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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Type40 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Type40 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strats are not what we are talking about at all.

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

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

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not strawmaning, you said this

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

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

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

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

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

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

@DeathReaper.

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

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

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

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