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.

Its 6am, I've been up all night playing 40k and Borderlands and contrary to my title, I do need sleep now and then. Consider this post a place holder for tomorrow morning, when I will address some of the "new" (Nothings really new besides Devians post) concerns.

Also one more thing before I pass out, if you believe a degree in Mechanical engineering is equally applicable to a rules discussion as a degree in Law (remember, laws are the "Rules" of society, thus me being able to say "Lol, you use big law words like 'Permissive Ruleset', without knowing in the slightest what they mean" cause guess what, the definition you are using is WRONG, it would be like me saying the filament of a light-bulb is the outer layer of glass, as an electrical engineer you should know more about the intricacies of a light-bulb/electrical engineering, as you have studied it, as I actually STUDY law and contracts and specific wording (such as this example) then you can hopefully understand how my specific area of study is not "Useless" in this field...

Why do you think we are called "Rules Lawyers"?

Anywho

~To be continued~

Still doesnt alter that you arent aware of how the rules for this GAME are written, or the 2 main ways rules are written for games. Which is all that matters.

Your "reading' of the rules requires taht all units are able to target 2 units. Which is wrong. So your argument, and your conclusion, is wrong.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:I take it that you're going to ignore my point that you can not taget the GKGM and therefore shrouding does not kick in. In fact the GKGM does not even get hurt unless you want him to get hurt.

No, as you have the choice to place wounds from the shooting unit onto the IC, he is still technically a target (as if you are not a target from a non-template weapon, how can you be hit?)

Maybe your terminology is wrong or I am just unclear about it. Are you saying that because you, the controller of the unit being shot at, can opt to wound the GK that I the shooter have to undertake the shrouding test even if I am not shooting at the GK? At that point you must also claim that if a template drifts over the GK that shrouding take effect. Neither of these situations is within the perview of the shooting player and as such neither penalty applies.
As you should know from your minor of Law can is very different from must. Just because you can do something does not negate the hazards of doing so. For example if I tell you, you may (can) wrestle a polar bear and you do so the resulting liability is on your head. If, however, I say that you must wrestle a polar bear then the liability rests on me.
BTW I have a Doctorate in Law does that make my interpretation/reading of the rules automatically better than yours? Of course not, so why bring it up in the first place?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Are you saying that because you, the controller of the unit being shot at, can opt to wound the GK that I the shooter have to undertake the shrouding test even if I am not shooting at the GK? At that point you must also claim that if a template drifts over the GK that shrouding take effect.

If the GK can take wounds from your shooting, you are targeting them and they get their shrouding roll.

Of course, that's not the case with the scattering blast marker because the GKs weren't the original target.

But the GK CAN take wounds from the blast (based on your criteria for shrouding above) so it would apply?

Cool in that case I am not intending to wound the GK models, I intend only to hurt the squad..?

Laws of Nature, Laws of Man, Murphy's Laws...a degree in any of these is equally as applicable because none of them are GW Rules (laws) degrees

calypso2ts wrote:But the GK CAN take wounds from the blast (based on your criteria for shrouding above) so it would apply?

You didn't read the post, did you? Or if I was unclear, my apologies.

The GKs weren't targeted, so no shrouding.

Sorry but your reply says 'If the GK CAN take wounds form your shooting, you are targeting them' which is patently a false statement.

calypso2ts wrote:Sorry but your reply says 'If the GK CAN take wounds form your shooting, you are targeting them' which is patently a false statement.

Monster Rain wrote:Of course, that's not the case with the scattering blast marker because the GKs weren't the original target.

Read the thread, brohemoth.

Is that the post you are referring to?

The logical equivalent to your statement - p->q is ~q->~p
(simplified slightly there is an and in there but makes no difference)

That would be "If you are not targeting them, they cannot take wounds ."

This is clearly a false statement - see the blast markers. The only way for it to be true is if they did not take wounds from blasts, OR they were targeted by the blasts (and get shrouding).

Therefore, it is an inherently false logical argument for why shrouding would apply, ie the idea that they can take wounds and are therefore a target and as such are shrouded.

That is the long version of the argument, I was trying to be a bit more succinct with it.

calypso2ts wrote:The logical equivalent to your statement - p->q is ~q->~p
(simplified slightly there is an and in there but makes no difference)

That would be "If you are not targeting them, they cannot take wounds ."

This is clearly a false statement - see the blast markers. The only way for it to be true is if they did not take wounds from blasts, OR they were targeted by the blasts (and get shrouding).

Therefore, it is an inherently false logical argument for why shrouding would apply, ie the idea that they can take wounds and are therefore a target and as such are shrouded.

That is the long version of the argument, I was trying to be a bit more succinct with it.

Thanks for that, Aristotle.

Re-read the section on firing blast weapons and get back to me. The issue is targeting, not the ability to take wounds. It's two separate issues.

MR - and yet the GKGM is never the TARGET.

The combined unit is the target. The one and ONLY target I can declare

So no shrouding. OR you are advocating that all units can target multiple units?

Here, let me point thos out again:

The GKs don't benefit from The Shouting from scattering blast markers, for the reason that nos just gave. The same way you wouldn't have to roll nightfight if your marker scattered onto another unit.

A GKGM in a unit of non-GK also doesnt benefit from Shrouding regardless, as he isnt being targetted.

nosferatu1001 wrote:A GKGM in a unit of non-GK also doesnt benefit from Shrouding regardless, as he isnt being targetted.

That's debatable. The real answer is that you should discuss it with your opponents IRL and house rule it, but it's much more fun to go around and around in increasingly angry tones, n'cest pas?

The other bit about scattering blast markers I thought would be standard information.

I am not the one who is making claims about the ability to wound a model being a good criteria to determine if the unit was targeted. Here is your post...

MonsterRain wrote:
If the GK can take wounds from your shooting, you are targeting them and they get their shrouding roll.

I was, instead, showing why the statement you made is completely incorrect. Maybe you need to brush up on the blast rules, which formed the basis for why this statement is garbage.

I agree if you want to play it so shrouding works on the joined unit, you need to house rule it.

calypso2ts wrote:I am not the one who is making claims about the ability to wound a model being a good criteria to determine if the unit was targeted. Here is your post...

MonsterRain wrote:
If the GK can take wounds from your shooting, you are targeting them and they get their shrouding roll.

I was, instead, showing why the statement you made is completely incorrect. Maybe you need to brush up on the blast rules, which formed the basis for why this statement is garbage.

I agree if you want to play it so shrouding works on the joined unit, you need to house rule it.

It helps if you quote the whole post.

Monster Rain wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Are you saying that because you, the controller of the unit being shot at, can opt to wound the GK that I the shooter have to undertake the shrouding test even if I am not shooting at the GK? At that point you must also claim that if a template drifts over the GK that shrouding take effect.

If the GK can take wounds from your shooting, you are targeting them and they get their shrouding roll.

Of course, that's not the case with the scattering blast marker because the GKs weren't the original target.

Monster Rain wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:A GKGM in a unit of non-GK also doesnt benefit from Shrouding regardless, as he isnt being targetted.

That's debatable. The real answer is that you should discuss it with your opponents IRL and house rule it, but it's much more fun to go around and around in increasingly angry tones, n'cest pas?

The other bit about scattering blast markers I thought would be standard information.

IT really isnt debateable. Unless you belive that when they say the IC is "part of" the unit and you are tehrefore targetting the combined unit, and NOT the GKGM, isnt true.

IT requires not following the rules, or pretending that the rules allow you to target more than 1 unit with a standard units firing. Which is it you believe again? You never did answer the question.

After your "boom" comments earlier i would have thought you would have been eager to have a definitive answer. Or is it because it you have realised the rules REALLY dont support your argument that you have now decided it is "unclear"?

Classic MR.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Or is it because it you have realised the rules REALLY dont support your argument that you have now decided to start with personal attacks?

Ah, YMDC. Why so serious? Fix'd that for you by the way.

I'm not going to argue with you and your leaps of logic. DAR showed pictures of the rules and you persist with the semantic distortion. Oh well. I think there's an argument for DAR and Darth Bob's way of thinking based on RAW, and you disagree, countering with irrelevant logical arguments. Since neither side seems to want to give, I say house rule it. I don't think it's unclear, and frankly your arguments don't make any sense to me but since you seem to believe them to the point of actually being angry about it I'm willing to compromise.

A mistake on the internet, I know. I guess I'm just an optimist to a fault.

So you admit you were making personal attacks? Brilliant!

DAR showed pictures of rules that dont support his argument. They actually contradicted his argument, as was shown by everyone.

His argument relies on the FLAWED idea that you can target more than one unit at a time with a single unit. This is not supported, anywhere, in the rules.

This isnt debateable. This isnt in doubt. It actually requires ignoring rules (and making Long Fangs, Super Heavies, Tau Target Lock et al special rules redundant in the process) in order to make up an idea that you are targetting >1 unit.

So, do you believe that you can target more than one unit with a single unit, or do you support the rules as written?

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, do you believe that you can target more than one unit with a single unit, or do you support the rules as written?

That's a false dichotomy based on bad logic.

Sorry brohemoth. I'm not playing this game. I've said all I have to say on the matter, unsubscribing from thread now. Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.

Monster Rain wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, do you believe that you can target more than one unit with a single unit, or do you support the rules as written?

That's a false dichotomy based on bad logic.

No, no it isn't.

If you are targeting a combined unit, you are targeting a combined unit. Not two component units.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, do you believe that you can target more than one unit with a single unit, or do you support the rules as written?

That's a false dichotomy based on bad logic.

No, no it isn't.

If you are targeting a combined unit, you are targeting a combined unit. Not two component units.

Wow, you're fast.

Right. I don't know how that premise even came up based on the arguments presented earlier in the thread. The IC is considered as being part of the unit. Why would it be two units again?

Monster Rain wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, do you believe that you can target more than one unit with a single unit, or do you support the rules as written?

That's a false dichotomy based on bad logic.

Sorry brohemoth. I'm not playing this game. I've said all I have to say on the matter, unsubscribing from thread now. Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.

Bzzzt, wrong.

WHen you target {GKGM+non-GK} are you targetting one unit or two? If you are targetting 2 units explain how you are fulfilling the permission to only target 1 unit.

Is the game you're not playing the "oh damn, I've been caught making silly "threads over!" comments on previous pages and now that argument has been shown to be bunk, better run and pretend it isnt blindingly clear" game?

Classic MR, classic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, do you believe that you can target more than one unit with a single unit, or do you support the rules as written?

That's a false dichotomy based on bad logic.

Sorry brohemoth. I'm not playing this game. I've said all I have to say on the matter, unsubscribing from thread now. Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.

Bzzzt, wrong.

WHen you target {GKGM+non-GK} are you targetting one unit or two? If you are targetting 2 units explain how you are fulfilling the permission to only target 1 unit.

Is the game you're not playing the "oh damn, I've been caught making silly "threads over!" comments on previous pages and now that argument has been shown to be bunk, better run and pretend it isnt blindingly clear" game?

Classic MR, classic.

I think the case is clear. You don't. I'm not going to let you put me on the defensive, dude. "House Rule It" is my standard answer for when the navel-gazing gets too silly.

Big deal?

The case IS clear. You can only target one unit, and that unit isnt a GK Unit. No Shrouding apples

So what is clear for you? THat you are targetting multiple units? If so where is you permission to do so?

Simple, yes no question for you: do you vbelieve you can target multiple units with a single units firing?

Yes or No. [its like that damn hammer again, isnt it.]

nosferatu1001 wrote:[its like that damn hammer again, isnt it.]

LOL, that is a good image, though, isn't it?

nosferatu1001 wrote:The case IS clear. You can only target one unit, and that unit isnt a GK Unit. No Shrouding apples

So what is clear for you? THat you are targetting multiple units? If so where is you permission to do so?

Simple, yes no question for you: do you vbelieve you can target multiple units with a single units firing?

Yes or No. [its like that damn hammer again, isnt it.]

Those aren't the only options so there's no point in answering the question.

Shooting at a unit that contains an IC isn't shooting at two units, it's shooting at a combined unit with different attributes given by different models that comprise it.

Hammer?

Monster Rain wrote:Hammer?

This hammer, I believe--from the "Is it on the table?" threads.



Gwar! took the text off and uses just the image, but yea; I found it in relation to our QA department so I think the bug report part is funny too.

kirsanth wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Hammer?

This hammer, I believe--from the "Is it on the table?" threads.



Gwar! took the text off and uses just the image, but yea; I found it in relation to our QA department so I think the bug report part is funny too.

Ha! Yeah, I see what you mean.

That's funny! Funny... or witchcraft. I'm not quite sure.

Monster Rain wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The case IS clear. You can only target one unit, and that unit isnt a GK Unit. No Shrouding apples

So what is clear for you? THat you are targetting multiple units? If so where is you permission to do so?

Simple, yes no question for you: do you vbelieve you can target multiple units with a single units firing?

Yes or No. [its like that damn hammer again, isnt it.]

Those aren't the only options so there's no point in answering the question.

Shooting at a unit that contains an IC isn't shooting at two units, it's shooting at a combined unit with different attributes given by different models that comprise it.

Hammer?

Bzzzt, wrong again.

The criteria for Shrouding to activate at all is that you are TARGETTING a UNIT of GKs.

The ONLY thing that matters is: are you targetting a unit of GK? If yes! you get to carry on and find out what Shrouding does.

So, please - answer the question, with a simple yes or no. Do you belive you can target multiple units with a single units firing? Yes or No.

Not difficult.