Had a very unusual situation occur not once but twice in a single game of Iron Hands vs sister the other day and I'd like some input as to whether I royally screwed up or not.

Sisters player was using the Spirit of Martyrs sacred rite so each model destroyed can shoot or fight before it's removed.

First odd point: my Redemptor Dreadnought with 6 wounds left declares all of his shooting at the heavy weapon toting girls. I start with the macro plasma incinerator, rolled 4 shots 3 wounds 1 save failed. Sisters player pulls a multi-melta and rolls the 5+ so she can shoot first. She hits twice, wounds twice and I get no save, rolls damage, 4 and 5. Duty eternal brings this to 3 and 4. Fail all of my "The Flesh is Weak" rolls. Can my dreadnought fire the rest of his weapons? We ruled no since he was dead but we can't find anything relevant to back this up.... it's a very odd situation.

Second instance: My Tactical Squad fires at a sisters special weapon squad in devastator doctrine. Plasma cannon overcharges because why not, I have the reroll. First shot missed with 1, reroll 1... well, this is why, right here. Second shot goes alright, hit wound and kill. Sister makes the 5+ to fire back. Melta gun hits and wounds for 3 damage. Now, since I know my plasma cannon is going to die anyway after his third shot is resolved can I put that damage on him now? He's still alive for the moment as plasma weapons don't destroy the bearer until all of their shots are resolved. I said yes, opponent said no again, neither of us could find a specific rule to refer to. Ended up rolling off and I won.


If anyone knows of any FAQ or obscure side bar somewhere that explains the timing of when the dead sister fights back I'd love to know because right now it seems like it would be impossible to roll fast dice against sisters since every attack could have a different result even going so far as to remove models in the unit that is currently shooting but have not yet fired.

1) dead before he fires the rest. Arguably you shouldn't have fast rolled the plasma.
2) yes, that's a model that can have damage applied. Him dying after isn't relevant.

 dsmith10 wrote:

Sisters player was using the Spirit of Martyrs sacred rite so each model destroyed can shoot or fight before it's removed.

First odd point: my Redemptor Dreadnought with 6 wounds left declares all of his shooting at the heavy weapon toting girls. I start with the macro plasma incinerator, rolled 4 shots 3 wounds 1 save failed. Sisters player pulls a multi-melta and rolls the 5+ so she can shoot first. She hits twice, wounds twice and I get no save, rolls damage, 4 and 5. Duty eternal brings this to 3 and 4. Fail all of my "The Flesh is Weak" rolls. Can my dreadnought fire the rest of his weapons? We ruled no since he was dead but we can't find anything relevant to back this up.... it's a very odd situation.

It is odd, and there are no rules how to handle it. Its unclear when the destroyed model shoots back. Its unclear whether you get to shoot at your declared targets, or not.

 dsmith10 wrote:

Second instance: My Tactical Squad fires at a sisters special weapon squad in devastator doctrine. Plasma cannon overcharges because why not, I have the reroll. First shot missed with 1, reroll 1... well, this is why, right here. Second shot goes alright, hit wound and kill. Sister makes the 5+ to fire back. Melta gun hits and wounds for 3 damage. Now, since I know my plasma cannon is going to die anyway after his third shot is resolved can I put that damage on him now? He's still alive for the moment as plasma weapons don't destroy the bearer until all of their shots are resolved. I said yes, opponent said no again, neither of us could find a specific rule to refer to. Ended up rolling off and I won.

Yes, you could. The model is still on the battlefield, and you can allocate wounds to it.

 dsmith10 wrote:

If anyone knows of any FAQ or obscure side bar somewhere that explains the timing of when the dead sister fights back I'd love to know because right now it seems like it would be impossible to roll fast dice against sisters since every attack could have a different result even going so far as to remove models in the unit that is currently shooting but have not yet fired.

There isnt any FAQ about this. BTW, fast rolling is a good way to avoid this situation, because the fast roll dice rules dont care about dead models shooting back. If you meet the requirements of fast dice rolling you can do it, and if any dead sisters shoot back, you have already made all your hit and wound rolls. There is no going back in time, no undoing any dice rolls.

I feel like fast rolling here would be kinda gamey.... Each attack could have a different outcome, including removing models who have not yet resolved shots or in the case of the dreadnought, preventing a lot of firepower in the first place.

 dsmith10 wrote:
I feel like fast rolling here would be kinda gamey.... Each attack could have a different outcome, including removing models who have not yet resolved shots or in the case of the dreadnought, preventing a lot of firepower in the first place.

Its playing by the rules. Not my problem if GW cant write proper rules when a destroyed model shoots back.

As ever, fast rollin is not the default way the rules are written and in a scenario like this shots should be taken one by one.

Fast rolling is a legal way to roll per the core rules of the game. If you follow the restrictions for fast rolling as written, you are following the rules. This holds true even if the results could be different if you didn’t fast roll.

 dsmith10 wrote:
Had a very unusual situation occur not once but twice in a single game of Iron Hands vs sister the other day and I'd like some input as to whether I royally screwed up or not.

Sisters player was using the Spirit of Martyrs sacred rite so each model destroyed can shoot or fight before it's removed.

First odd point: my Redemptor Dreadnought with 6 wounds left declares all of his shooting at the heavy weapon toting girls. I start with the macro plasma incinerator, rolled 4 shots 3 wounds 1 save failed. Sisters player pulls a multi-melta and rolls the 5+ so she can shoot first. She hits twice, wounds twice and I get no save, rolls damage, 4 and 5. Duty eternal brings this to 3 and 4. Fail all of my "The Flesh is Weak" rolls. Can my dreadnought fire the rest of his weapons? We ruled no since he was dead but we can't find anything relevant to back this up.... it's a very odd situation.

Second instance: My Tactical Squad fires at a sisters special weapon squad in devastator doctrine. Plasma cannon overcharges because why not, I have the reroll. First shot missed with 1, reroll 1... well, this is why, right here. Second shot goes alright, hit wound and kill. Sister makes the 5+ to fire back. Melta gun hits and wounds for 3 damage. Now, since I know my plasma cannon is going to die anyway after his third shot is resolved can I put that damage on him now? He's still alive for the moment as plasma weapons don't destroy the bearer until all of their shots are resolved. I said yes, opponent said no again, neither of us could find a specific rule to refer to. Ended up rolling off and I won.


If anyone knows of any FAQ or obscure side bar somewhere that explains the timing of when the dead sister fights back I'd love to know because right now it seems like it would be impossible to roll fast dice against sisters since every attack could have a different result even going so far as to remove models in the unit that is currently shooting but have not yet fired.

Timing wise your weapons have already selected their targets the firing is simultaneous and so can't be stopped - you resolve them

You don't resolve the shoot backs till you have finished resolving the current shots

Firing is not simultaneous. Common misconception.

Target selection is simultaneous it is not a misconception. at that point all guns have been selected to fire and will fire you just resolve then one at a time (unless the target they were selected to fire at is destroyed.)

Timing is simultaneous but mechanically you resolve them in sequence.

Incorrect. The gun is targeted simultaneously but when you come to resolve its attacks, the model,is not there. It is dead.

It is impossible that anything happens at the same time in 40k. Should that ever happen sequencing comes into play. The player whose turn it is would choose the order of operations. Shooting is not simultaneous.

Its absolutely possible for things to happen at the same time that is why there is an explicit rule to govern it. Resolveing at the same time is a different matter.



SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that
two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time .

When this happens during the battle, the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the battle, or at the start or end of a battle round, the players roll off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved



Targeting happens at the same time and almost never causes any timing problems. The next step is to resolve each weapons shooting. The player whose turn it is then chooses the order to resolve those weapons. Resolving all of them one at a time via sequencing but as they have already been targeted to fire they fire. As sequencing does not give you permission to not fire or remove abilities once they are sequenced. The only exception is if their is no target to shoot at in which case rolling dice against non existent targets is pointless so most people recognise not to do it.

Sequencing doesn't stop them occurring simultaneously it just governs how you choose the order you resolve them. So the model is considered alive for the firing of all the guns regardless of the order they are resolved in according to the sequencing rule. The sequencing rule does not grant permission to not resolve things once they are in the sequence. (The model may die to its plasma but the other guns were firing simultaneously at the point it was firing the plasma so they still need to be resolved in the order the player whose turn it is chooses). Shoot backs then enter the sequence and the player whose turn it is chooses when in the sequence they go and almost always picks the end because its a lot faster.

U02dah4 wrote:
Its absolutely possible for things to happen at the same time that is why there is an explicit rule to govern it. Resolveing at the same time is a different matter.

Sequencing literally means that something happens first, and something else later/after that. If your unit, and my unit, would fight at the same time (for whatever reason), and its my turn, i decide to resolve my fighting first. When i kill your unit you dont get to fight, because your unit is removed from play.

U02dah4 wrote:
Target selection is simultaneous it is not a misconception. at that point all guns have been selected to fire and will fire you just resolve then one at a time (unless the target they were selected to fire at is destroyed.)

Timing is simultaneous but mechanically you resolve them in sequence.

Where is this permission for a dead model to keep firing?

Where is the permission to remove something from a sequence once added for happening at the same time

Its not dead at the time its weapons were added to the sequence

Theirs no rule to remove it from the sequence should the firing model die

Therefore it resolves because its in the sequence


Furthermore this is clarified in the shooting phase

"Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s
unit first)."

Sure its no longer visible or in range because a model has been removed from battlefield but the clarification is clear you still resolve shots from other weapons

U02dah4 wrote:
Where is the permission to remove something from a sequence once added for happening at the same time

Because its not happening at the same time any more. I suggest you google the definition of a sequence. Hint : A sequence is not something that happens at the same time.

Doesnt matter the shooting phase clarification is clear

Still simultaneous occurrence game wise
you just have to physically resolve in an order
Shooting phase clarification is clear you still resolve even if models removed

U02dah4 wrote:
Doesnt matter the shooting phase clarification is clear

Still simultaneous occurrence game wise
you just have to physically resolve in an order
Shooting phase clarification is clear you still resolve even if models removed

Where is anything supposed to say this? This 'clarification' doesn't exist.

U02dah4 wrote:
Shooting phase clarification is clear you still resolve even if models removed

Gonna need a page number on that assertion...

I literally quoted it for you 5 posts ago

"Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s
unit first)."

Shooting phase core rules

How much clearer can you be than when target is selected the weapons attacks are "always made" the fact it then clarifies specifically in relation to models being removed as a result of firing weapons in the shooting models unit and doesnt specify opposing players in its example is just a bonus and for once shockingly for GW rules writers clear cut


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hence resolved in sequence but occur at the same time

Note that this refers to continuing to fire if the "target unit" is out of range not if the firing unit is dead. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying this quote does not support your position that a dead unit may continue to make its declared attacks.

The quote says always made its not qualified thats the important bit

In reference to the target's range and LOS. It says nothing about the attacker being dead or alive. You can't isolate those words in the sentence and pretend there is no context.

U02dah4 wrote:
The quote says always made its not qualified thats the important bit

It literally is qualified. The sentence continues after saying the attacks are always made to list the situations where that is the case. Like alextroy, I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong but the rule you quoted doesn't prove you're correct.

From the Core Rules:

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)

The way I see it, it doesn't matter if the attacking model is removed before shots are resolved.

1) was at least one model in the target unit visible and in range when the target was selected?
2) If yes, the shots are "always made"

The fact that the attacking model was removed from play is irrelevant.
"no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them" - the shots are still resolved. This includes if models being targeted are removed as well as if the model doing making the attack is removed.
"this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first". It says "models being destroyed..." not "enemy model destroyed" so this applies to both the target unit and the attacking unit.

Which is exactly how I read it

Aash wrote:
From the Core Rules:

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)

The way I see it, it doesn't matter if the attacking model is removed before shots are resolved.

1) was at least one model in the target unit visible and in range when the target was selected?
2) If yes, the shots are "always made"

The fact that the attacking model was removed from play is irrelevant.
"no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them" - the shots are still resolved. This includes if models being targeted are removed as well as if the model doing making the attack is removed.
"this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first". It says "models being destroyed..." not "enemy model destroyed" so this applies to both the target unit and the attacking unit.

Once again, you have to finish the sentence before you can interpret it. I've highlighted in red why your analysis is incorrect.

I don't understand your point the bit you've highlighted in red proves him correct. It does exactly what he claims it does. Making it red doesn't change it's meaning

firstly you've cut of the "this can happen" highlighting that its an example of when it might happen not the only circumstance (which is what you accuse him of) secondly he's quoted the entire statement and thirdly with respect to the red but his reasoning is correct it refers to removing models being destroyed and removed as a result of shooting weapons not which army those models are removed from

 alextroy wrote:

Aash wrote:
From the Core Rules:

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)

The way I see it, it doesn't matter if the attacking model is removed before shots are resolved.

1) was at least one model in the target unit visible and in range when the target was selected?
2) If yes, the shots are "always made"

The fact that the attacking model was removed from play is irrelevant.
"no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them" - the shots are still resolved. This includes if models being targeted are removed as well as if the model doing making the attack is removed.
"this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first". It says "models being destroyed..." not "enemy model destroyed" so this applies to both the target unit and the attacking unit.

Once again, you have to finish the sentence before you can interpret it. I've highlighted in red why your analysis is incorrect.

I'm not sure of the basis of your argument.

I quoted the entire rule, and didn't truncate or edit it to present a misleading argument.
The section in brackets is a clarification, not an exhaustive list. The opening phrase "this can happen" rather than "this happens when.." or some other variation makes it clear that the example provided is one way that this situation may arise, and not the only way.

The phrase you highlighted in red supports my argument since it specifies that when a model is removed (from either army) such that there is no longer LOS or range then the attacks are still resolved.

None of this contradicts the rule that "that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit". Any other interpretation of the rules would violate this key statement.

OK. Let's break this down:

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)

First off a "weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit".

When is that true? "so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target" "even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)".

You don't get to make weapon attacks when the attacking model is off the board. Not deployed. In a transport. Not the unit firing. You get to make the attacks under the condition that the target unit was a valid target when you declared the attack regardless of range or LOS to the target when you get to rolling the attack. That is what the sentence says. It says nothing about any other conditions that would make an attack impossible.

 alextroy wrote:
OK. Let's break this down:

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)

First off a "weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit".

When is that true? "so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target" "even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)".

You don't get to make weapon attacks when the attacking model is off the board. Not deployed. In a transport. Not the unit firing. You get to make the attacks under the condition that the target unit was a valid target when you declared the attack regardless of range or LOS to the target when you get to rolling the attack. That is what the sentence says. It says nothing about any other conditions that would make an attack impossible.

The rule is unequivocal. The only check required to see if a model is eligible to shoot is made when targets are declared. That is when range and LOS are checked. There are no additional checks for eligibility. Unless you are able to provide a rule which says otherwise, if the target is eligible during targeting then the shots are resolved.

Agreed its absolutely clear

First off a "weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit".

When is that true? "so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target" "

It was.



This is the bit you misunderstand you state "You get to make the attacks under the condition that the target unit was a valid target when you declared the attack regardless of range or LOS to the target when you get to rolling the attack."

It doesn't mention rolling the attack it only refers to when the unit was selected as the target- it doesn't recheck and that's an explicit part of the clarification of removing models so a unit is no longer visible in the normal way this occurs

so your argument is wrong

Sadly, no. You have to follow the attack sequence.

"1. HIT ROLL: When a model makes an attack..."

Retributor shoots-back happens when it is reduced to 0 wounds, not when you feel like sequencing it. It is reduced to 0 wounds at the end of an attack sequence. It then kills the dreadnought, and the dreadnought is removed from play in the "5. INFLICT DAMAGE" portion of the retributors attack sequence.

You go back to step one for the dreadnought, and you no longer have a model that makes an attack, as it was removed from play under "5. INFLICT DAMAGE". Further attacks fail.

Sequencing here is a red herring, nothing happens simultaneously, its all in order of attack->retributor reduced to 0->retributor shoots back->dreadnought removed->retributor removed.

You may have missed out on more attacks by fast rolling, or the retributor may have killed your dread on the very first plasma shot (out of however many shots the plasma was going to make).

I agree that sequencing doesn’t apply here. However nothing in the attack sequence countermands the instruction that once a units attacks are declared on eligible targets they are always resolved.

Just as when dice are rolled they can’t be unrolled due to a subsequent change in circumstances, declared attacks cannot be “undeclared”. The usual practice of a model being unable to do anything when it is not on the tabletop is specifically addressed by the rule.

Aash wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Aash wrote:
From the Core Rules:

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)

The way I see it, it doesn't matter if the attacking model is removed before shots are resolved.

1) was at least one model in the target unit visible and in range when the target was selected?
2) If yes, the shots are "always made"

The fact that the attacking model was removed from play is irrelevant.
"no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them" - the shots are still resolved. This includes if models being targeted are removed as well as if the model doing making the attack is removed.
"this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first". It says "models being destroyed..." not "enemy model destroyed" so this applies to both the target unit and the attacking unit.

Once again, you have to finish the sentence before you can interpret it. I've highlighted in red why your analysis is incorrect.

I'm not sure of the basis of your argument.

I quoted the entire rule, and didn't truncate or edit it to present a misleading argument.
The section in brackets is a clarification, not an exhaustive list. The opening phrase "this can happen" rather than "this happens when.." or some other variation makes it clear that the example provided is one way that this situation may arise, and not the only way.

The phrase you highlighted in red supports my argument since it specifies that when a model is removed (from either army) such that there is no longer LOS or range then the attacks are still resolved.

None of this contradicts the rule that "that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit". Any other interpretation of the rules would violate this key statement.

You totally ignored that it said "models [u]in the target unit". That means it is not applying to all models in either army, it is only referring to enemy models being shot at. It makes no explicit claim about still shooting after removing the model doing the shooting. Your whole premise is wrong.

I don't understand your point

It refers to models that have been selected as the target of shots. Obviously that doesn't apply to the whole of your army unless you only have 1 or 2 units left. It has absolutely no relevance. It doesn't need an explicit claim you're told they always fire not they always fire except. That is explicit enough.

From the Core Rules:

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)

You totally ignored that it said "models [u]in the target unit". That means it is not applying to all models in either army, it is only referring to enemy models being shot at. It makes no explicit claim about still shooting after removing the model doing the shooting. Your whole premise is wrong.

I haven't ignored anything.

so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target

Aash wrote:
I agree that sequencing doesn’t apply here. However nothing in the attack sequence countermands the instruction that once a units attacks are declared on eligible targets they are always resolved.

Just as when dice are rolled they can’t be unrolled due to a subsequent change in circumstances, declared attacks cannot be “undeclared”. The usual practice of a model being unable to do anything when it is not on the tabletop is specifically addressed by the rule.

There shouldn't be an "unrolled dice". Fast rolling is permissible in some cases. What are those cases? Talk with your opponent, its literally never defined. "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".

Attacks are not all of a weapon's shots, its each shot a weapon makes.

If you are making multiple attacks at once in a situation like this, you are not allowing your opponent the appropriate reactions to each attack as it happens. Some people don't care as the chances of "shoots-back" resulting in the other dread attacks not going through is miniscule. But really, you are depriving your opponent of chances and they may insist you not screw them.

The model is not there, you cannot complete the firing sequence

Aash wrote:

From the Core Rules:

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)

You totally ignored that it said "models [u]in the target unit". That means it is not applying to all models in either army, it is only referring to enemy models being shot at. It makes no explicit claim about still shooting after removing the model doing the shooting. Your whole premise is wrong.

I haven't ignored anything.

so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target

It was when the unit was targeted.

even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them

If they firing model has been removed from the tabletop then there are no models in the target unit visible or in range because it is no longer on the tabletop. Range and LOS is between two models. If either is out of range or LOS then they both are.

 doctortom wrote:

Aash wrote:

From the Core Rules:

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)

You totally ignored that it said "models [u]in the target unit". That means it is not applying to all models in either army, it is only referring to enemy models being shot at. It makes no explicit claim about still shooting after removing the model doing the shooting. Your whole premise is wrong.

I haven't ignored anything.

so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target

It was when the unit was targeted.

even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them

If they firing model has been removed from the tabletop then there are no models in the target unit visible or in range because it is no longer on the tabletop. Range and LOS is between two models. If either is out of range or LOS then they both are.

Look at what I highlighted. You claim model removal from both sides is covered, but it is only talking about models in the target unit being removed from earlier shots that have been resolved. That is not model removal from both sides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The model is not there, you cannot complete the firing sequence

This.

I'm not sure where the fast rolling reference is coming from, perhaps it was addressing my analogy comparing undeclaring attacks to unrolling dice, if that was the case I was obviously unclear, I wasn't saying that fast-rolling is relevant in this case, but making the point that you cannot undo actions.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The model is not there, you cannot complete the firing sequence

Not only is this nowhere in the rules (if I am wrong I will happily concede this point), and even if it were in the rules, the Core Rules for shooting specifically tell us to resolve shooting attacks even if models are removed from the tabletop, and unless I am mistaken the convention is that specific rules trump general rules.

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)

The example given is very clear, and noteworthy in that it doesn't specify that the removed model is in the target unit. Even if a model is removed the shots are always resolved.

Edit:
To address the bracketed clause:

(this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)

First, this is an example and in no way an exhaustive list of circumstances where shots are resolved due to lack of range or LOS.
Second, this example refers to models destroyed and removed as a result of "resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit" - this specific example would still apply in cases of damage caused to your own unit. If a plasma weapon overcharged and destroyed a model after shooting with their plasma weapon they are still able to resolve the rest of their declared shots. This is specifically a case of a model (your own) being destroyed by resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model's unit.

A hypothetical single model unit armed with a plasma gun and a bolter. it declares the attacks of both weapons and resolves the plasma weapon first, which kills the bearer due to overcharging. the bolter shots are still resolved it exactly matches the example given in the rules:

because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first

And as I said, this is a single example and not an exhaustive list.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

Aash wrote:
I agree that sequencing doesn’t apply here. However nothing in the attack sequence countermands the instruction that once a units attacks are declared on eligible targets they are always resolved.

Just as when dice are rolled they can’t be unrolled due to a subsequent change in circumstances, declared attacks cannot be “undeclared”. The usual practice of a model being unable to do anything when it is not on the tabletop is specifically addressed by the rule.

There shouldn't be an "unrolled dice". Fast rolling is permissible in some cases. What are those cases? Talk with your opponent, its literally never defined. "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".

Attacks are not all of a weapon's shots, its each shot a weapon makes.

If you are making multiple attacks at once in a situation like this, you are not allowing your opponent the appropriate reactions to each attack as it happens. Some people don't care as the chances of "shoots-back" resulting in the other dread attacks not going through is miniscule. But really, you are depriving your opponent of chances and they may insist you not screw them.

No one is saying you don't get to shoot back that. Of course you get to shoot back that uses sequencing. Even if the shots are successful you don't however stop the dreadnought firing as then its weapons wouldn't always fire. Most players leave shoot back to the end once all shots are resolved precisely because it doesnt have any impact

There shouldn't be an action to undo. If you make more attack rolls than are guaranteed to land after all other effects, you are screwing your opponent.

If there's really any question as to how an attack will resolve vis-a-vis other special rules, roll it one at a time.

As an example in the other way, if I had two blighthaulers and you fast rolled 3 multimelta shots as 1 damage, 7 damage, and 9 damage, I'm going to apply those to a single blight hauler in the order of 1, 7, and 9.

U02dah4 wrote:
it talks about no models being target unit being visible or in range it, does not refer to either side in the removal

You can say this all you want its not a case no rule has been presented to that effect only one saying it always fires

"as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)" It doesn't say anything about model removal of the shooting unit as the result of return fire from special rules. You have to read the entire sentence, and read the context.

Given you shouldn’t be fast rolling damage, how you resolve that is outside of the rules.

And for that question of when you can fast roll, that is very clearly covered in the rules for fast rolling attacks.

Do you have a page reference for fast rolling? All I'm coming up with is the start of the shooting sequence.

Core rule book page 221.

Im on the GT book. Is this the two sentence blurb above the attack sequence?

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
it talks about no models being target unit being visible or in range it, does not refer to either side in the removal

You can say this all you want its not a case no rule has been presented to that effect only one saying it always fires

"as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)" It doesn't say anything about model removal of the shooting unit as the result of return fire from special rules. You have to read the entire sentence, and read the context.

Thats because its not relevant. It says it always fires their is no qualification on that. therefore it always fires. Unless you have a specific quotable rule that says it doesn't fire it fires. it doesn't need to list exhaustive examples of every situation where that could occur it has a blanket rule.

U02dah4 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
it talks about no models being target unit being visible or in range it, does not refer to either side in the removal

You can say this all you want its not a case no rule has been presented to that effect only one saying it always fires

"as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)" It doesn't say anything about model removal of the shooting unit as the result of return fire from special rules. You have to read the entire sentence, and read the context.

Thats because its not relevant. It says it always fires their is no qualification on that. therefore it always fires. Unless you have a specific quotable rule that says it doesn't fire it fires. it doesn't need to list exhaustive examples of every situation where that could occur it has a blanket rule.

It may not need to list "exhaustive example", but still shooting after you're dead is a major thing and should be spelled out specifically in the rules if this may happen. Your quote is not a specific example stating this.

This rules dispute is only a thing because GW added the shoot on death rule after they wrote the core rules (of which do not contain any shoot on death abilities).

It needs clarification and until then its really just a roll off thing.


As far as my personal opinion, the dread still fires everything. All the attacks were already declared and in action. Sisters definately dont need the help either.

U02dah4 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
it talks about no models being target unit being visible or in range it, does not refer to either side in the removal

You can say this all you want its not a case no rule has been presented to that effect only one saying it always fires

"as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)" It doesn't say anything about model removal of the shooting unit as the result of return fire from special rules. You have to read the entire sentence, and read the context.

Thats because its not relevant. It says it always fires their is no qualification on that. therefore it always fires. Unless you have a specific quotable rule that says it doesn't fire it fires. it doesn't need to list exhaustive examples of every situation where that could occur it has a blanket rule.

There is a qualification. It is the rest of the sentence. You cannot pull part of a sentence out and get the full meaning.

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them

There's no qualification

At least one model in the target unit was selected as the target of an attack so the weapons attacks are always made.

The word even indicates a clarification not a qualification and the bracket that follows is an example

You have no reason to do otherwise

I will have to disagree. I guess we are done here.

You can disagree all you want if you can't cite a specific qualification your wrong

U02dah4 wrote:
You can disagree all you want if you can't cite a specific qualification your wrong

No, he's reading it with the context we have from the entire sentence. We don't see that quote as proof that you can shoot after death. You interpret it differently. We say you are interpreting it wrong, you say we are. It's just going to go in circles if you want to keep the "You're wrong" "No, you're wrong" "No, you're wrong" schtick going. Alextroy is merely pointing out that we're at an impasse and are not going to convince the other side.

No we are saying there is no interpretation here. If you are giving a RAI your wrong. The RAW is clear there is no question of interpretation. We have shown the entire sentance supports us.

You can talk about context but no part of that rule states it doesn't fire. If you can cite a RAW quotation supporting your point great but up till now he and you have cited zero RAW quotations and then are surprised it doesn't convince us?

I say there's no qualification he says there is but he can't cite it. If you can't cite it there's no qualification that's not an impass that's one argument correct and one wrong. Equally if he can cite it that would be the other way around. But we are looking for a specific quote supporting your position not a vague assertion that it doesn't work that way

We cited the context, it was in relation to removing enemy models (not any model) with the resolution of previous shooting from the model. It did not say the model itself shoots after it died. You haven't demonstrated enough proof to back up a model being able to shoot after it is dead.

There is none so he can’t prove a negative. Trying to staple discrete clauses together into proof ain’t gonna work. Needs to let it go.

We have shown a positive to counter that you need proof so if he has no proof we're correct thankyou


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:
We cited the context, it was in relation to removing enemy models (not any model) with the resolution of previous shooting from the model. It did not say the model itself shoots after it died. You haven't demonstrated enough proof to back up a model being able to shoot after it is dead.

As stated that has no bearing on the rule the rule states it always fires once a target is selected you need to cite evidence it doesn't.

The context is not evidence either way. I mean no part of that context states that it doesn't fire. Regardless of how relevent or not you feel it is you need to show it doesn't fire if not

The proof is absolute as there is no evidence to contradict it unless you can cite some and you cant

I mean not much evidence beats zero evidence and this is pretty clear

 doctortom wrote:
We cited the context, it was in relation to removing enemy models (not any model) with the resolution of previous shooting from the model. It did not say the model itself shoots after it died. You haven't demonstrated enough proof to back up a model being able to shoot after it is dead.

The context of the rule does not support the rule only applying to enemy models.

Take this hypothetical I posted earlier in the thread:

A hypothetical single model unit armed with a plasma gun and a bolter. it declares the attacks of both weapons and resolves the plasma weapon first, which kills the bearer due to overcharging. the bolter shots are still resolved it exactly matches the example given in the rules:

because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first

The content of that ENTIRE SENTENCE is the targeted unit. That is unarguable, if you read the whole sentence. It is all about models being out of range or line of sight.

The context is all units selected as targets

Also even were you correct not relevant, that neither states nor denies the rule that they always fire

U02dah4 wrote:
We have shown a positive to counter that you need proof so if he has no proof we're correct thankyou


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:
We cited the context, it was in relation to removing enemy models (not any model) with the resolution of previous shooting from the model. It did not say the model itself shoots after it died. You haven't demonstrated enough proof to back up a model being able to shoot after it is dead.

As stated that has no bearing on the rule the rule states it always fires once a target is selected you need to cite evidence it doesn't.

The context is not evidence either way. I mean no part of that context states that it doesn't fire. Regardless of how relevent or not you feel it is you need to show it doesn't fire if not

The proof is absolute as there is no evidence to contradict it unless you can cite some and you cant

I mean not much evidence beats zero evidence and this is pretty clear

If you mean The "proof" is absolute garbage, then I agree. Nosferatu1001 has it right. The entire statement is dealing with continuing to shoot at units that may be out of sight or range that weren't initially. It was not dealing with continuing to shoot from beyond the grave.

Also, consider every other rule where they have something being able to fire back "after" they die, they have set it up in 9th edition so that it makes its attacks, then you take the model off the table. Your interpretation does not follow this finishing up the attacks before removing the model pattern, another indication that perhaps you should consider that your interpretation is not correct.

Again I get you don't like the rule but saying its garbage isn't isn't argument against it infact it shows your lack of argument.

No reason it has to follow the same pattern .

Flesh tearers can't take BA warlord traits that doesn't work the same pattern as other successors gw arnt always consistent in their writing the question how does it work in each specific instance.

All your demonstrateing is that rule A does not work in the same pattern as rule B. That is not the same as a rule saying rule B can't work the way that it does.

Your argument is a vague RAI at best maybe not relevant at all. and you need RAW evidence

The question is how does it work in this instance and it says

so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit,...... even if...example

U02dah4 wrote:
Again I get you don't like the rule but saying its garbage isn't isn't argument against it infact it shows your lack of argument.

No reason it has to follow the same pattern .

Flesh tearers can't take BA warlord traits that doesn't work the same pattern as other successors gw arnt always consistent in their writing the question how does it work in each specific instance.

Your argument is a vague RAI at best maybe not relevant at all and you need RAW evidence

The question is how does it work in this instance and it says

so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit,...... even if...example

Likewise, you need RAW evidence for your argument, and cherry picking a phrase and taking it out of context is not RAW. You need more proof to back your argument up first.

That's the entire relevant rule quoted word for word no cherry picking that is evidence but I admit you don't have to accept the actual rule text for evidence but if we are not going to use the rules text why are we on a rules forum. That is the rule! you don't have to like it or agree that's what it should be - but it is what it is. You can't supply more evidence than the actual rules text and exactly what it says it does.

RAW

"Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them"

The only bit I didn't quote word for word was the clarification clause that I listed as example to note it was there but that's not a rule so I don't see what bearing it has. It does not tell you to fire or not fire so has no bearing on the question at hand.

" even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them"

See there's no RAW instruction there

If you want the bracket that follows Least i be accused cherry picking again

(this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first).

no instruction to fire or not fire there there just an example of how the previous clause could have come about.

You really don’t have this right. Honestly, let it drop. This rule doesn’t say what you’re trying to make it and it’s painful.

Again I've cited the raw word for word and explained what's relevant and whats not useing that raw and you've cited none which bit did i not have right please respond only with cited RAW evidence to support your position not a vague statement

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Im on the GT book. Is this the two sentence blurb above the attack sequence?

No. Oddly, this particular rule is missing from both GT and the Basic Rules online. It states:

Hints and Tips
Fast Dice Rolling
The rules for making attacks (pg 220) have been written assuming you will resolve 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 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 and Armour Penetration characteristics, they must inflict the same Damage, they must be affected by the same abilities, and they must be directed at the same unit. If this is the case, make all the hit rolls at the same time, then all the wound rolls. Your opponent can then allocate the attack one at a time, making saving throws and suffering damage each time as appropriate. Remember, if the target unit contains a model that has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, they must allocate further attacks to this model until either it is destroyed, or all attacks have been saved or resolved.

U02dah4 wrote:
Again I've cited the raw word for word and explained what's relevant and whats not useing that raw and you've cited none which bit did i not have right please respond only with cited RAW evidence to support your position not a vague statement

You have not posted any proof. You keep saying a paragraph describing what happens when LOS changes after declaration of shots gives permission to keep shooting after a shooting model has been killed and removed from the table. That is not what it says and adding those three letters RAW adds no credence to your argument. It has been explained to you why you’re wrong here but you are refusing to listen. You cannot prove your stance because the rules don’t back it up. No rebuttal needed given the words you posted simply don’t mean what you say they do.

 alextroy wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Im on the GT book. Is this the two sentence blurb above the attack sequence?

No. Oddly, this particular rule is missing from both GT and the Basic Rules online. It states:

Hints and Tips
Fast Dice Rolling
The rules for making attacks (pg 220) have been written assuming you will resolve 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 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 and Armour Penetration characteristics, they must inflict the same Damage, they must be affected by the same abilities, and they must be directed at the same unit. If this is the case, make all the hit rolls at the same time, then all the wound rolls. Your opponent can then allocate the attack one at a time, making saving throws and suffering damage each time as appropriate. Remember, if the target unit contains a model that has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, they must allocate further attacks to this model until either it is destroyed, or all attacks have been saved or resolved.

Thanks! I absolutely never saw this before as I’m just using the GT book. That’s waaaay better than the little blurb they put in.

I think the section “they must be affected by the same abilities” prevents fast rolling in this (and similar) cases? Attacks that end up killing a model are not going to be affected by the same abilities as attacks that don’t kill a model.

But in like, 99% of cases the opposite is true and you can fast roll up until saves and damage rolls.

The attack is not affected by an ability that happens when a model in the target unit dies. Even if it is, all the attacks are affected by that ability, so you are allowed to fast roll.

I don’t think the fast rolling rule makes a distinction there though. Otherwise, only rules that affected your hit rolls would prevent fast rolling.

Its a rule that allows for convenience but expects you to look forward (past just the hit rolls to the wound rolls, AP, damage, etc). The abilities that complicate some hits versus others are there just as much as knowing that the plasma gun is going to roll differently than the bolters. It’s not always going to proc, but it is a complicating ability that inhibits fast rolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I think, more importantly here, even if GW dropped a FAQ saying, “yeah you can fast roll just based on your own abilities” your opponent would be pretty well within their rights to say “holup a second, this is actually more complicated and requires attack by attack rolls for my own models to do what they need to”

 JohnnyHell wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Again I've cited the raw word for word and explained what's relevant and whats not useing that raw and you've cited none which bit did i not have right please respond only with cited RAW evidence to support your position not a vague statement

You have not posted any proof. You keep saying a paragraph describing what happens when LOS changes after declaration of shots gives permission to keep shooting after a shooting model has been killed and removed from the table. That is not what it says and adding those three letters RAW adds no credence to your argument. It has been explained to you why you’re wrong here but you are refusing to listen. You cannot prove your stance because the rules don’t back it up. No rebuttal needed given the words you posted simply don’t mean what you say they do.

If your not cherry picking

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit

Look at the salient part of that statement

The thing it refers to

"So long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when it was selected as a target"

In this case it was so the next clause applies

"that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit"

Note always no qualification just ALWAYS, no always unless its dead, no always unless its off the table, no always unless I feel like it, no always unless you can prove it can fire when it's dead. ALWAYS!

The rest of the text as shown two posts ago gives you no instructions just clarification hence even it is not relevant but if you feel it gives a specific instruction quote the specific instruction and only the specific instruction so I can see it because I don't.

Noone has quoted another relevant rule so its the only RAW that matters. Feel free to enter more relevant RAW rules with quotes.

So yes its the RAW answer and yes you ALWAYS fire in all circumstances that's what the word always means. Saying its not what it says doesn't change what it says

Show me how

"Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, "

Does not apply to the targets selected by the other guns using a raw quote

If you can't

Show me where in the RAW with an explicit quote you have permission not to enact the rule

"that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit"

You say they don't mean it so what exactly do those specific clauses mean

If you can't we fall back on the standard RAW trumps RAI and it it doesn't matter what you infer or think about context if you have no answer to my RAW other than I don't think that's right or what you think is wrong which are RAI arguments and you have no RAW yourself the RAW answer wins.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
I don’t think the fast rolling rule makes a distinction there though. Otherwise, only rules that affected your hit rolls would prevent fast rolling.

Its a rule that allows for convenience but expects you to look forward (past just the hit rolls to the wound rolls, AP, damage, etc). The abilities that complicate some hits versus others are there just as much as knowing that the plasma gun is going to roll differently than the bolters. It’s not always going to proc, but it is a complicating ability that inhibits fast rolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I think, more importantly here, even if GW dropped a FAQ saying, “yeah you can fast roll just based on your own abilities” your opponent would be pretty well within their rights to say “holup a second, this is actually more complicated and requires attack by attack rolls for my own models to do what they need to”

It requires the attacks to have "same Strength and Armour Penetration characteristics, they must inflict the same Damage, they must be affected by the same abilities, and they must be directed at the same unit". I don't see how some complex interaction that happens after the damage is applied can be called an ability that affects the attack. Abilities that affect the attack are things like the abilities that impact your rolls that apply to some of the attacks, but not other.

For example, a unit of 5 Intercessor armed with Autobolt Rifles fires at a unit. The Sergeant has a Crusade Relic that means his Autobolt Rifle gets an additional hit on unmodified Hit Rolls of 6. You can't fast roll his attacks with those of the other 4 models because they don't have that ability on their attacks.

The attack doesn’t stop being an attack until the attack sequence ends though. The Retributor stops the sequence in the middle of “5. Inflict Damage”, makes it’s own sequence, then resumes the dread attack sequence by being removed.

This ability doesn’t affect every attack the dread makes, it only affects failed saves resulting in 0 wounds on a 5+. And in this case, if it were the first attack (not that it mattered really, only one wound got through) the remaining three attacks would not have been performed (in addition to the remaining weapons not being fired).

An ability affecting a unit when it dies or takes damage is not an ability affecting my attack. It has no bearing on my resolution of an attack.

If a model can kill you before the conclusion of step 5 of your attack, not do so to every attack you make necessarily, and prevent you from attacking further after concluding step 5, then I'm really interested in your definition of what does count here.

Except the evidence is if you kill it it doesn't stop that model attacking further so no impact

U02dah4 wrote:
Except the evidence is if you kill it it doesn't stop that model attacking further so no impact

You are not reading that correctly though. There is no evidence for what you claim. You are ignoring the context of the rules here.

A model can not attack when it is dead/has been removed from the table. (Unless it has specific permission to do so such as the Astartes Banner, though you make the shots before you remove the model).

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
If a model can kill you before the conclusion of step 5 of your attack, not do so to every attack you make necessarily, and prevent you from attacking further after concluding step 5, then I'm really interested in your definition of what does count here.

Any rules that affects or that keys off the attack’s hit roll, wound roll, or damage roll that would be different between two attacks prevents those attacks from being fast rolled together. This is because you then have to differentiate those attacks from each other to determine which rules apply to them.

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Except the evidence is if you kill it it doesn't stop that model attacking further so no impact

You are not reading that correctly though. There is no evidence for what you claim. You are ignoring the context of the rules here.

A model can not attack when it is dead/has been removed from the table. (Unless it has specific permission to do so such as the Astartes Banner, though you make the shots before you remove the model).

Now that would be a relevent rule can you cite any evidence to support it - no - because it doesn't exist and again back to the vague statement reguarding context with out addressing the actual rules text or providing any quote to support that position in any way

You seem to think you can make up rules and that your position can be supported without any citation or evidence at all.

U02dah4 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Except the evidence is if you kill it it doesn't stop that model attacking further so no impact

You are not reading that correctly though. There is no evidence for what you claim. You are ignoring the context of the rules here.

A model can not attack when it is dead/has been removed from the table. (Unless it has specific permission to do so such as the Astartes Banner, though you make the shots before you remove the model).

Now that would be a relevent rule can you cite any evidence to support it - no - because it doesn't exist and again back to the vague statement reguarding context with out addressing the actual rules text or providing any quote to support that position in any way

You seem to think you can make up rules and that your position can be supported without any citation or evidence at all.

There doesnt need to be a rule saying that, because you cant do anything unless the game says you can...

It is a permissive ruleset, so you default to you CAN NOT have a model make attacks when it is dead/has been removed from the table, unless you can cite a rule stating that you can make attacks with a model when it is dead/has been removed from the table.

But you do not have that citation...

As one guy seems to keep arguing in bad faith using an incorrect RAW reading there doesn’t seem much point in continuing to discuss. U02dah4, if you’re intent on misrepresenting that text and typing “RAW” as if that validates it there isn’t much point trying to change your mind. DeathReaper is right, it’s a permissive ruleset. You need permission to fire after death. There is none in the rules. “Destroyed and removed from play” is pretty cast-iron proof they’re done. Please stop torturing the grammar of that paragraph to try and pretend it’s proof... you’ve misinterpreted it as explained several times over. Dead models don’t fight on, unless by virtue of a special rule.

Yes I acknowledge your arguing in bad faith you say my RAW reading is incorrect but you have not shown that in any way I broke it down in as detailed a fashion as I could and not one of you addressed it at all. You have permission ALWAYS is permission. You say dead models don't fight on well ALWAYS says they do unless you have a rules citation to support that position and you have not provided one. You haven't made any rules based argument against my argument because you can't address the points - you just ignore it and make unsubstantiated statements. So I will copy and paste it again and give you another chance to actually address the rules


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Again I've cited the raw word for word and explained what's relevant and whats not useing that raw and you've cited none which bit did i not have right please respond only with cited RAW evidence to support your position not a vague statement

You have not posted any proof. You keep saying a paragraph describing what happens when LOS changes after declaration of shots gives permission to keep shooting after a shooting model has been killed and removed from the table. That is not what it says and adding those three letters RAW adds no credence to your argument. It has been explained to you why you’re wrong here but you are refusing to listen. You cannot prove your stance because the rules don’t back it up. No rebuttal needed given the words you posted simply don’t mean what you say they do.

If your not cherry picking

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit

Look at the salient part of that statement

The thing it refers to

"So long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when it was selected as a target"

In this case it was so the next clause applies

"that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit"

Note always no qualification just ALWAYS, no always unless its dead, no always unless its off the table, no always unless I feel like it, no always unless you can prove it can fire when it's dead. ALWAYS!

The rest of the text as shown two posts ago gives you no instructions just clarification hence even it is not relevant but if you feel it gives a specific instruction quote the specific instruction and only the specific instruction so I can see it because I don't.

Noone has quoted another relevant rule so its the only RAW that matters. Feel free to enter more relevant RAW rules with quotes.

So yes its the RAW answer and yes you ALWAYS fire in all circumstances that's what the word always means. Saying its not what it says doesn't change what it says

Show me how

"Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, "

Does not apply to the targets selected by the other guns using a raw quote

If you can't

Show me where in the RAW with an explicit quote you have permission not to enact the rule

"that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit"

You say they don't mean it so what exactly do those specific clauses mean

If you can't we fall back on the standard RAW trumps RAI and it it doesn't matter what you infer or think about context if you have no answer to my RAW other than I don't think that's right or what you think is wrong which are RAI arguments and you have no RAW yourself the RAW answer wins.

Oh good grief I’m done watching you twist logic in circles. There is literally a piece of rules text in my last post. It is all the proof you need. Enjoy this thread til it’s locked, it’s not worth expending energy on anymore.

Writing "destroyed and removed from play" is technically rules text I suppose but as a quote its meaningless because you've not addressed the salient point - I'm not questioning that it's destroyed or removed from play. What you have not shown in that being destroyed or removed from play overules that it always fires.

I've said this an apple this is my proof this is an apple you've written there is an orange. They don't relate unless you can show they do

U02dah4 wrote:
Writing "destroyed and removed from play" is technically rules text I suppose but as a quote its meaningless because you've not addressed the salient point - I'm not questioning that it's destroyed or removed from play. What you have not shown in that being destroyed or removed from play overules that it always fires.

I've said this an apple this is my proof this is an apple you've written this is an orange. They don't relate unless you can show they do

You do not have a dataslate when you are removed from play.

Being out of play means you can not effect the game at all. This is basic English.

"So long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when it was selected as a target"

Saying its and destroyed doesn't counter that targets were selected

Son this case targets were selected so the next clause applies


"that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit"

Note always no qualification just ALWAYS, no always unless its dead, no always unless its off the table, no always unless I feel like it, no always unless you can prove it can fire when it's dead. ALWAYS!

Saying that's its dead and destroyed doesnt counter always in and of itself you would need to show an actual rule to support that


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Writing "destroyed and removed from play" is technically rules text I suppose but as a quote its meaningless because you've not addressed the salient point - I'm not questioning that it's destroyed or removed from play. What you have not shown in that being destroyed or removed from play overules that it always fires.

I've said this an apple this is my proof this is an apple you've written this is an orange. They don't relate unless you can show they do

You do not have a dataslate when you are removed from play.

Being out of play means you can not effect the game at all. This is basic English.

Well thats rubbish lots of things have datasheets when they are not on the battlefield. Any thing in reserve anything in deepstrike unsummoned summonables

Can you provide a quote to support that because that might overrule always bit I don't recall any rule in the core rules state that being out of play prevents you from interacting you just need permission to do so

We have that in always

U02dah4 wrote:
"So long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when it was selected as a target"

You are leaving off the most important part of that quote...

Here is the whole thing:

BRB shooting phase rules wrote:Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first).

You know that when they say "attacks are always made against the target unit" they are referring to the fact that casualty removal does not stop the rest of the active unit's shots.

That is literally all it means. It does not mean that you can have a model in the shooting unit die and still shoot with that model, as that model is no longer in play.

Stop ignoring the context.

Your arguments are 100% incorrect because you ignore the context of the rules.

U02dah4 wrote:
Well thats rubbish lots of things have datasheets when they are not on the battlefield. Any thing in reserve anything in deepstrike unsummoned summonables

No they do not have dataslates that can affect a game. because they are not in play...

Didn't this come up back in 8th (and was similarly un-resolved then....)

What are peoples thoughts on the to me highly applicable reverse situation; what happens if the target(s) are destroyed before all the attacks are resolved when the attacking unit has some affect that means it will take damage/ have units removed on hit rolls of '1'?

For instance, a unit of 6 plasma inceptors fire everything on supercharge, but their target is completely destroyed with a number of shots unresolved (i.e. no to hit rolls yet made for those attacks)?

Do you, or do you not need still need to make the to hit rolls for these unresolved attacks?

As for a relevance, to me it stands to reason that if you have to continue to shoot a completely dead (and thus removed from the table) to unit resolve all declared attacks (due to the potential effects of those attacks on the attacking unit) then this demonstrates that being removed from the table doesn't break the requirements to make an attack. This would support the interpretation that once range and LOS are checked before any attacks are resolved, those attacks are committed will always take place (e.g. even if the target unit has been completely destroyed having committed to firing all your inceptors on supercharge you have to roll all the to-hits in case they cook themselves.
Thus, I do not see how if the target being removed from play having committed to the attack doesn’t stop any ‘left over’ attacks from being made, then why the reverse shouldn’t hold true (i.e. if somehow a model is destroyed before all the attacks it has been committed to be made have been resolved, the remainder of the attacks are still resolved).

For instance a unit of 6 plasma inceptors fire everything on supercharge, but their target is completely destroyed with shots unresolved (i.e. no to hit rolls yet made for those attacks)?

Do you, or do you need still need to make the to hit rolls for these unresolved attacks?

As for a relevance, to me it stands to reason that if you have to continue to shoot a completely dead unit to resolve all declared attacks (due to the potential affects of those attacks on the attacking unit) then this demonstates that being removed from the table doesn't prevent attacks from being made.

Indeed casualty removal does not stop the shots. It does not specify on which side those casualty are removed so it supports my position

Again context Is rrelevant in this context we have a clear rule I will address any rules argument you make but yammering context has no bearing

Then how do deamons summon anything they are not in play

You summon them because the datasheet has a rule giving it permission to be summoned.

Where does it say models not in play can't have datasheets. Giuilliman has a datasheet whether or not he's on the battlefield - I acknowledge he can't impact the battlefield unless a rule gives him permission to do so but we have one in this instance

6 plasma inceptors fire all there shots they always fire once a target is selected

U02dah4 wrote:
Indeed casualty removal does not stop the shots.

This is demonstrably false.

It does not specify on which side those casualty are removed so it supports my position

It does not support your opinion because you are ignoring the context of the rules. Stop asserting something that is blatantly incorrect.

Again context Is rrelevant

Yes, context Is always relevant, glad you agree. without context the rules are meaningless. You need context to have the rules fully understood and assessed.

in this context we have a clear rule I will address any rules argument you make but yammering context has no bearing

False, context ALWAYS has a bearing, it is quite literally how the rules can be fully understood and assessed.

Then how do deamons summon anything they are not in play

by the rules that are on the Dataslates of the models IN PLAY...

You summon them because the datasheet has a rule giving it permission to be summoned.

Umm... DAEMONIC RITUAL says "Instead of moving in their Movement phase, any CHAOS CHARACTER can..."

You have to be in play before you can do something instead of moving...

Where does it say models not in play can't have datasheets. Giuilliman has a datasheet whether or not he's on the battlefield - I acknowledge he can't impact the battlefield unless a rule gives him permission to do so but we have one in this instance

No one said "models not in play can't have datasheets" I said "You do not have a dataslate when you are removed from play." Which, if you looked at the context of what I was saying you would have understood this to mean that you can not use a models dataslate unless it is in play. Because that is how games/rules systems work. Take Monopoly for example. if you have one house on a property then the other houses in the tray are not in play and you do not get to use the rules for having more than one. Or Chess. once a piece is captured it is not in play anymore and you can not use its rules.

Remember the rules system is permissive, this means you can only do what the rules explicitly or implicitly tell you to do, and you may not do anything else.

6 plasma inceptors fire all there shots they always fire once a target is selected

Unless they are no longer in play.

If its demonstrative false then don't say that demonstrate it so far you have not so this is worthless as writing context

Context is relevant to rules yes however in this circumstance the context is not relevant because no part of the context in which it is written tells you to ignore always therefore just saying context without substantiating specifically how the context specifically tells you to overide always is not an argument- it's as meaningful as putting your fingers in your ears and saying I'm right it means nothing so yes i will address a rules point not the word context

So the rules of demonic ritual can summon giulliman then or a leman russ? No why not oh yes it refers to information on the datasheet and giulliman isn't a deamon

So yes that is the problem you have said models not in play can have datasheet but you have said in this instant it does not because it had been removed from play. You have not substantiate this. The rules of other games are not pertinent. in this game the rule is you always fire, there is no rule that the datasheet dissapears when you are removed from the table just normally that ends all interaction because you need permission. but in this case because we have a rule to fulfill that it always fires which is permission so it fires and we use its datasheet because no rule tells you not to or states it dissapears.

No always fires means they fire even if they are no longer in play you have no exemption or have not presented one

 JohnnyHell wrote:
As one guy seems to keep arguing in bad faith using an incorrect RAW reading there doesn’t seem much point in continuing to discuss. U02dah4, if you’re intent on misrepresenting that text and typing “RAW” as if that validates it there isn’t much point trying to change your mind. DeathReaper is right, it’s a permissive ruleset. You need permission to fire after death. There is none in the rules. “Destroyed and removed from play” is pretty cast-iron proof they’re done. Please stop torturing the grammar of that paragraph to try and pretend it’s proof... you’ve misinterpreted it as explained several times over. Dead models don’t fight on, unless by virtue of a special rule.

It won't work. Alextroy and I tried to get him to agree to disagree on page 2 of the thread since things were at an impasse there, but he had to be That Guy and keep on going, saying that no, we're wrong and his twisting a sentence beyond what its context was was the only RAW we needed, without any supporting evidence anywhere in the rulebook. I doubt he'll let things drop.

Yeah this thread has outlived its purpose and has just become a circular argument.