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.

I could make a comment about repeating one's self is not evidence of who is correct, but maybe if I address your core concept you will do me the pleasure of addressing mine.

The core of your argument is that we must be able to physically shoot at something before we can declare that we will be shooting at it, correct?
I won't fault the common sense logic behind such a stance if that is correct, for if we can prove that that no shots are being generated then it is possible to state we are incapable of 'shooting at' another Unit. It is the sort of argument I would use to justify a 'How I would Play it' argument over the very same topic. It would address the Authors mistake of forgetting a 'Out of Range = Can not Target' Rule like they did for Line-of-sight, which is clearly an oversight as it makes no sense to allow us to Target something to shoot at that we can not physically shoot at.

Now, my issue is simply this:
If we obey the instructions telling us how we go about choose(ing) a single enemy unit for them to shoot at, why would it matter if some later step in the process generates 0 Shots?
It might not be common sense approved, like many things in Warhammer 40k fail to be, but from a Rule as Written perspective we would need something literally stating that anything out-of-range can not be targeted in order for 'check range' to have a purpose. Without those instructions, and because we are checking range to begin with it clear that such instructions should exist from an Intent point of view, then there is nothing stating that something In range does X while something out of range does Y.

So where in the Rule you quoted does it state that we can not shoot at a target with 0 shots?

If It helps to frame the whole academical debate consider this question: If we Roll a To Hit dice as part of Resolving Psychic Shreek and it misses, what happens?
Many will point out that the rest of the Rule still resolves, because there is nothing stating that the To Hit has to be successful for the rest of the Rule to function....

JinxDragon wrote:
It might not be common sense approved, like many things in Warhammer 40k fail to be, but from a Rule as Written perspective we would need something literally stating that anything out-of-range can not be targeted in order for 'check range' to have a purpose. Again, such a Restriction very likely exists in another place but you are the one that wanted us to focus only on the single quoted Rule. So where in the Rule you quoted does it state that we can not shoot at a target with 0 shots?

Because shooting at something with 0 shots isn't shooting at it... it's demonstrably not shooting. As in, you don't shoot.
So if you're not shooting, how can you declare what you're shooting at? Chewbacca does not live on Endor.

And as you said, the rule requires us to check range - correct? Well how do we do that? oh - there's a rule for that as well...

Check Range
All weapons have a maximum range, which is the furthest distance they can shoot. A weapon must be in range of the target unit to shoot.

So if something is out of range it cannot shoot. So if you're really confused, this should clear it up. Although I appreciate stretching the RAW to see where it's broken, saying you're going to shoot me with 0 weapons is beyond that - I know you're not trolling but it certainly seems like it.

Problems:
1) You wanted me to limit my focus to just the Rule you previously quoted, not to any secondary Rules that might better explain the situation
2) Where in the Rule you just quoted does it state we can not target a Unit if 0 shots are being generated during the Shooting Sequence?

Again, you are arguing common sense and I understand that... so please understand that I am focusing on Rule as Written which does not allow for 'common sense' to be a factor and accept that:
I have a Rule which tells me how to go about choose(ing) a target to shoot at and if I obey that Rule to the letter then what prevents me from having chosen a target to shoot at?
If you state 'the inability to actually generate a shot' then please quote a Rule which makes it illegal to Target an Enemy with 0 shots....

JinxDragon wrote:
Problems:
1) You wanted me to limit my focus to just the Rule you previously quoted, not to any secondary Rules that might better explain the situation
2) Where in the Rule you just quoted does it state we can not target a Unit if 0 shots are being generated during the Shooting Sequence?

1) I quoted the other rule because you seemed to be confused and think that you can shoot 0 shots.
2) Because... fine, I'll quote more. I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that rules could be read in order and that certain things could be taken for granted. How far back should I go - the beginning of the shooting phase?

NOMINATE A UNIT TO SHOOT
During the Shooting phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks.

We can see that shooting == making a shooting attack.

CHOOSE A TARGET
Once you have chosen the unit that you want to make a shooting attack with, choose a single enemy unit for them to make a shooting attack 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 make a shooting attack at and declaring it to your opponent. You cannot target a unit that is locked in combat.

I've edited this to clarify where the equation comes in.
I'll also edit my previous questions to help clarify.

Again, you are arguing common sense and I understand that so please understand that I am focusing on Rule as Written which does not allow for 'common sense' to be a factor:
I have a Rule which tells me how to go about "choosing a target to shoot at" and if I obey that Rule to the letter then I have 'chosen a Target to Shoot at' ... prove otherwise.

No, you do not have permission to nominate a target for a shooting attack that is out of range.

Nothing in your post contains a requirement that we verify the number of Shots prior to nominating a Target to shoot at. Nothing you have posted supports the concept that a Shooting Attack that consists of 0 shots is somehow illegal, even though there are many ways to have 0 Shots during several points in the shooting sequence. Even with the Rule reworded so shoot with' is replaced with 'Shooting Attack,' nothing supports the conclusion that the Shooting Attack itself must contain more then 0 Shots to be legal. This is because the instructions are now telling us how to go about nominating an Enemy Unit to be the Target of a Shooting Attack, so completing them as written means we have legally selected a Target of the Shooting Attack.

So I ask once more because you repetitively refuse to address the core of my concerns:
Where, outside of common sense itself, does it state that a Unit can not make a Shooting Attack of 0 shots?

Two thought experiments I had while I was pondering the concept that Shooting Attacks that consist of 0 Shots is somehow illegal:
I have a target in Range of one Weapon, but I won't be able to assault after I fire that weapon
Like an idiot I declare that Unit the Target of my Shooting attack and only realize the error after Step 2 in the process as I really wanted that Assault
I evoke my permission to choose not to fire a Weapon in order to correct this Error, as I do have permission to choose not to shoot a Weapon during this step of the process
- What happens now the Shooting Attack consists of 0 shots?

I have a single Model Unit, that is in Range of an Enemy Unit, armed with a Plasma Cannon
That single Model fails the Get's Hot Roll and the weapon is forbidden from firing
- What happens now the Shooting Attack consists of 0 shots?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At this point let us offer an olive branch because this argument is getting ridiculous:
You are arguing Common Sense
I am arguing strict Rule as Written

Let us both accept that we are simply not arguing the same thing and move on. If we do not, we will simply go around in circles as we continue to demanding that other person accept our 'Frame of the Debate' as the only correct method to review the Rule. As I am unwilling to abandon the 'strict Rule as Written' stance in order to meet you half way, because broken Rule interactions is where I find enjoyment in these debates, and you are unwilling to abandon 'Common Sense,' because it is completely ridiculous to have a Shooting Attack of 0 Shots, we will never come to an agreement over this. That will save us another two pages of me underlining 'To Do So' and you underlining the 'to shoot at' as if those two parts of the Rule are all that matters....

I've started a thread to discuss the legality of targeting a unit out of range, here.

Can we please leave this tangent and return to the original question?

Thought that was already answered though Happyjew:-
Step 2 is when Targeting occurs, anything with permission to be resolved prior can be resolved before any Rule which forces Targeting.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
I'm glad that you've actually taken the time to read the thread. Unfortunately you're still getting it wrong. Where does my post discuss using BF first and then shooting? It doesn't. The part you've underlined is referring to a situation where the unit is in range and LoS before using BF. The key is in the past tense phrase "could have been targeted". If I was saying what you claim I would have used the phrase "could be targeted". So yes, I was discussing shooting before BF all along. I hope this clears things up for you.

Since I (and everyone else in the thread) are apparently so bad at understanding what you say, let's clear this up.

Hawks bomb a Marine Tac Squad and land (post scatter) 23" away from the Marine unit.
Hawks use Battle Focus to run out of range (and/or LoS - feel free to answer both scenarios).
Hawks then fire on the Centurions nearby.

Legal or illegal?

Illegal because it is possible for them to target the tac squad in the shooting phase. I'm assuming in your example that they DS in LoS of the tac squad.

Except that when they shoot, it's not possible to target the Tac squad. And before they shoot it's not possible to target the Tac squad because they can't attempt to target anything.

You're still ignoring the fact that it is possible to target and shoot the tac squad in the shooting phase. The RAW therefore require them to do so.

This thread seems to have delved back into the "can you target a unit out of range?" side issue. The RAW is clear that you can. There is a explicit requirement to be in LoS to target, but not range. You're trying to argue an implied/RAI position on this which has no RAW support.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
This thread seems to have delved back into the "can you target a unit out of range?" side issue. The RAW is clear that you can.

I would not be so sure about that. Further discussion in the new thread.

However as i pointed out to rigeld, Grenade packs, by their own RaW, allow you to change targets:

A unit that fires grenade packs in the Movement phase can still shoot in the subsequent Shooting phase; however, it must target the same target unit if possible.

Are you allowed to "can still shoot" with 0 weapons?

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
I'm glad that you've actually taken the time to read the thread. Unfortunately you're still getting it wrong. Where does my post discuss using BF first and then shooting? It doesn't. The part you've underlined is referring to a situation where the unit is in range and LoS before using BF. The key is in the past tense phrase "could have been targeted". If I was saying what you claim I would have used the phrase "could be targeted". So yes, I was discussing shooting before BF all along. I hope this clears things up for you.

Since I (and everyone else in the thread) are apparently so bad at understanding what you say, let's clear this up.

Hawks bomb a Marine Tac Squad and land (post scatter) 23" away from the Marine unit.
Hawks use Battle Focus to run out of range (and/or LoS - feel free to answer both scenarios).
Hawks then fire on the Centurions nearby.

Legal or illegal?

Illegal because it is possible for them to target the tac squad in the shooting phase. I'm assuming in your example that they DS in LoS of the tac squad.

Except that when they shoot, it's not possible to target the Tac squad. And before they shoot it's not possible to target the Tac squad because they can't attempt to target anything.

You're still ignoring the fact that it is possible to target and shoot the tac squad in the shooting phase. The RAW therefore require them to do so.

This thread seems to have delved back into the "can you target a unit out of range?" side issue. The RAW is clear that you can. There is a explicit requirement to be in LoS to target, but not range. You're trying to argue an implied/RAI position on this which has no RAW support.

Actually I've proven that you cannot target a unit out of range. It's been requested that we argue that elsewhere however.
And not, it is not possible to target the unit when the unit shoots which is what you repeatedly ignore.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
I'm glad that you've actually taken the time to read the thread. Unfortunately you're still getting it wrong. Where does my post discuss using BF first and then shooting? It doesn't. The part you've underlined is referring to a situation where the unit is in range and LoS before using BF. The key is in the past tense phrase "could have been targeted". If I was saying what you claim I would have used the phrase "could be targeted". So yes, I was discussing shooting before BF all along. I hope this clears things up for you.

Since I (and everyone else in the thread) are apparently so bad at understanding what you say, let's clear this up.

Hawks bomb a Marine Tac Squad and land (post scatter) 23" away from the Marine unit.
Hawks use Battle Focus to run out of range (and/or LoS - feel free to answer both scenarios).
Hawks then fire on the Centurions nearby.

Legal or illegal?

Illegal because it is possible for them to target the tac squad in the shooting phase. I'm assuming in your example that they DS in LoS of the tac squad.

Except that when they shoot, it's not possible to target the Tac squad. And before they shoot it's not possible to target the Tac squad because they can't attempt to target anything.

You're still ignoring the fact that it is possible to target and shoot the tac squad in the shooting phase. The RAW therefore require them to do so.

This thread seems to have delved back into the "can you target a unit out of range?" side issue. The RAW is clear that you can. There is a explicit requirement to be in LoS to target, but not range. You're trying to argue an implied/RAI position on this which has no RAW support.

Actually I've proven that you cannot target a unit out of range. It's been requested that we argue that elsewhere however.

Actually you haven't proven that, here or elsewhere.

rigeld2 wrote:
And not, it is not possible to target the unit when the unit shoots which is what you repeatedly ignore.

Except you're repeatedly ignoring the fact that it is possible to target the unit in the shooting phase. If this condition is met, then they must be targeted.

Except you're repeatedly ignoring the fact that it is possible to target the unit in the shooting phase. If this condition is met, then they must be targeted.

Wrong. The only point at which we are given permission to determine whether or not the shot is possible is DURRING Targetting. This is where we check range and LOS, If we decide to Battle Focus BEFORE shooting, it works out fine. Battle Focus only atlers the Declare a Target step, which in this case, takes place AFTER Battle Focus.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Except you're repeatedly ignoring the fact that it is possible to target the unit in the shooting phase. If this condition is met, then they must be targeted.

So while I'm resolving the fire from Wave Serpent #1, is it possible to target the grenaded unit with the Swooping Hawks?
If yes, please cite the rule allowing me to declare a target during another unit's shooting attack.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Except you're repeatedly ignoring the fact that it is possible to target the unit in the shooting phase. If this condition is met, then they must be targeted.

So while I'm resolving the fire from Wave Serpent #1, is it possible to target the grenaded unit with the Swooping Hawks?
If yes, please cite the rule allowing me to declare a target during another unit's shooting attack.

I'm sorry. Where was the wave serpent in your example and what was it shooting?

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Except you're repeatedly ignoring the fact that it is possible to target the unit in the shooting phase. If this condition is met, then they must be targeted.

So while I'm resolving the fire from Wave Serpent #1, is it possible to target the grenaded unit with the Swooping Hawks?
If yes, please cite the rule allowing me to declare a target during another unit's shooting attack.

I'm sorry. Where was the wave serpent in your example and what was it shooting?

How is that relevant? It's over there shooting the unit of scouts. Cite the rule allowing the Hawks to declare a target while I'm resolving the Wave Serpent's shooting.