Declare does not = Must resolve.

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


I would argue that you have a strange definition of "removed from play" if you think a model that is removed from play still has rules that can allow it to move on to its next attack(s) when its not on the battlefield... So yeah, ERGO,

Do you really not understand that you are implying interpretation here and not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You have triggered nothing, Attacks are resolved one at a time, and can be started together in sections (as per the fast dice rolling rules and the choose ranged weapon rules on page 179 of the BRB).
If you do not have a source, you can not claim anything else as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again suppressors have a very clearly defined piece of timing for when their rule stops. This, does not, neither does "when a model is considered to be a part of a unit" we need to make interpretations for these things.
We can not call that interpretation RAW no mater how obvious it might seem.
We agree on when a model stops being a part of a unit.
We do not agree in the interpretation of when a model stops being allowed to make attacks.,,, i think its weird you think removed models should be allowed to make attacks that they havnt started though, very strange interpretation.

But the models have started to make the attacks, what do you call sections. 1, 2 and 3 under the shooting phase? Once they have been declared you are locked into resolving them. Being removed fron play doesn't interrupt this sequence.

What rule says that ?
Other things can interrupt the sequence ? why would we assume being removed from play doesn't ?
Nothing says you are locked into resolving them, it says "... resolve all shots against one target before moving on to the next" and " ... in order to make several attack at once all the attacks must have the same ..." and "your opponent can then allocate the wounds one at a time"
You still have to have a model there to make the attacks, Yes you "declared" all your attacks, but that doesn't mean things can not change. For example you can play a strat that gives you +1 to something or your opponent can give you -1 to hit. Just because you declared an attack doesn't mean the attack or its stats have been locked in. Where are you getting that from ? It just means, if you can make the attacks, you have to make them on what you declared.
There is plenty of time to be interrupted, as attacks are resolved one at a time, and are started in sections. Again, the rules we are talking about in particular do not have "resolve this after all attacks have been made" however other rules do have this.
Seems like a bit of a stretch to try and say this is the only effect/set of rules in the game that can't interrupt a rule sequence without explicitly saying it wouldn't do so.

I think you should imagine the unit and all the models in it shooting all their weapons at the some time.
The shells and bullets are already flying, when the aeldar are shooting back and kill the attacker/s.
That is the only reasonable interaction that don`t create million cases where normal and fast dice rolling give different results.

Marin wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


I would argue that you have a strange definition of "removed from play" if you think a model that is removed from play still has rules that can allow it to move on to its next attack(s) when its not on the battlefield... So yeah, ERGO,

Do you really not understand that you are implying interpretation here and not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You have triggered nothing, Attacks are resolved one at a time, and can be started together in sections (as per the fast dice rolling rules and the choose ranged weapon rules on page 179 of the BRB).
If you do not have a source, you can not claim anything else as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again suppressors have a very clearly defined piece of timing for when their rule stops. This, does not, neither does "when a model is considered to be a part of a unit" we need to make interpretations for these things.
We can not call that interpretation RAW no mater how obvious it might seem.
We agree on when a model stops being a part of a unit.
We do not agree in the interpretation of when a model stops being allowed to make attacks.,,, i think its weird you think removed models should be allowed to make attacks that they havnt started though, very strange interpretation.

But the models have started to make the attacks, what do you call sections. 1, 2 and 3 under the shooting phase? Once they have been declared you are locked into resolving them. Being removed fron play doesn't interrupt this sequence.

What rule says that ?
Other things can interrupt the sequence ? why would we assume being removed from play doesn't ?
Nothing says you are locked into resolving them, it says "... resolve all shots against one target before moving on to the next" and " ... in order to make several attack at once all the attacks must have the same ..." and "your opponent can then allocate the wounds one at a time"
You still have to have a model there to make the attacks, Yes you "declared" all your attacks, but that doesn't mean things can not change. For example you can play a strat that gives you +1 to something or your opponent can give you -1 to hit. Just because you declared an attack doesn't mean the attack or its stats have been locked in. Where are you getting that from ? It just means, if you can make the attacks, you have to make them on what you declared.
There is plenty of time to be interrupted, as attacks are resolved one at a time, and are started in sections. Again, the rules we are talking about in particular do not have "resolve this after all attacks have been made" however other rules do have this.
Seems like a bit of a stretch to try and say this is the only effect/set of rules in the game that can't interrupt a rule sequence without explicitly saying it wouldn't do so.

I think you should imagine the unit and all the models in it shooting all their weapons at the some time.
The shells and bullets are already flying, when the aeldar are shooting back and kill the attacker/s.
That is the only reasonable interaction that don`t create million cases where normal and fast dice rolling give different results.

We can imagine what ever we want, it doesn't make what we are imagining the rules.
The harlequin ability explicitly interrupts the sequence, other abilities explicitly do not. If the ability was not supposed to interrupt the sequence it would have the line "after all attacks from the unit are resolved" like the emperors children version of the ability has (probably balanced this way because they do not need a 4+ to trigger theirs).
So again, just because you have declared your attacks doesn't mean a removed model gets to start new attacks after it has been removed. I do concede that already started attacks (via the fast rolling rules) should be completed, but there is no way you are able to start new attacks after a model has been removed from play.

I think in general that this ability wont have much effect in game play. However in this specific case it had a huge impact. And unfortunately I fall between the two camps here.

In this specific case we are talking about a multi weaponed platform. I agree that all remaining weapons not yet rolled for do not get to fire/roll, however I do think that the weapon fired should roll all attacks, even if the first one killed the harlequin.

Cheers

Andrew

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


I would argue that you have a strange definition of "removed from play" if you think a model that is removed from play still has rules that can allow it to move on to its next attack(s) when its not on the battlefield... So yeah, ERGO,

Do you really not understand that you are implying interpretation here and not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You have triggered nothing, Attacks are resolved one at a time, and can be started together in sections (as per the fast dice rolling rules and the choose ranged weapon rules on page 179 of the BRB).
If you do not have a source, you can not claim anything else as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again suppressors have a very clearly defined piece of timing for when their rule stops. This, does not, neither does "when a model is considered to be a part of a unit" we need to make interpretations for these things.
We can not call that interpretation RAW no mater how obvious it might seem.
We agree on when a model stops being a part of a unit.
We do not agree in the interpretation of when a model stops being allowed to make attacks.,,, i think its weird you think removed models should be allowed to make attacks that they havnt started though, very strange interpretation.

But the models have started to make the attacks, what do you call sections. 1, 2 and 3 under the shooting phase? Once they have been declared you are locked into resolving them. Being removed fron play doesn't interrupt this sequence.

What rule says that ?
Other things can interrupt the sequence ? why would we assume being removed from play doesn't ?
Nothing says you are locked into resolving them, it says "... resolve all shots against one target before moving on to the next" and " ... in order to make several attack at once all the attacks must have the same ..." and "your opponent can then allocate the wounds one at a time"
You still have to have a model there to make the attacks, Yes you "declared" all your attacks, but that doesn't mean things can not change. For example you can play a strat that gives you +1 to something or your opponent can give you -1 to hit. Just because you declared an attack doesn't mean the attack or its stats have been locked in. Where are you getting that from ? It just means, if you can make the attacks, you have to make them on what you declared.
There is plenty of time to be interrupted, as attacks are resolved one at a time, and are started in sections. Again, the rules we are talking about in particular do not have "resolve this after all attacks have been made" however other rules do have this.
Seems like a bit of a stretch to try and say this is the only effect/set of rules in the game that can't interrupt a rule sequence without explicitly saying it wouldn't do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Declare does not = Must resolve.

Things can interrupt the sequence, but you have yet to post any evidence showing that you abandon the remainder of the sequence after resolving the interruption.
Given that I have been given permission by the rule set to resolve these attacks by virtue of the shooting rules. The onus is now on you to show that, as a result of a model being slain after it has already declared its attacks, results in the sequence being abandoned.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


I would argue that you have a strange definition of "removed from play" if you think a model that is removed from play still has rules that can allow it to move on to its next attack(s) when its not on the battlefield... So yeah, ERGO,

Do you really not understand that you are implying interpretation here and not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You have triggered nothing, Attacks are resolved one at a time, and can be started together in sections (as per the fast dice rolling rules and the choose ranged weapon rules on page 179 of the BRB).
If you do not have a source, you can not claim anything else as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again suppressors have a very clearly defined piece of timing for when their rule stops. This, does not, neither does "when a model is considered to be a part of a unit" we need to make interpretations for these things.
We can not call that interpretation RAW no mater how obvious it might seem.
We agree on when a model stops being a part of a unit.
We do not agree in the interpretation of when a model stops being allowed to make attacks.,,, i think its weird you think removed models should be allowed to make attacks that they havnt started though, very strange interpretation.

But the models have started to make the attacks, what do you call sections. 1, 2 and 3 under the shooting phase? Once they have been declared you are locked into resolving them. Being removed fron play doesn't interrupt this sequence.

What rule says that ?
Other things can interrupt the sequence ? why would we assume being removed from play doesn't ?
Nothing says you are locked into resolving them, it says "... resolve all shots against one target before moving on to the next" and " ... in order to make several attack at once all the attacks must have the same ..." and "your opponent can then allocate the wounds one at a time"
You still have to have a model there to make the attacks, Yes you "declared" all your attacks, but that doesn't mean things can not change. For example you can play a strat that gives you +1 to something or your opponent can give you -1 to hit. Just because you declared an attack doesn't mean the attack or its stats have been locked in. Where are you getting that from ? It just means, if you can make the attacks, you have to make them on what you declared.
There is plenty of time to be interrupted, as attacks are resolved one at a time, and are started in sections. Again, the rules we are talking about in particular do not have "resolve this after all attacks have been made" however other rules do have this.
Seems like a bit of a stretch to try and say this is the only effect/set of rules in the game that can't interrupt a rule sequence without explicitly saying it wouldn't do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Declare does not = Must resolve.

Things can interrupt the sequence, but you have yet to post any evidence showing that you abandon the remainder of the sequence after resolving the interruption.
Given that I have been given permission by the rule set to resolve these attacks by virtue of the shooting rules. The onus is now on you to show that, as a result of a model being slain after it has already declared its attacks, results in the sequence being abandoned.

Actually the onus on you, the shooting rules have not given you permission to resolve the attacks ?
I really do not know where you are getting this from ?
The shooting rules have only tell you to declare your attacks, no where does it say you must resolve all declared attacks. Factually it tells you to make an attack one at a time or use the fast rolling rules.
You do not abandon the remainder of the sequence,
you get to the part of the sequence where you check to see if you have another attack, but there are no more attacks to make because the model is not in play, so you move on to next eligible unit to shoot with.

So seriously, either show proof you MUST make all of your attacks or accept that you can't shoot with a model that has been removed from play.
Open up to page 179 of the BRB and read it. It really doesn't tell you to do what you seem to think it is telling you to do.

Are you possibly confusing the word Declare and Resolve ?

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Things can interrupt the sequence, but you have yet to post any evidence showing that you abandon the remainder of the sequence after resolving the interruption.
Given that I have been given permission by the rule set to resolve these attacks by virtue of the shooting rules. The onus is now on you to show that, as a result of a model being slain after it has already declared its attacks, results in the sequence being abandoned.

Actually the onus on you, the shooting rules have not given you permission to resolve the attacks ?
I really do not know where you are getting this from ?
The shooting rules have only tell you to declare your attacks, no where does it say you must resolve all declared attacks. Factually it tells you to make an attack one at a time or use the fast rolling rules.
You do not abandon the remainder of the sequence,
you get to the part of the sequence where you make the next attack, but there are no more attacks to make, so you move on to next eligible unit.

So seriously, either show proof you MUST make all of your attacks or accept that you can't shoot with a model that has been removed from play.

Are you possibly confusing the word Declare and Resolve ?

Sorry, can you come again on "the shooting rules have not given you permission to resolve the attacks"? It's spelt out clearly on page 5 of the battle primer under the Shooting Sequence box, the part that says "Resolve Attacks". You know, actually resolving the attacks that you declared that you were making in steps 1 to 3. So simply, that gives me permission to resolve all of the declared attacks.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Things can interrupt the sequence, but you have yet to post any evidence showing that you abandon the remainder of the sequence after resolving the interruption.
Given that I have been given permission by the rule set to resolve these attacks by virtue of the shooting rules. The onus is now on you to show that, as a result of a model being slain after it has already declared its attacks, results in the sequence being abandoned.

Actually the onus on you, the shooting rules have not given you permission to resolve the attacks ?
I really do not know where you are getting this from ?
The shooting rules have only tell you to declare your attacks, no where does it say you must resolve all declared attacks. Factually it tells you to make an attack one at a time or use the fast rolling rules.
You do not abandon the remainder of the sequence,
you get to the part of the sequence where you make the next attack, but there are no more attacks to make, so you move on to next eligible unit.

So seriously, either show proof you MUST make all of your attacks or accept that you can't shoot with a model that has been removed from play.

Are you possibly confusing the word Declare and Resolve ?

Sorry, can you come again on "the shooting rules have not given you permission to resolve the attacks"? It's spelt out clearly on page 5 of the battle primer under the Shooting Sequence box, the part that says "Resolve Attacks". You know, actually resolving the attacks that you declared that you were making in steps 1 to 3. So simply, that gives me permission to resolve all of the declared attacks.

The weapons a model has are listed on its datasheet.If a model has several weapons,it can shoot all of them at the same target,or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit.Similarly,if a unit contains more than one model,they can shoot at the same,or different targets as you choose.In either case,declare how you will split the shooting unit’s shots before any dice are rolled, and resolve all the shots against one target before moving on to the next

Attacks can be made one at a time, or in some cases, you can roll for multiple attacks together

umm where are you seeing this spelt out ?
It is telling you declare where you WILL split your attacks when you move on to resolving them... read it. It no where tells you to "tally up all the shots and resolve each one that you have previously declared" It just says you must declare them.
You check to see if you have anymore attacks, ONE AT A TIME or TOGETHER (when using fast rolling rules), if you do have an attack you must target the unit you have declared. If you do not have anymore attacks because 1. you are out of attacks or 2. the model was removed from play, you can not continue looping the Resolve Attacks sequence for step 4.

Seriously what part of the words on that page are telling you to "resolve all the previously declared attacks" ?
That's not how the game works friend. The word declare does not mean "tally the attacks for later" it does not mean "Resolve later" it doesn't mean anything but Declare. It is giving you a restriction for step 4, its not telling you that "these are all the attacks you make in step 4."

Under "number of attacks" it says

each time a model shoots a ranged weapon

It does not say anywhere in steps 2 or 3 that you have started shooting your ranged weapons. That doesn't happen until step 4.

There is nothing in the rules giving you permission to shoot every declared attack regardless of any game state changes.
Do tau fireblade cadre not get to their extra attack because it wasn't declared ? how about chainswords, do they not get an extra attack because it wasn't declared. Declaring attacks are a restriction, not some made up tally to circumvent removed models.

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Things can interrupt the sequence, but you have yet to post any evidence showing that you abandon the remainder of the sequence after resolving the interruption.
Given that I have been given permission by the rule set to resolve these attacks by virtue of the shooting rules. The onus is now on you to show that, as a result of a model being slain after it has already declared its attacks, results in the sequence being abandoned.

Actually the onus on you, the shooting rules have not given you permission to resolve the attacks ?
I really do not know where you are getting this from ?
The shooting rules have only tell you to declare your attacks, no where does it say you must resolve all declared attacks. Factually it tells you to make an attack one at a time or use the fast rolling rules.
You do not abandon the remainder of the sequence,
you get to the part of the sequence where you make the next attack, but there are no more attacks to make, so you move on to next eligible unit.

So seriously, either show proof you MUST make all of your attacks or accept that you can't shoot with a model that has been removed from play.

Are you possibly confusing the word Declare and Resolve ?

Sorry, can you come again on "the shooting rules have not given you permission to resolve the attacks"? It's spelt out clearly on page 5 of the battle primer under the Shooting Sequence box, the part that says "Resolve Attacks". You know, actually resolving the attacks that you declared that you were making in steps 1 to 3. So simply, that gives me permission to resolve all of the declared attacks.

The weapons a model has are listed on its datasheet.If a model has several weapons,it can shoot all of them at the same target,or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit.Similarly,if a unit contains more than one model,they can shoot at the same,or different targets as you choose.In either case,declare how you will split the shooting unit’s shots before any dice are rolled, and resolve all the shots against one target before moving on to the next

Attacks can be made one at a time, or in some cases, you can roll for multiple attacks together

umm where are you seeing this spelt out ?
It is telling you declare where you WILL split your attacks when you move on to resolving them... read it. It no where tells you to "tally up all the shots and resolve each one that you have previously declared" It just says you must declare them.
You check to see if you have anymore attacks, ONE AT A TIME or TOGETHER (when using fast rolling rules), if you do have an attack you must target the unit you have declared. If you do not have anymore attacks because 1. you are out of attacks or 2. the model was removed from play, you can not continue looping the Resolve Attacks sequence for step 4.

Seriously what part of the words on that page are telling you to "resolve all the previously declared attacks" ?
That's not how the game works friend. The word declare does not mean "tally the attacks for later" it does not mean "Resolve later" it doesn't mean anything but Declare. It is giving you a restriction for step 4, its not telling you that "these are all the attacks you make in step 4."

Under "number of attacks" it says

each time a model shoots a ranged weapon

It does not say anywhere in steps 2 or 3 that you have started shooting your ranged weapons. That doesn't happen until step 4.

There is nothing in the rules giving you permission to shoot every declared attack regardless of any game state changes.
Do tau fireblade cadre not get to their extra attack because it wasn't declared ? how about chainswords, do they not get an extra attack because it wasn't declared. Declaring attacks are a restriction, not some made up tally to circumvent removed models.

Your argument is wrong. Let's flip it around. If you aren't resolving the declared attacks, which attacks are you resolving?

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Things can interrupt the sequence, but you have yet to post any evidence showing that you abandon the remainder of the sequence after resolving the interruption.
Given that I have been given permission by the rule set to resolve these attacks by virtue of the shooting rules. The onus is now on you to show that, as a result of a model being slain after it has already declared its attacks, results in the sequence being abandoned.

Actually the onus on you, the shooting rules have not given you permission to resolve the attacks ?
I really do not know where you are getting this from ?
The shooting rules have only tell you to declare your attacks, no where does it say you must resolve all declared attacks. Factually it tells you to make an attack one at a time or use the fast rolling rules.
You do not abandon the remainder of the sequence,
you get to the part of the sequence where you make the next attack, but there are no more attacks to make, so you move on to next eligible unit.

So seriously, either show proof you MUST make all of your attacks or accept that you can't shoot with a model that has been removed from play.

Are you possibly confusing the word Declare and Resolve ?

Sorry, can you come again on "the shooting rules have not given you permission to resolve the attacks"? It's spelt out clearly on page 5 of the battle primer under the Shooting Sequence box, the part that says "Resolve Attacks". You know, actually resolving the attacks that you declared that you were making in steps 1 to 3. So simply, that gives me permission to resolve all of the declared attacks.

The weapons a model has are listed on its datasheet.If a model has several weapons,it can shoot all of them at the same target,or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit.Similarly,if a unit contains more than one model,they can shoot at the same,or different targets as you choose.In either case,declare how you will split the shooting unit’s shots before any dice are rolled, and resolve all the shots against one target before moving on to the next

Attacks can be made one at a time, or in some cases, you can roll for multiple attacks together

umm where are you seeing this spelt out ?
It is telling you declare where you WILL split your attacks when you move on to resolving them... read it. It no where tells you to "tally up all the shots and resolve each one that you have previously declared" It just says you must declare them.
You check to see if you have anymore attacks, ONE AT A TIME or TOGETHER (when using fast rolling rules), if you do have an attack you must target the unit you have declared. If you do not have anymore attacks because 1. you are out of attacks or 2. the model was removed from play, you can not continue looping the Resolve Attacks sequence for step 4.

Seriously what part of the words on that page are telling you to "resolve all the previously declared attacks" ?
That's not how the game works friend. The word declare does not mean "tally the attacks for later" it does not mean "Resolve later" it doesn't mean anything but Declare. It is giving you a restriction for step 4, its not telling you that "these are all the attacks you make in step 4."

Under "number of attacks" it says

each time a model shoots a ranged weapon

It does not say anywhere in steps 2 or 3 that you have started shooting your ranged weapons. That doesn't happen until step 4.

There is nothing in the rules giving you permission to shoot every declared attack regardless of any game state changes.
Do tau fireblade cadre not get to their extra attack because it wasn't declared ? how about chainswords, do they not get an extra attack because it wasn't declared. Declaring attacks are a restriction, not some made up tally to circumvent removed models.

Your argument is wrong. Let's flip it around. If you aren't resolving the declared attacks, which attacks are you resolving?

please see "Number of Attacks"
on page 179 of the BRB or page 3 of the battle primer.
Then you make them one at a time or in fast rolling batches, as per the first sentence under step 4.
Why would declaring attacks have a bearing on how many attacks a models datasheet/weapons says it is allowed to make ?
again are you trying to tell me that if you get extra attacks from a weapon you can't use them because it is past the deceleration steps ? You can't have the rules both ways.
The game tells you how many attacks you can make, it tells you when you can make them, it tells you how to resolve them, it gives you restrictions based on the deceleration steps. What it does not do is tell you that you must resolve and only resolve the attacks you have declared in step 3.

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

Your argument is wrong. Let's flip it around. If you aren't resolving the declared attacks, which attacks are you resolving?

please see "Number of Attacks"
on page 179 of the BRB or page 3 of the battle primer.
Then you make them one at a time or in fast rolling batches, as per the first sentence under step 4.
Why would declaring attacks have a bearing on how many attacks a models datasheet/weapons says it is allowed to make ?

Sorry, page 3 of battle primer? That's the movement phase. I suspect you meant page 5?
Also, I made no comment on how many attacks a weapon is allowed to make, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.

Further to the point I was making, you are only allowed to resolve the attacks that you have declared. By the time you have reached step 4 (resolve attacks), you have made all declarations. You have permission to resolve those attacks one at a time (or in batches). At no point do you ever go back to check a models eligibility for making those attacks. So if they get slain it doesn't matter.

If a model is dead, it doesn't get to do things.

Sorry, JakeSiren, you have no argument at all. Once a model is removed from play it can't do anything (barring special rules). You need to show rules allowing your argument, not just keep stating "but I've declared my shots!"

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

Your argument is wrong. Let's flip it around. If you aren't resolving the declared attacks, which attacks are you resolving?

please see "Number of Attacks"
on page 179 of the BRB or page 3 of the battle primer.
Then you make them one at a time or in fast rolling batches, as per the first sentence under step 4.
Why would declaring attacks have a bearing on how many attacks a models datasheet/weapons says it is allowed to make ?

Sorry, page 3 of battle primer? That's the movement phase. I suspect you meant page 5?
Also, I made no comment on how many attacks a weapon is allowed to make, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.

Further to the point I was making, you are only allowed to resolve the attacks that you have declared. By the time you have reached step 4 (resolve attacks), you have made all declarations. You have permission to resolve those attacks one at a time (or in batches). At no point do you ever go back to check a models eligibility for making those attacks. So if they get slain it doesn't matter.

Because you asked what attacks you are resolving lol.
Sorry I got the battle primer page wrong, I use the big boy Book for the rules.

So you think Daka Daka Daka strat for the orks and stuff like it doesn't do anything then XD. Seriously, think about what you are implying.

You asked what attacks you are resolving, I was confused that you didn't understand that you were resolving the models attacks so I sent you the rules for the number of attacks.
Seriously, just read the rules in front of you, stop adding extra because you want it to work the way you want it to work.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am done with this, I don't think there is any other way for me to explain to you that the rules literately do not say what you keep insisting they do. All I can do is suggest you sit down and read them carefully and notice that the words you want that page to say,,, are not on that page.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If a model is dead, it doesn't get to do things.

Sorry, JakeSiren, you have no argument at all. Once a model is removed from play it can't do anything (barring special rules). You need to show rules allowing your argument, not just keep stating "but I've declared my shots!"

It literally says under Chose Ranged Weapon "declare how you will split the shooting unit’s shots before any dice are rolled, and resolve all the shots against one target before moving on to the next"

If I declare a plasma cannon, a las-cannon, a heavy bolter against a single Harlequins unit, and after shooting the heavy bolter, they kill my plasma cannon and las-cannon marines, the above still tells me to resolve all of the shots that were declared without exception.

If you don't think that the plasma and las can be shot, you need to show the exception, with rules (not just stating "If a model is dead, it doesn't get to do things.")

I simply don't. The model has been removed when its destroyed. You stop resolving there as dead models don't do anything. That's what the rules support. Nothing allows the frozen time you're positing. Time to wake up and smell the consensus.

JakeSiren wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If a model is dead, it doesn't get to do things.

Sorry, JakeSiren, you have no argument at all. Once a model is removed from play it can't do anything (barring special rules). You need to show rules allowing your argument, not just keep stating "but I've declared my shots!"

It literally says under Chose Ranged Weapon "declare how you will split the shooting unit’s shots before any dice are rolled, and resolve all the shots against one target before moving on to the next"

If I declare a plasma cannon, a las-cannon, a heavy bolter against a single Harlequins unit, and after shooting the heavy bolter, they kill my plasma cannon and las-cannon marines, the above still tells me to resolve all of the shots that were declared without exception.

If you don't think that the plasma and las can be shot, you need to show the exception, with rules (not just stating "If a model is dead, it doesn't get to do things.")

Learn to read it, you do not roll any dice until step 4, ok,
It imposes a restriction on you, in step 4, you resolve all the shots against one target before you are allowed to move on to the next.

You can't just ignore the entire sentence and read "resolve all the shots" (declared) XD that's not what the sentence says.

It still doesn't say, resolve all the declared shots against one target before moving on to the next. It just tells you to declare how you will split it up and to resolve all the shots (your model has (or lack there of in the case of the model being removed)) before moving on to the next.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I simply don't. The model has been removed when its destroyed. You stop resolving there as dead models don't do anything. That's what the rules support. Nothing allows the frozen time you're positing. Time to wake up and smell the consensus.

The shots have been declared and you are told to resolve them all. That's what the rules say. I even quoted the relevant part. You have invented an imaginary rule "You stop resolving there as dead models don't do anything" (which I concede is generally true for a lot of situations) despite the rules literally telling you to resolve all of the shots. You haven't shown an exception to the written rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If a model is dead, it doesn't get to do things.

Sorry, JakeSiren, you have no argument at all. Once a model is removed from play it can't do anything (barring special rules). You need to show rules allowing your argument, not just keep stating "but I've declared my shots!"

It literally says under Chose Ranged Weapon "declare how you will split the shooting unit’s shots before any dice are rolled, and resolve all the shots against one target before moving on to the next"

If I declare a plasma cannon, a las-cannon, a heavy bolter against a single Harlequins unit, and after shooting the heavy bolter, they kill my plasma cannon and las-cannon marines, the above still tells me to resolve all of the shots that were declared without exception.

If you don't think that the plasma and las can be shot, you need to show the exception, with rules (not just stating "If a model is dead, it doesn't get to do things.")

Learn to read it, you do not roll any dice until step 4, ok,
It imposes a restriction on you, in step 4, you resolve all the shots against one target before you are allowed to move on to the next.

You can't just ignore the entire sentence and read "resolve all the shots" (declared) XD that's not what the sentence says.

It still doesn't say, resolve all the declared shots against one target before moving on to the next. It just tells you to declare how you will split it up and to resolve all the shots (your model has (or lack there of in the case of the model being removed)) before moving on to the next.

Um, maybe you need to read it?

Step 4 tells you how to resolve the attacks and nothing else.
The full sentence in Step 3 says "In either case, declare how you will split the shooting unit’s shots before any dice are rolled, and resolve all the shots against one target before moving on to the next. "

So when it says "and resolve all the shots", well which ones? Well the ones that you specified when you "declare[d] how you will split the shooting unit’s shots before any dice are rolled".

So yeah, it literally does say to resolve all of the declared shots against one target before moving onto the next. You never go back to check your models eligibility for shooting.

"If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play."

Do you actually need additional sentences to this? It's pretty damn clear cut. It doesn't say "Oh, go on, fire some more gus before you go" (unlike the Ancients' special rule, etc. which do permit this)

'Removed from play' pretty clearly interrupts anything else. You have to be in play to shoot guns. Death is pretty binary for most models. Are you just gonna argue black is white until thread lock?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
"If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play."

Do you actually need additional sentences to this? It's pretty damn clear cut. It doesn't say "Oh, go on, fire some more gus before you go" (unlike the Ancients' special rule, etc. which do permit this)

'Removed from play' pretty clearly interrupts anything else. You have to be in play to shoot guns. Death is pretty binary for most models. Are you just gonna argue black is white until thread lock?

The Ancient's special rule is not analogous to this situation. (It's more like being on the Harlequins side)

Removed from play removes the model from play, but doesn't remove the effects that the model has caused. For example: a Psyker being removed from play doesn't cause any buffs / debuffs to disappear.

You have to be in play to be eligible to declare your attacks, however at the point you have got to step 4 (resolve attacks), your model has already contributed to the list of declared attacks, and you go through that list and resolve them. You aren't asking for your model to do anything more than it has already done, so being removed from play is irrelevant to the declared attacks. And you know what? When we play like this slow rolling and fast rolling then give us exactly the same results as we would expect.

As for getting the thread locked, it's not my intention, but I would prefer a vigorous and thorough discussion rather than worrying about the thread being locked.

At this point you know how the majority of people you will run into plays this rule and how they have read the text. If you can convince your opponent your dead models shoot, then have fun. Personally, I just wont play against someone who wants to make up their own rules, but that's just me.

In the end, its up to you and your opponent, so have a good time and ghost shoot people as much as you want if your opponent allows it.

 Type40 wrote:
At this point you know how the majority of people you will run into plays this rule and how they have read the text. If you can convince your opponent your dead models shoot, then have fun. Personally, I just wont play against someone who wants to make up their own rules, but that's just me.

No, not just you, I know a lot of people that would not play against someone who makes up their own rules, but that really is not what is happening here.

In the end, its up to you and your opponent, so have a good time and ghost shoot people as much as you want if your opponent allows it.

The rules do not really say one way or the other, and both interpretations have merit and could be the correct way to play it. So until a FAQ or errata we will not truly know how the rules is supposed to be.

Until then, discuss it with your opponent if it comes up.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
At this point you know how the majority of people you will run into plays this rule and how they have read the text. If you can convince your opponent your dead models shoot, then have fun. Personally, I just wont play against someone who wants to make up their own rules, but that's just me.

No, not just you, I know a lot of people that would not play against someone who makes up their own rules, but that really is not what is happening here.

In the end, its up to you and your opponent, so have a good time and ghost shoot people as much as you want if your opponent allows it.

The rules do not really say one way or the other, and both interpretations have merit and could be the correct way to play it. So until a FAQ or errata we will not truly know how the rules is supposed to be.

Until then, discuss it with your opponent if it comes up.

Are you suggesting that the rules DO say YOU MUST Resolve all declared attacks ? otherwise this guy is making up rules.
If the rule doesn't say "you must tally up declared attacks and resolve each declared attack" but instead says "declare how you WILL split your attacks." and you insist that every declared attack must be resolved, and only declared attacks can be resolved. You are clearly making up rules. Strats like Dakka Dakka Dakka dont work like this, as you havn't declared the extra attacks. Adding extra context/sentences to the rules is just an attempt to get a slight advantage.
As we have discussed before, many times, if the rules arn't telling you to do something, you don't do it and its not a rule.

 Type40 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
At this point you know how the majority of people you will run into plays this rule and how they have read the text. If you can convince your opponent your dead models shoot, then have fun. Personally, I just wont play against someone who wants to make up their own rules, but that's just me.

No, not just you, I know a lot of people that would not play against someone who makes up their own rules, but that really is not what is happening here.

In the end, its up to you and your opponent, so have a good time and ghost shoot people as much as you want if your opponent allows it.

The rules do not really say one way or the other, and both interpretations have merit and could be the correct way to play it. So until a FAQ or errata we will not truly know how the rules is supposed to be.

Until then, discuss it with your opponent if it comes up.

Are you suggesting that the rules DO say YOU MUST Resolve all declared attacks ? otherwise this guy is making up rules.
If the rule doesn't say "you must tally up declared attacks and resolve each declared attack" but instead says "declare how you WILL split your attacks." and you insist that every declared attack must be resolved, and only declared attacks can be resolved. You are clearly making up rules. Strats like Dakka Dakka Dakka dont work like this, as you havn't declared the extra attacks. Adding extra context/sentences to the rules is just an attempt to get a slight advantage.
As we have discussed before, many times, if the rules arn't telling you to do something, you don't do it and its not a rule.

Please don't strawman my arguments. I have never said that you can only resolve attacks that you have declared, rather I have said that you have permissions to resolve the attacks you have declared. This permission is granted by the line "declare how you will split the shooting unit’s shots before any dice are rolled, and resolve all the shots against one target before moving on to the next". For example, if I declare 5 bolters, and 1 heavy bolter shooting at a single unit, I have permission to resolve those declared attacks (a rule such as Dakka Dakka gives me further permission to resolve further attacks). As I said previously, the onus is on you to prove that permissions are then revoked if a model that declared the attacks is removed from play.

In terms of making up rules, I have quoted the rule book and you have not. I'm still waiting for you to show a rule that supports your assertion that the declared shots in the shooting sequence are discarded if the model is removed from play.

Also, for my curiosity. If I have a dev squad with a single marine surviving who has a heavy bolter, and I decide to slow roll. Under your interpretation, if I shoot 1 heavy bolter round and kill a Harlie, who then goes on to kill the marine due to Somber Sentinals, what happens with the remaining 2 heavy bolter shots?

Can anyone actually refute JakeSiren with a quote from the rules? Seems like they have it correct.

 Type40 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
At this point you know how the majority of people you will run into plays this rule and how they have read the text. If you can convince your opponent your dead models shoot, then have fun. Personally, I just wont play against someone who wants to make up their own rules, but that's just me.

No, not just you, I know a lot of people that would not play against someone who makes up their own rules, but that really is not what is happening here.

In the end, its up to you and your opponent, so have a good time and ghost shoot people as much as you want if your opponent allows it.

The rules do not really say one way or the other, and both interpretations have merit and could be the correct way to play it. So until a FAQ or errata we will not truly know how the rules is supposed to be.

Until then, discuss it with your opponent if it comes up.

Are you suggesting that the rules DO say YOU MUST Resolve all declared attacks ? otherwise this guy is making up rules.

No, I am not suggesting that, I said "The rules do not really say one way or the other, and both interpretations have merit"

If the rule doesn't say "you must tally up declared attacks and resolve each declared attack" but instead says "declare how you WILL split your attacks." and you insist that every declared attack must be resolved, and only declared attacks can be resolved. You are clearly making up rules.

Incorrect, because "The rules do not really say one way or the other, and both interpretations have merit"

Strats like Dakka Dakka Dakka dont work like this, as you havn't declared the extra attacks. Adding extra context/sentences to the rules is just an attempt to get a slight advantage.

Strats are not what we are talking about at all.

As we have discussed before, many times, if the rules arn't telling you to do something, you don't do it and its not a rule.

Not sure why this is being brought up, no one even suggested that.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
At this point you know how the majority of people you will run into plays this rule and how they have read the text. If you can convince your opponent your dead models shoot, then have fun. Personally, I just wont play against someone who wants to make up their own rules, but that's just me.

No, not just you, I know a lot of people that would not play against someone who makes up their own rules, but that really is not what is happening here.

In the end, its up to you and your opponent, so have a good time and ghost shoot people as much as you want if your opponent allows it.

The rules do not really say one way or the other, and both interpretations have merit and could be the correct way to play it. So until a FAQ or errata we will not truly know how the rules is supposed to be.

Until then, discuss it with your opponent if it comes up.

Are you suggesting that the rules DO say YOU MUST Resolve all declared attacks ? otherwise this guy is making up rules.
If the rule doesn't say "you must tally up declared attacks and resolve each declared attack" but instead says "declare how you WILL split your attacks." and you insist that every declared attack must be resolved, and only declared attacks can be resolved. You are clearly making up rules. Strats like Dakka Dakka Dakka dont work like this, as you havn't declared the extra attacks. Adding extra context/sentences to the rules is just an attempt to get a slight advantage.
As we have discussed before, many times, if the rules arn't telling you to do something, you don't do it and its not a rule.

Please don't strawman my arguments. I have never said that you can only resolve attacks that you have declared, rather I have said that you have permissions to resolve the attacks you have declared. This permission is granted by the line "declare how you will split the shooting unit’s shots before any dice are rolled, and resolve all the shots against one target before moving on to the next". For example, if I declare 5 bolters, and 1 heavy bolter shooting at a single unit, I have permission to resolve those declared attacks (a rule such as Dakka Dakka gives me further permission to resolve further attacks). As I said previously, the onus is on you to prove that permissions are then revoked if a model that declared the attacks is removed from play.

In terms of making up rules, I have quoted the rule book and you have not. I'm still waiting for you to show a rule that supports your assertion that the declared shots in the shooting sequence are discarded if the model is removed from play.

Also, for my curiosity. If I have a dev squad with a single marine surviving who has a heavy bolter, and I decide to slow roll. Under your interpretation, if I shoot 1 heavy bolter round and kill a Harlie, who then goes on to kill the marine due to Somber Sentinals, what happens with the remaining 2 heavy bolter shots?

Not strawmaning, you said this

Further to the point I was making, you are only allowed to resolve the attacks that you have declared.

I believe this is exactly saying, you can only resolve attacks you havn't declared, lol, keep your own made up rules consistent if you are going to make up rules.

You HAVE quoted the rule book, the quote you posted just doesn't say what you are saying it says. The quote you keep referring to says that when you do make the attacks you must resolve all attacks against one target before moving on to the next. It does not say "all declared attacks must be resolved" XD. you are focusing in on 4 words of the sentence and forgetting that is not how language works. The sentence is not "declare ... [all attacks then] ... ]resolve all the shots" which you are claiming it is, the sentence IS " In either case,declare how you will split the shooting unit’s shots before any dice are rolled,and resolve all the shots against one target before moving on to the next." Which is explaining a restriction on the order in which you will later resolve the attacks. It is clearly saying, before you are allowed to move on to resolving shots against another unit you must finish ALL the shots from the previous one. Please explain to me how this sentence says All declared shots MUST be resolved ?

and yes, if you slow roll, that's exactly what would happen. As discussed earlier in this thread.

Orbei wrote:
Can anyone actually refute JakeSiren with a quote from the rules? Seems like they have it correct.

No one can quote the rule book and point out a rule that specifically forbids the rule he made up no. As I am sure the game devs didn't think they would need to specifically prohibit rules that do not exist.
We are waiting for him to quote a rule that does say declare = must resolve attacks.

@DeathReaper.

I am not arguing that the rules do not say one way or another,
My arguments are all against JakeSiren's creation of new rules. If you go back into the thread and read his "justifications" for his way of interpreting it, then you will see he is making up rules. I.e. the rules somehow specifically say declared attacks must be resolved no mater what.
This has nothing to do with how we can interpret it in different ways and everything to do with JakeSiren's claims. If i was playing an opponent who said, I interpret this like this, that would be one thing. However, if i was playing an opponent who was claiming the existence of RAW that literately just isn't there I would concede and go play with someone else. Sorry to get defensive with you, it just felt like you were backing up JakeSiren's position of the RAW actually somehow saying all declared attacks must be resolved. I completely agree with your perspective of finishing rolls that have been started (as you stated and I argued against earlier in the thread) via the fast rolling rules. That makles a lot of sense after reading further, at least until there is an FAQ that shows otherwise. It is an interpretation but I think its a fair and streamlined way to proceed for the time being as the rules do not say either way. I do not give credence to the idea that a removed from play model should continue making attacks however, there is nothing in the rules that says this should be what is done and JakeSiren is claiming that the RAW says it should. I brought up the Dakka Dakka Dakka strat to show that JakeSirens claims make no sense, after he said, that you only and must resolve attacks that are declared, which he now claims he didn't say, but as I have quoted, he did say. As attacks generated with that Strat are not declared.

Are we still arguing with that one guy who says his dead model that’s been removed from play can somehow still do stuff?

Cos that ain’t how the game works, but we ain’t gonna convince that guy so might as well move on...

Seems like we've reached a resolution for most users, and we're not going to have constant argument about one version of the interpretations. There are enough quotes and points in here for users to read it and form their own opinions