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.

So the only things that can "shoot" into cc are:
1. Errant scattering of blast markers and templates (though how a template scatters is beyond me)
2. Vibro Cannon
3. Doom of Malan'tai Spirit Leech ability
4. Any others?

Happyjew wrote:So the only things that can "shoot" into cc are:
1. Errant scattering of blast markers and templates (though how a template scatters is beyond me)
2. Vibro Cannon
3. Doom of Malan'tai Spirit Leech ability
4. Any others?

Basically the key is anything that is randomly generated. I don't know what the exhaustive list is, but you basically cannot willingly shoot into combat. If the shooting attack has a completely random ability associated with it, then it can end up affecting models locked in combat, but you cannot choose to do so yourself even though you would like to.

Yakface,
since your objection to jaws having an effect on any model in cc might I try this way of looking at it.

1. The issue on page 40 is intentional indiscriminate shooting into ccw?
2. Jotww is discriminate in who it effects as it does not effect SW (FAQ)?
3. JOTww is not indiscriminate in who it effects and as such is not bound by that part of page 40

More seriously, since a Rune Priest is often attached to a squad, when they fire, he has to hit the same unit. So if the unit he has to shoot at is infront of a bit CC fight, can he not fire?

yakface wrote:
Would anyone here try to claim that a template which affects a unit besides the target has not been shot by the flamer weapon? And if so, by what rationale?

To be shot means someone was shooting at you. Shooting in 40k is a defined procedure. Models hit that are not the target cannot have followed this procedure.
Therefore not all models that were hit have been shot at as defined in 40k.

So hopefully we can all agree that the rule in general is saying that you are not allowed to fire into combat, period. And note here that there is absolutely no mention of 'targeting' an enemy unit locked in combat, it simply says that you, as a player are not permitted to fire into close combat even though you would like to.

This is the most convincing part of the rules, but I'm still not 100% sure.

The only two units I know that have written rules that allow you to shoot into close combat are both from the GK codex - Vindicare assassin and Karmazov (sp?).

And the Vibro Cannon, and Spirit Leech.

liturgies of blood wrote:Yakface,
since your objection to jaws having an effect on any model in cc might I try this way of looking at it.

1. The issue on page 40 is intentional indiscriminate shooting into ccw?
2. Jotww is discriminate in who it effects as it does not effect SW (FAQ)?
3. JOTww is not indiscriminate in who it effects and as such is not bound by that part of page 40

More seriously, since a Rune Priest is often attached to a squad, when they fire, he has to hit the same unit. So if the unit he has to shoot at is infront of a bit CC fight, can he not fire?

Bolter fire is also discriminate (it has no chance of hitting friendly models). So can I fire Bolters at an enemy unit locked in combat? If no, why would that be disallowed when JotWW isn't? Both are equally discriminate.

rigeld2 wrote:

yakface wrote:
Would anyone here try to claim that a template which affects a unit besides the target has not been shot by the flamer weapon? And if so, by what rationale?

To be shot means someone was shooting at you. Shooting in 40k is a defined procedure. Models hit that are not the target cannot have followed this procedure.
Therefore not all models that were hit have been shot at as defined in 40k.

Good to hear! So when a template covers models outside of the target unit, those units don't suffer any damage because they're not being shot at, correct?

This is a logical fallacy as the rules present the basic way that shooting is resolved but do not cover the variety of specialty shooting that can and does occur. As I've pointed out, you actually won't find in the rules specific examples explaining that when a template covers models from two or more different units that each of those units are affected separately...that's simply inferred by the rules.

But still, when a 2nd unit is hit by a blast or template you still follow the rules for shooting that apply in that instance. You still roll to wound, you still make armor saves and you still remove casualties even though the 2nd unit was not the 'target' of the shooting. They have still been shot, they were just not the target.

yakface wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

yakface wrote:
Would anyone here try to claim that a template which affects a unit besides the target has not been shot by the flamer weapon? And if so, by what rationale?

To be shot means someone was shooting at you. Shooting in 40k is a defined procedure. Models hit that are not the target cannot have followed this procedure.
Therefore not all models that were hit have been shot at as defined in 40k.

Good to hear! So when a template covers models outside of the target unit, those units don't suffer any damage because they're not being shot at, correct?

I never said anything of the kind. Models can absolutely be hit when their unit was not the target. Hits cause damage (by turning into wounds) but hits are not only caused by being shot.

This is a logical fallacy as the rules present the basic way that shooting is resolved but do not cover the variety of specialty shooting that can and does occur. As I've pointed out, you actually won't find in the rules specific examples explaining that when a template covers models from two or more different units that each of those units are affected separately...that's simply inferred by the rules.

Yes, each unit is affected separately. I haven't said otherwise. But being hit does not require being shot.
There are PSAs that cause hits without shooting. There are abilities that cause hits without shooting.
Or does Spirit Leech need to roll to hit, as it's evidently shooting?

But still, when a 2nd unit is hit by a blast or template you still follow the rules for shooting that apply in that instance. You still roll to wound, you still make armor saves and you still remove casualties even though the 2nd unit was not the 'target' of the shooting. They have still been shot, they were just not the target.

False. They were hit, and follow the rules for being hit.
Being shot implies the rules on page 15 for shooting were used against you. That's demonstrably false in the case of a template weapon covering multiple units.

@Yakface:
On everything I can find that can affect units locked in cc; the only "random" one is blast markers scattering.

@-666- there are no rules that allow the Vindicare to shoot in cc. Additionally, Karamazov is only given permission to drop his orbital bombardment on friendly models.

I never expected this question to start such a war on here!

Thanks for everyone who has replied so far! After reading these past few pages Im still stuck!!
I now understand that what I did was illegal, but now the argument is that I cant hit anything in close combat correct?
If that's so, then wouldnt the FAQ which says :

Q. Does Jaws of the World Wolf require line of sight?
Does it ignore terrain that blocks line of sight (i.e.,
impassable terrain)? (p37)
A. As a psychic shooting attack, Jaws of the World Wolf
requires line of sight. The Rune Priest must have line of
sight to the first model that the power affects – in
effect he is treated as the target model; the power just
happens to hit everybody else on its way through!

Now if I target unit X with a Plasma Cannon and it scatters onto unit Y that is allowed.
Now if I Jaws unit X, they are now considered the target, and it hits unit Y also, they are just affected the same way as Unit Y would be from the blast weapon.
So wouldn't this be allowed? Im not saying its a blast weapon but by the wording of the FAQ it would make it seem like it is, for the same reason a blast weapon would be allowed.

Unfortunately you are not going to get an agreement here, and I have a feeling if this comes up at the next INAT meeting it will be ruled that it cannot hit models locked in cc.

I claim it does affect them based on the precedence of the Vibro Cannon FAQ. The counter-argument is you cannot hit anything in cc with a shooting-like attack unless it specifically says so, which means there are only 4 things that can hit in cc (for the purposes of this discussion, I am not counting attacks used in the assault phase). Of those 4 things, 2 of them were FAQ' d to hit cc models.

Why would the Inquistor be given a rule that allows him to hit friendly models while dropping orbital bombardment ?

Specifically it only affects the Orbital Strike Relay. It gives permission to centre the blast on friendly model even one locked in cc. He can do this because (fluff-wise) allies are expendable.

rigeld2 wrote:

yakface wrote:
Would anyone here try to claim that a template which affects a unit besides the target has not been shot by the flamer weapon? And if so, by what rationale?

To be shot means someone was shooting at you. Shooting in 40k is a defined procedure. Models hit that are not the target cannot have followed this procedure.
Therefore not all models that were hit have been shot at as defined in 40k.

Being shot at is a product of being targeted. Being shot is usually related to being shot at, but not always. We agree on this, but I think it proves the opposite of what you'd like it to prove.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

yakface wrote:]But still, when a 2nd unit is hit by a blast or template you still follow the rules for shooting that apply in that instance. You still roll to wound, you still make armor saves and you still remove casualties even though the 2nd unit was not the 'target' of the shooting. They have still been shot, they were just not the target.

False. They were hit, and follow the rules for being hit.
Being shot implies the rules on page 15 for shooting were used against you. That's demonstrably false in the case of a template weapon covering multiple unit.

No, being shot means you were shot, being SHOT AT means the rules for shooting was used against you. Being SHOT means that you were HIT by a weapon or ability that shoots.

jwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

yakface wrote:
Would anyone here try to claim that a template which affects a unit besides the target has not been shot by the flamer weapon? And if so, by what rationale?

To be shot means someone was shooting at you. Shooting in 40k is a defined procedure. Models hit that are not the target cannot have followed this procedure.
Therefore not all models that were hit have been shot at as defined in 40k.

Being shot at is a product of being targeted. Being shot is usually related to being shot at, but not always. We agree on this, but I think it proves the opposite of what you'd like it to prove.

Explain how you can be shot if the other party is not following the rules for shooting please.

rigeld2 wrote:

yakface wrote:]But still, when a 2nd unit is hit by a blast or template you still follow the rules for shooting that apply in that instance. You still roll to wound, you still make armor saves and you still remove casualties even though the 2nd unit was not the 'target' of the shooting. They have still been shot, they were just not the target.

False. They were hit, and follow the rules for being hit.
Being shot implies the rules on page 15 for shooting were used against you. That's demonstrably false in the case of a template weapon covering multiple unit.

No, being shot means you were shot, being SHOT AT means the rules for shooting was used against you. Being SHOT means that you were HIT by a weapon or ability that shoots.

No, being hit means you were hit. It's a 40k defined term. For always arguing RAW you keep misusing terms that are defined in the rules.

rigeld2, you are shot when a shot hits you. The shooting party follows the shooting rules to target and shoot at some target (or their own special rules in some cases). But targeting and shooting at something doesn't mean the model/unit targeted will be shot, nor does not being targeted and shot at mean that you will not be shot. I'm not misusing any defined terms, and acting as if being shot with a lascannon is somehow different from being hit with a shooting attack from a lascannon seems patently absurd to me. When a shooting attack hits you you are shot - how could this be otherwise?

Because shooting/being shot is defined in the rules. It's a process. Part of that process is to select a target.

Which means that if you are not a target you were not shot.
You simply take hits.

This does not line up with English definitions of words, which is what you're using.

That simply isn't true. If you're not targeted you are not shot at. Being shot isn't defined, but I think we can safely agree that being hit with a shooting attack is being shot - surely we can use words to mean what they mean if they are not defined otherwise in the rules?

You can be "Shot" and not have been targeted.

Take Blast markers for example.

you target unit A, the Blast Marker scatters 8 inches, and the Blast Marker hits Unit B that is out of range and LoS.

Unit B was not shot at (Targeted), but it was hit.

Shot it not a defined term in the BRB. Hit is, Target is.

You can be hit without being the target of the "Shot"

rigeld2 wrote:
There are PSAs that cause hits without shooting. There are abilities that cause hits without shooting.
Or does Spirit Leech need to roll to hit, as it's evidently shooting?

One thing I'd like to point out here. Spirit Leech is not a shooting attack, much like a command barge's sweep attack is not a close-combat attack. It is a special rule that falls outside the scope of a shooting attack.

I will try to put Jwolf's argument in my own words, although I am not sure it will help, it may.

The rules do not define the passive verb "to be shot." They define a process of shooting, or a process of what to "shoot at" but not the phrase "been shot" or "shot."

It is possible for a unit to be "Shot At (one would say Targeted)" using the 40k definition in the rules, and not hit, while with the same shooting action (usually a scattering blast) "hits" (the 40k term) a unit that is not "targeted (or shot at, as above)."

In the English language, given the tone of the game, this unit that was "hit" without being "targeted" was still "shot." We are compelled to conclude this because the term "was shot / to be shot" is not a 40k-defined term, and we must use the basic English interpretation.

Units in close combat are not allowed to be "targeted," yes, but they are also not allowed to be "shot" excepting very specific circumstances, which all are quite explicit.

Jaws is fully capable of "hitting" a unit that was not "targeted," therefore conforming with the definition of having "shot" that unit, above.

Since one cannot shoot into close combat, then one is not allowed to have shot into close combat, either.

Using the only definition of "shot" available to us (that of Standard English), we can conclude that a unit in close combat cannot be hit by Jaws of the World Wolf, as this would violate the rule that prevents a unit in close combat from being shot.

The rules do not say units in cc cannot be hit, they say you can not shoot at a unit in cc. In order to shoot at a unit in cc, you must target the unit in cc. If the first model hit is not in cc, then Jaws did not target a unit in cc, and therefore did not shoot at a unit in cc.

Happyjew wrote:The rules do not say units in cc cannot be hit, they say you can not shoot at a unit in cc. In order to shoot at a unit in cc, you must target the unit in cc. If the first model hit is not in cc, then Jaws did not target a unit in cc, and therefore did not shoot at a unit in cc.

You're right, but you missed the ENTIRE POINT of my post.

A unit in CC cannot be "shot" according to Page 40. Since this term is not defined in 40k, we must use the colloquial English definition which best fits the circumstance, i.e. "being hit with a shooting weapon" is being "shot."

So a unit in CC cannot be hit by a shooting weapon, because being hit by a shooting weapon is synonymous with being shot, and per page 40, a unit in CC cannot be shot.

EDIT: Except for specific, explicit cases which do not include JotWW.

The first listed definition of "shoot" as per Dictionary.com is:

"to hit, wound, damage, kill, or destroy with a missile discharged from a weapon."

"Shot" is the "Past tense and past participle of shoot."

So, hitting something with a missile discharged from a weapon is equivalent to shooting it. I think the only argument remaining is whether 40K uses different definitions for words than the English language does.

For what it's worth, Yakface essentially convinced me of his position due to the following:

yakface wrote:The easiest example to debunk this myth is the standard template weapon. That weapon chooses a target, but can then end up covering and affecting models from other units besides the 'target' one.

I just can't find a more similar rule (even the Vibro Cannon is less similar, in my opinion) to set a precedent.

I'm with Yak. If your shooting attack strikes/affects a unit, it has shot that unit, whether or not that unit was targeted.

Page 40 puts a blanket prohibition on shooting into combat, independent of targeting.

Shot is the past tense of shoot.
To shoot in 40k you must have targeted a unit - page 15.
Jaws does not target every unit it hits - SW FAQ.
Therefore Jaws does not shoot every unit it hits.

To say that every unit hit is shot means that you can assault something you did not target. Page 33 says "can only assault the unit that it shot at".
So you can Jaws a Carnifex right in front of you, then assault the unit of Warriors just behind it after the Carnifex dies? What about if the Carnifex is still alive?

The same goes for Template weapons - if that's all you fire and you tag multiple units, you're allowed to pick any of them?

rigeld2 wrote:Shot is the past tense of shoot.
To shoot in 40k you must have targeted a unit - page 15.
Jaws does not target every unit it hits - SW FAQ.
Therefore Jaws does not shoot every unit it hits.

To say that every unit hit is shot means that you can assault something you did not target. Page 33 says "can only assault the unit that it shot at".
So you can Jaws a Carnifex right in front of you, then assault the unit of Warriors just behind it after the Carnifex dies? What about if the Carnifex is still alive?

The same goes for Template weapons - if that's all you fire and you tag multiple units, you're allowed to pick any of them?

And again you treat SHOOTING AT a unit as the same thing as SHOOTING a unit, which emphatically is not the case. Yes, to SHOOT AT a unit you generally must TARGET it. But to SHOOT a unit only requires that you HIT it. Targeting is still not the same thing as shooting which is the same thing as hitting. Targeting a unit is generally the same thing as shooting at a unit, but it isn't always even that (EX: Doom targets a unit, Guide targets a unit, neither shoots anything).

No one is arguing the TARGETING of a single model with JotWW, and continuing to act as if your incorrect assertion that SHOOTING = TARGETING (which is absolutely incorrect, both in the rules and in the vernacular) does nothing to help your case.

I have always read it as yakface states.
Still do.

Also, this:

jy2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
There are PSAs that cause hits without shooting. There are abilities that cause hits without shooting.
Or does Spirit Leech need to roll to hit, as it's evidently shooting?

One thing I'd like to point out here. Spirit Leech is not a shooting attack, much like a command barge's sweep attack is not a close-combat attack. It is a special rule that falls outside the scope of a shooting attack.

Thank you, jy2.

Jwolf, to shoot and to shoot at are synonyms in the British Isles. I shot and I shot at are the same. It is contextual to an extent. "I shot my bolter" for when you fired but both "I shot the eldar" and "I shot at the eldar" are perfectly useable and mean the same thing unless qualified by context. I think you are trying to conflate an extra definintion in there that is not. Hiting is not the same as shooting in 40k, shooting is a process while hitting is a result of the first roll of that process(if not the 2nd due to night fighting).
The last thing is hitting is not the same as effecting, the rules for Jotww says any model under the line is effected. The rule says nothign about hitting.

The rulebook does tend to use some colloquial use of the queens english so they made it clear in the rule book.
To shoot, you must declare a target, if the weapon scatters and lands on something else that is hit. Targets must be valid and the rulebook gives a lis of them and excludes targetting cc.
Since Jaws has been faq'd to say that the target is only the first model hit, it stands to reason that you only have to ensure that the first model is a valid target. The fact that jaws is also stated to only effect enemy models seems to lend credence to the RAW that only the first model matters for declaring a valid shooting of the PSA.

rigeld2 wrote:Shot is the past tense of shoot.
To shoot in 40k you must have targeted a unit - page 15.
Jaws does not target every unit it hits - SW FAQ.
Therefore Jaws does not shoot every unit it hits.

The definition of "shoot" is "to hit." As per the definition of the word, shooting is hitting. Hitting is shooting. If you hit something, you shoot it. I'm following your reasoning in your posts and I see what you're saying, but I think you're claiming that 40K uses different definitions for the words than the dictionary, and therefore common usage, does.

liturgies of blood wrote:
Since Jaws has been faq'd to say that the target is only the first model hit, it stands to reason that you only have to ensure that the first model is a valid target.

This is a really good point, though.