Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Indeed. They aren't being 'targetted' by the attack (in the 40k-specific sense of the word 'target'); the unit as a whole is. They are just the portion of the targetted unit that the hits are effected against.

For reference, the definition of what i'm using for the word 'target' is found in 40k on page 12 under the 'Choose a Target' section.

 Neorealist wrote:
Indeed. They aren't being 'targetted' by the attack (in the 40k-specific sense of the word 'target'); the unit as a whole is. They are just the portion of the targetted unit that the hits are effected against.

For reference, the definition of what i'm using for the word 'target' is found in 40k on page 12 under the 'Choose a Target' section.

But the rule says that hits are resolved against the target's Leadership, rather than Toughness. You claim that you use the Leadership of the models hit, not the target. Why?

1) The models in the target which recieve the hits are defined by the template rules as being the specific models underneath the template.
2) The 'Roll to Wound' rules tell you how to resolve hits against a target. Importantly they do not preclude rolling against the leadership(s) of the specific models that were hit, just so long as they are 'the target'.

 Neorealist wrote:
Indeed. They aren't being 'targetted' by the attack (in the 40k-specific sense of the word 'target'); the unit as a whole is. They are just the portion of the targetted unit that the hits are effected against.

For reference, the definition of what i'm using for the word 'target' is found in 40k on page 12 under the 'Choose a Target' section.

Choose a Target
Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a target for them to shoot at. To do so, you must check the range and line of sight from your unit to the enemy unit you are targeting. Note that you may check the range and line of sight to multiple enemy units before deciding which one to shoot at and declaring it to your opponent.

So... How does that track with your assumption?

Also, since you keep ignoring this, lemme quote something for you:

To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart.

Lemme fix that for this scenario:

To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Leadership characteristic using the To Wound chart.

So now - how does any of that imply the potential to select a subset of the target?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Neorealist wrote:
2) The 'Roll to Wound' rules tell you how to resolve hits against a target. Importantly they do not preclude rolling against the leadership(s) of the specific models that were hit, just so long as they are 'the target'.

A subset of the unit can never be "the target" as "the target" is "the unit".

My line of argument has not been addressed. What prompts you, Neo, to exchange some instances of "toughness" under the Roll to Wound heading with "leadership" as opposed to others?

 Neorealist wrote:
1) The models in the target which recieve the hits are defined by the template rules as being the specific models underneath the template.
2) The 'Roll to Wound' rules tell you how to resolve hits against a target. Importantly they do not preclude rolling against the leadership(s) of the specific models that were hit, just so long as they are 'the target'.

Actually it tells you to resolve against THE target

And THE target is the unit, as a whole.

So, again, answer this precise question: why are you roling to wound against a subset of the unit, rather than the unit as a whole? Where is your permisson to change "the unit" to "a portion of the unit" under the targetting rules?

Page and paragraph, since you have so far entirely avoided answering this with any actual rules, just yet more hand waving

Kitzz wrote:My line of argument has not been addressed. What prompts you, Neo, to exchange some instances of "toughness" under the Roll to Wound heading with "leadership" as opposed to others?

Good question. I don't suggest you exchange 'some' instances of the word 'toughness', i exchange exactly one. The neural shredder tells us that: "...hits from a neural shredder are resolved against the target's Leadership rather than its Toughness..."

So we go to to the 'Roll to Wound' section to find out how hits are normally resolved and we find: "...To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart..."

Nowhere else in the 'Roll to Wound' section thereafter references 'hits' (aka, what is being exchanged from toughness to leadership), they all reference 'wounds', 'to wound', or similar. The neural shredder does not give blanket permission to exchange every instance of the word 'toughness' with the word 'leadership'; just the one referring to hits and their resolution.

 Neorealist wrote:

Kitzz wrote:My line of argument has not been addressed. What prompts you, Neo, to exchange some instances of "toughness" under the Roll to Wound heading with "leadership" as opposed to others?

Good question. I don't suggest you exchange 'some' instances of the word 'toughness', i exchange exactly one. The neural shredder tells us that: "...hits from a neural shredder are resolved against the target's Leadership rather than its Toughness..."

So we go to to the 'Roll to Wound' section to find out how hits are normally resolved and we find: "...To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart..."

Nowhere else in the 'Roll to Wound' section thereafter references 'hits' (aka, what is being exchanged from toughness to leadership), they all reference 'wounds', 'to wound', or similar. The neural shredder does not give blanket permission to exchange every instance of the word 'toughness' with the word 'leadership'; just the one referring to hits and their resolution.

OK, let's do that then. That leaves us with "...To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Leadership characteristic using the To Wound chart...".

So now why are using the Leadership of only the models hit instead of the target?

Happyjew wrote:So now why are using the Leadership of only the models hit instead of the target?

The models hit are the target. Or at least, the part of it which recieves the hits.

That aside, surely you are aware of the fact that 'the target' cannot not have a specific leadership? There is no mechanic currently within the existing rules to determine the leadership of a group of models (as a unit)as opposed to any specific one.

 Neorealist wrote:

Happyjew wrote:So now why are using the Leadership of only the models hit instead of the target?

The models hit are the target. Or at least, the part of it which recieves the hits.

That aside, surely you are aware of the fact that 'the target' cannot not have a specific leadership? There is no mechanic currently within the existing rules to determine the leadership of a group of models (as a unit)as opposed to any specific one.

Hence the use of majority leadership.

When a flamer template hits a unit, it's always majority toughness. Even if you only hit 1 t5 model in an all t4 unit, you're wounding against t4. Majority is the only way to wound with a template.

Neural shredder says use leadership instead of toughness, so following the exact same process as a flamer, we proceed until wounding against majority toughness, replace it (only toughness, preserving the "majority" part of the rule) and roll to wound against majority leadership.

 Neorealist wrote:
The models hit are the target.

Too funny. And you claim that you are not saying this...

So lets see.
1. Nominate a Unit to Shoot - pick one of your units you want to fire with (pg 12). No problems here.
2. Choose a Target - The chosen unit can shoot at one enemy unit within range and LoS (page 12). Except for some apparent confusion on what "target' is, no problems here.
3. Roll to Hit - Place the template instead of rolling to hit. Any models (partially) covered are hit (pg 52). We agree here.
4. Roll to Wound - compare Strength of the weapon to the targets Toughness (or Leadership in this case) to determine what is needed to roll. Why are you claiming that you do not roll against the target's Leadership?
5. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties - if the models under the template are the only ones who are affected, does that mean that they are the only ones to be removed?

There is no mechanic currently within the existing rules to determine the leadership of a group of models (as a unit)as opposed to any specific one.

Well except for Leadership tests which tell you exactly how it works with multiple Leaderhips.

My question was in regard to why you exchanged only one instance of "toughness" with "leadership." "Hits" being resolved doesn't say anything about the way in which they are resolved fully. You are interpreting "resolve" to mean "only the comparison of values on the chart" which is not the same as taking the entire context of the Roll to wound step into account. Resolution is not defined by just the out-of-context first mention of the word toughness.

Happyjew wrote:Too funny. And you claim that you are not saying this...

It'd do you credit to post the 'entire' quote if you are going to quote me for some specific purpose, rather than just the part you find hilarious. That said: yes i have been saying that the unit is the target and not the models within it. Is there some sort of confusion there which has prompted your out-of-context amusement?

Happyjew wrote:So lets see.
1. Nominate a Unit to Shoot - pick one of your units you want to fire with (pg 12). No problems here.
2. Choose a Target - The chosen unit can shoot at one enemy unit within range and LoS (page 12). Except for some apparent confusion on what "target' is, no problems here.
3. Roll to Hit - Place the template instead of rolling to hit. Any models (partially) covered are hit (pg 52). We agree here.
4. Roll to Wound - compare Strength of the weapon to the targets Toughness (or Leadership in this case) to determine what is needed to roll. Why are you claiming that you do not roll against the target's Leadership?
5. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties - if the models under the template are the only ones who are affected, does that mean that they are the only ones to be removed?

Because the target as a whole does not have a specific leadership, but the models it is comprised of which are under the template certainly do.

Happyjew wrote:Well except for Leadership tests which tell you exactly how it works with multiple Leaderhips.

...For Leadership tests, which you'll note, Rolling to Wound is not one of, even if you do substitute a/the Leadership statistic into it at some point.

The target as a whole does not have a specific Toughness, either, but the models it is comprised of which are under the template certainly do.

Edit: Sorry wasn't clear. Just pointing out that the logic of single comparison would have to be carried out when ever you used the template if you are using it's wording to imply individual comparison.

Gravmyr wrote:
The target as a whole does not have a specific Toughness, either, but the models it is comprised of which are under the template certainly do.

Correct. Now show a rule to use only the Toughness/Leadership of the models hit and not the target (ie the unit you are shooting at).

neo, since you seem to think that only the models under the template matter, do you also allocate wounds to just those models? Why or why not?

Gravmyr wrote:
The target as a whole does not have a specific Toughness, either, but the models it is comprised of which are under the template certainly do.

Yes they do, the 'Majority Toughness' rule provides the unit as a whole a specific toughness to roll against. Sadly there is no equivelent 'Majority Leadership' rule for the shredder to benefit from.

Happyjew wrote:Correct. Now show a rule to use only the Toughness/Leadership of the models hit and not the target (ie the unit you are shooting at).

neo, since you seem to think that only the models under the template matter, do you also allocate wounds to just those models? Why or why not?

I did not say the other models in the unit do not matter. Quite frankly i've grown weary of being misattributed by you and others; If you wish to continue to argue my logic feel free, but i'd prefer you actually refer to things i'm actually saying rather than 'interpret' them as something that has little-to-nothing to do with my point.

To answer your questions:
1) You seem focused on a specific and arbitrary distinction between the models hit by the attack and the target of the attack. In this instance they are the same thing, as those models are a part of the target that was hit.
2) You attribute wounds as normal for the 'Allocate Wounds' section, which indicates that they are usually assigned by the controlling player (of the unit hit by the template) based on the models' proximity to the firer unless otherwise specified. The template rules only allocate hits to the models under the template, not wounds; so you would follow the normal rules for such.

Like every other bulk roll in this game is used to speed it up. It does not in fact give the unit a toughness just tells you to roll against the majority there is a very large difference. If it gave a toughness to the unit you could actually ID a unit with a single hit if that were the case as it is the target.

It doesn't 'give' the unit a specific toughness. What it does is provide you with a specific number to roll against if the unit is comprised of models with different toughness statistics. in essence, it 'stands in' for the units' specific toughness as a whole for the necessary rolls.

If you cannot use the Majority Toughness rule and impart Majority LD then there is no way to roll for wounds. Your target, the unit, does not have a LD therefor there is nothing to compare the weapon's Strength against. The weapon does not give you permission to change the target from the unit to solely the models which are hit. As such you either have to do Majority LD or you can't wound. It tells you to use LD instead of toughness so you replace all instances of Toughness in the Roll to Wound section with LD, the part about Majority Toughness is in the same section.

Sure, except it doesn't give you permission to exchange every instance of the word 'toughness' with that of the word 'leadership' in the 'Roll to Wound' section, just the one that is in direct reference to hits the unit has received.

Neorealist wrote:

Happyjew wrote:So now why are using the Leadership of only the models hit instead of the target?

The models hit are the target. Or at least, the part of it which recieves the hits.

Neorealist wrote:That said: yes i have been saying that the unit is the target and not the models within it. Is there some sort of confusion there which has prompted your out-of-context amusement?

If the unit is the target, how do you justify a subset of the unit being the target?

Simple.

Point 1: There is nothing differentiating the models receiving the hits from the models not receiving the hits other than the fact that they were underneath the template. They are collectively 'The Target' of the attack.

Point 2: There is nothing in the 'Roll to Wound' section which indicates you need roll against the leadership of the 'The Target' as a whole rather than against just a part of it. Rolling against the leadership of the effected models does not in this instance break any rules as they are just as much a part of 'The Target' as any other model in the unit is.

Option 1) Roll against the models' leadership statistics, wound (or not), and continue on with the game.
Option 2) Try to roll against the leadership of the entire target. fail. scratch your head, house rule something in, and continue on with the game.

Which of the above involves less rules alterations in this instance?

You are persisting in the assumption that between the declaration of the target and counting up the hits somehow the target changes to part of the unit. You cannot target individual models out of a unit with out changing the target section.

1) Show a rule that backs up only the models under the template are the target of the attack.
2) If the target is the unit, which you have already stated it is, then when the Roll to Wound section references the target it is the unit. You cannot allocate before rolling to wound so your attacks are aimed at the unit not at individual models.

Real Options
1) Roll against the unit's LD assuming they mean it to be used in the exact same way as toughness.
2) Arbitrarily house rule that only the models under templates are the targets. (Changing: The Target, How rolling to wound works, only allowing the models under the template to take the wounds) Scratch your head and realize you are making things overly complicated.

Which of the above involves less rules alterations in this instance?

I'm not sure how many more time's i'll end up saying this, but resolving the hits against the models under the template is not and does not 'change' the target of the attack.

the 'target' of the attack is and always has been the unit as a whole, and i am not going to waste our respective time trying to argue against what you 'think' i'm saying instead of what it actually represents. That said you are in good company, you are not the first to have misconstrued something. (not even the 3rd, by my estimation)

Except, by definition, you ARE changing the tartget

You are told to roll to wound against THE TARGET. This is synonymous with THE UNIT

You are rolling to wound NOT against THE TARGET, which is THE UNIT, but a *subset* of the target, that is to say the unit

No matter how many times you handwave this away, you are changing a whole slew of rules while claimly loudly that everyone is "misinterpreting" you. That is false, and by now it has been proven enough times for youto know that you are making stuff up

The ones pro-majority "leadership" understand that this weapon has no current method of working, RAW. You are claiming "RAW" this is not the case, despite you changing rule upon rule upon rule in order to come up with your "RAW" method.

Whereas "our" method changes one rule, in the same method as they indicate you should alter the rules for ID, works with ANY weapon that uses this type, and not just flamers, and more importantly is far simpler and quicker to determine.

 Neorealist wrote:
Simple.

Point 1: There is nothing differentiating the models receiving the hits from the models not receiving the hits other than the fact that they were underneath the template. They are collectively 'The Target' of the attack.

The unit as a whole is the target.

Point 2: There is nothing in the 'Roll to Wound' section which indicates you need roll against the leadership of the 'The Target' as a whole rather than against just a part of it. Rolling against the leadership of the effected models does not in this instance break any rules as they are just as much a part of 'The Target' as any other model in the unit is.

How is the target synonymous with part of the target? That's what you're doing - you've just said that part of the target (only the models under the template) is what you roll to wound against. The rules require you roll to wound against the target.

Option 1) Roll against the models' leadership statistics, wound (or not), and continue on with the game.

This isn't a RAW option.

Option 2) Try to roll against the leadership of the entire target. fail. scratch your head, house rule something in, and continue on with the game.

It is a negligible leap to simply replace all instances of Toughness in the process with Leadership. Your interpretation requires rolling against a subset of the target and has no basis in the rules.

Even if you are not changing what you call the target of the shooting you are by your actions changing the target. The to wound section states you roll against the unit. To do so you use the majority toughness, except with this weapon which looks at LD. By rolling individually you are not rolling against the target nor are you following the rules for how to roll against the unit. You would then be allowed to choose which stats your opponent rolls against with proper placement, ie. over models with the lowest LD giving you an advantage over every other weapon in the game. These are three changes to the ways the rules are set forth because you don't think you can treat LD the same as Toughness, resolving this with a single change.

nosferatu wrote:You are told to roll to wound against THE TARGET. This is synonymous with THE UNIT

No kidding. You are missing the fact that 'The Unit' is synonymous with "...In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units..." as well.

Therefore 'The Target' = 'A Unit' = 'A Group of Models'. Each of these can be used interchangably when referring to any of the other terms.

once again:
"...A unit takes a hit for each model that is fully, or even partially, underneath the template..."
...Any models fully or partially under the template are hit...
...To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the
target's 'Leadership' characteristic using the To Wound chart...


What part hidden in the above 3 rules indicates you are violating some specific rule regarding targetting by following them in sequence like i've claimed?

 Neorealist wrote:

nosferatu wrote:You are told to roll to wound against THE TARGET. This is synonymous with THE UNIT

No kidding. You are missing the fact that 'The Unit' is synonymous with "...In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units..."as well.

Therefore 'The Target' = 'A Unit' = 'A Group of Models'. Each of these can be used interchangably when referring to any of the other terms.

Except the unit is the entire group of models, not some magical subset.

once again:
"...A unit takes a hit for each model that is fully, or even partially, underneath the template..."
...Any models fully or partially under the template are hit...
...To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the
target's'Leadership' characteristic using the To Wound chart...

What part hidden in the above 3 rules indicates you are violating some specific rule regarding targetting by following them in sequence like i've claimed?

I bolded the important word. The target is the unit. The unit is the entire group of models not a subset. Attempting to roll to wound against anything other than the entire group of models cannot be a RAW interpretation.

You are also missing a fairly important rule from page 6. "A unit takes a hit for each model that is fully, or even partially, underneath the template." This applies to all blasts and templates. This section is where it tells you that the hits created by templates are against the unit not the individual models. As such by picking out and comparing them against single models you are violating the rules. No matter how you you look at you are violating the rules for templates and the rules to wound.