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.

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:Yes or no. Is the predator firing some of its weapons?

No, it is firing all of its weapons. The LOS rules provide for a weapon being forced to not fire. You still cannot optionally choose to not fire it.

So, when a weapon "cannot be fired", it is firing? . . . It doesn't shoot, then check LOS then say, "Whoops, that weapon cannot be fired." Because that's what you're suggesting. Instead, the weapons check LOS and find that one cannot shoot. Hence, it doesn't fire it. You don't shoot first, check LOS later.

No, you Declare Shooting first, then check LOS. Declaring Shooting is the key. You must declare all your weapons are firing at the target, you check LOS. If some do not have LOS, then they are forced to not fire.

Great. So in being forced not to fire, you're firing some of the predator's weapons - whether it's a choice or not. Earlier you said that you must fire all or none. Since you're being FORCED to NOT fire the right sponson, and you CANNOT fire SOME of your weapons, the tank cannot fire ANY weapons.

kirsanth wrote:

puma713 wrote:Under the RANGE heading?

Why would I do that, if you read my post I was not refering to range in that line. The rest dealt with range.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:STATE WHAT IT SAYS

"If a target is beyond this maximum range, the shot misses automatically." Page 17, Main Rule Book.

This entire quote is out of context and you well know it.

kirsanth wrote:

puma713 wrote:Under the RANGE heading?

Why would I do that, if you read my post I was not refering to range in that line. The rest dealt with range.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:STATE WHAT IT SAYS

"If a target is beyond this maximum range, the shot misses automatically." Page 17, Main Rule Book.

Right, RANGE has nothing to do with LOS.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, you Declare Shooting first, then check LOS. Declaring Shooting is the key. You must declare all your weapons are firing at the target, you check LOS. If some do not have LOS, then they are forced to not fire.

So they are not firing.

But you are attempting to fire. Thus, you have fired, but it cannot do anything because LOS is blocked. You cannot Declare "I am only shooting with one gun" with a stationary vehicle, because the rules do not say you can.

Gwar! wrote:No, you Declare Shooting first, then check LOS. Declaring Shooting is the key. You must declare all your weapons are firing at the target, you check LOS. If some do not have LOS, then they are forced to not fire.

I know I can't measure range before declaring shooting (unless I have wargear that lets me ala Targeter) but this is the first time anyone has even suggested you can't check LOS before declaring.

So what... I can't stoop over and see what my model can see before declaring shooting?

[quote=GwarBut you are attempting to fire. Thus, you have fired, but it cannot do anything because LOS is blocked.

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, you Declare Shooting first, then check LOS. Declaring Shooting is the key. You must declare all your weapons are firing at the target, you check LOS. If some do not have LOS, then they are forced to not fire.

So they are not firing.

But you are attempting to fire. Thus, you have fired, but it cannot do anything because LOS is blocked. You cannot Declare "I am only shooting with one gun" with a stationary vehicle, because the rules do not say you can.

No, you haven't "fired". You may have attempted to fire, but you haven't fired. You can't. Therefore, you did shoot some of your weapons. I'm not even discussing the issue at hand anymore. I think your assertion is ridiculous and the way you pull everything in your defense out of context, I don't think it has much validity. Now I'm trying to prove that you're stating two separate things. On the one hand, you've said you must fire all or none. On the other hand, the book says a weapon without LOS cannot be fired. You said you must declare that you're firing, then check LOS. Once you find that you don't have LOS, you don't fire. You may attempt to fire, but you do not fire. Therefore, according to you, you cannot fire any weapons, because it is all or none.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

kirsanth wrote:
Lack of LOS allows weapons to not fire (or rather auto-miss).

There is absolutely nothing in the rulebook about an 'auto-miss', weapons that cannot fire are not fired.

kirsanth wrote:Wrong again, see page 17.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:STATE WHAT IT SAYS

kirsanth wrote:"If a target is beyond this maximum range, the shot misses automatically." Page 17, Main Rule Book.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
This entire quote is out of context and you well know it.

Really?
I wrote the context that time.

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:When it is taken out of context as you so adamantly continue to do, yes.

Except it is not just me.

But is just you. So bored that you need this debate?

Gwar! wrote:
And anyway, I can prove it without needing the "must fire rule" (though why you would ignore it is beyond me).

It says you may fire all of your weapons. It does not say "You may Fire 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 weapons." nor does it say "You may fire Up to all your weapons". It says you may fire all your weapons.

If someone waves a wad of $100 bills in front of you and says "You may take all the money", you may take all the money, or none of it. There is provision to take some of the money.

Execpt your "must fire rule" doesnt exist.
Except that this thread has enough disproval of your theory.
Except selective quoting doesnt help.

Target selction isnt weapon selection.

It not impossible to run in circles for the rest of this year.
Why not accept it as it is?

If youre so interested in a different RAW, there is the option to join GW ( they recrut a lot today ) and move up through the ranks until
youre the one that writes the Book.

7 pages in, tons of Mod Alerts...

Must be time to lock it up!

If anyone disagrees, or if anyone can think of a reason why this should continue, please let me know, or post a new thread.