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.
Not a relevant question. There's no restriction for CC attacks that auto hit in the Hammer of Wrath chain. There is in the Wall of Death chain. You continue to ignore that difference. [Snip] A Snap Shot is very much more than simply requiring a 6 to hit. The reason your argument fails is that you fail to apply all the rules.
nosferatu1001 wrote: [Snip] not relevant, as there is no clause preventing auto hits in cc. You realise there is one in snapshot, yes? You've quoted the rule so are surely aware there is a difference? [Snip] How is that similar to the clause disallowing automatic hits? Please reference the same clause in invis. Page and graph. 2nd time of asking. [Snip] Good job that isn't all of the snapshot restriction then! It's almost like yours arguing dishonestly by leaving out key parts of a rule. Don't.
Snapshot has more restrictions. Such as not being able to fire template weapons. Invis requires you to fire a snapshot. Show how you haves one so - page and grAoh. [Snip] Because when firing at the unit you can only fire snapshots. Any weapon unabl to fire snapshots csnnot fire. I am unsure how this concept is evading you.
Please, explain how you are selecting a weapon to fire, when firing it breaks a rule. Is cheating allowable now?
So you are both relying on this Rule, from Snap Shots: "Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots."
Great ! What do you think Wall of Death does to that rule? I thought we had already agreed that these weapons could not fire? I can't fire the weapon, otherwise i break the Snap Shot rule. I follow the Wall of Death rule Instead and get D3 Auto-Hits. I just resolve Auto-Hits, like i would for Hammer of Wrath
Incorrect. You don't just "follow the rule" - you're firing a Template weapon per the Wall of Death rule. Templates are explicitly allowed to fire Overwatch shots - but they are not firing Snap Shots.
The restrictions are exactly the same: A) The weapons fired at the target must be Snap shots, or they break Rules. B) Close Combat attacks at the target must have rolled a 6 To Hit, or they break Rules.
Again, this is incorrect. Snap Shots is simply not the same as needing a 6 to hit.
Your position disallows Hammer of Wrath and Wall of Death. If it only allows one and not the other, your are being inconsistent with the application of Rules (Cherry-picking which Auto-Hits are allowed).
That's a lie and I've explained why. You failed to rebut my explanation, and instead continue to repeat an incorrect statement. My position does not disallow HoW.
---> Actually, I can't shoot, because i cannot Snap Fire with this weapon.
Again, you're literally ignoring the fact that Wall of Death explicitly says that the Template weapon is fired.
nos wrote:Are you allowed to fire a non-snapshot shot at a unit that requires all firing is a snapshot?
No, as shown above.
Are you allowed to fire an Auto-Hit at a unit that requires all firing is a snapshot? Yes, as Shown above.
Despite the part of Snap Shot that explicitly disallows that?
Your continued insistence that you have to fire a snap shot when the WoD special rule is actually providing you with D3 Auto-Hits is getting grating.
Grating or not, it's a fact. You agreed that you are not allowed to fire a non-snap shot weapon at a target that requires snap shots. And then you go on to say that you can fire a Template weapon at a target that requires all firing is a snapshot.
Hammer of Wrath does not roll a 6 To Hit, yet the Invisibility rules requires that you have to roll a 6 To Hit for all close combat attacks. Does Hammer of Wrath not target the Invisible Unit? Is it not a CC Attack?
It is. Requiring a 6 to hit is not the same as requiring a Snap Shot. You continue to ignore a significant amount of rules to compare them.
They are the same situation, but keep denying cherry-picking restrictions for your Auto-Hits.
They are not the same situation, but keep ignoring rules to attempt to make your point.
On that note, i'm getting just as bored as with the Void Shield Blast argument. At least that one was fun because the RaW was complex. This is just easy stuff. I know what the RaW conclusion is, and will wait for FaQ confirmation or some other change in the rules before i post again.
I'd love for you to explain why you think ignoring rules is RAW. Just once.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/26 14:00:35
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Not a relevant question. There's no restriction for CC attacks that auto hit in the Hammer of Wrath chain.
There is in the Wall of Death chain. You continue to ignore that difference.
[Snip]
A Snap Shot is very much more than simply requiring a 6 to hit. The reason your argument fails is that you fail to apply all the rules.
nosferatu1001 wrote: [Snip]
not relevant, as there is no clause preventing auto hits in cc. You realise there is one in snapshot, yes? You've quoted the rule so are surely aware there is a difference?
[Snip]
How is that similar to the clause disallowing automatic hits? Please reference the same clause in invis. Page and graph. 2nd time of asking. [Snip]
Good job that isn't all of the snapshot restriction then! It's almost like yours arguing dishonestly by leaving out key parts of a rule. Don't.
Snapshot has more restrictions. Such as not being able to fire template weapons. Invis requires you to fire a snapshot. Show how you haves one so - page and grAoh.
[Snip]
Because when firing at the unit you can only fire snapshots. Any weapon unabl to fire snapshots csnnot fire. I am unsure how this concept is evading you.
Please, explain how you are selecting a weapon to fire, when firing it breaks a rule. Is cheating allowable now?
So you are both relying on this Rule, from Snap Shots:
"Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots."
Great ! What do you think Wall of Death does to that rule? I thought we had already agreed that these weapons could not fire?
I can't fire the weapon, otherwise i break the Snap Shot rule.
I follow the Wall of Death rule Instead and get D3 Auto-Hits. I just resolve Auto-Hits, like i would for Hammer of Wrath
Incorrect. You don't just "follow the rule" - you're firing a Template weapon per the Wall of Death rule. Templates are explicitly allowed to fire Overwatch shots - but they are not firing Snap Shots.
Incorrect. You have a special ability which inflicts auto-hits. This is more specific than snapshots. Specific>General.
The restrictions are exactly the same:
A) The weapons fired at the target must be Snap shots, or they break Rules.
B) Close Combat attacks at the target must have rolled a 6 To Hit, or they break Rules.
Again, this is incorrect. Snap Shots is simply not the same as needing a 6 to hit.
Again, this is incorrect. Because the special rule "Wall of Death" is more specific than snapshots, you are allowed the D3 auto-hits.
Your position disallows Hammer of Wrath and Wall of Death. If it only allows one and not the other, your are being inconsistent with the application of Rules (Cherry-picking which Auto-Hits are allowed).
That's a lie and I've explained why. You failed to rebut my explanation, and instead continue to repeat an incorrect statement. My position does not disallow HoW.
Actually, that's a lie. He has shown why it is exactly the same and you have failed to show how it is not.
Your continued insistence that you have to fire a snap shot when the WoD special rule is actually providing you with D3 Auto-Hits is getting grating.
Grating or not, it's a fact.
You agreed that you are not allowed to fire a non-snap shot weapon at a target that requires snap shots.
And then you go on to say that you can fire a Template weapon at a target that requires all firing is a snapshot.
It is clearly not a fact. It's your opinion and many believe for good reason that it is incorrect. They feel this way because the rules say you are incorrect as has been pointed out to you many times. The fact that you keep claiming that this is not ambiguous is what I think he is talking about when he says it's beginning to grate.
You are not allowed to fire snapshots with a weapon that cannot snapshot. Wall of Death is a special rule that does auto-hits - bypassing the need to roll to hit at all and allowing you to inflict hits on a unit that requires you to use the general rule "snapshot".
Hammer of Wrath does not roll a 6 To Hit, yet the Invisibility rules requires that you have to roll a 6 To Hit for all close combat attacks.
Does Hammer of Wrath not target the Invisible Unit? Is it not a CC Attack?
It is. Requiring a 6 to hit is not the same as requiring a Snap Shot. You continue to ignore a significant amount of rules to compare them.
Indeed it truly is. And requiring a 6 to hit when you are using a special rule that tells you you don't have to roll to hit is exactly the same as requiring a snapshot. You continue to ignore a significant amount of rules to say they are not similar.
On that note, i'm getting just as bored as with the Void Shield Blast argument. At least that one was fun because the RaW was complex. This is just easy stuff.
I know what the RaW conclusion is, and will wait for FaQ confirmation or some other change in the rules before i post again.
I'd love for you to explain why you think ignoring rules is RAW. Just once.
I'd love for you to explain why you think ignoring rules is RAW. Just once
You see, just because you take a person's post apart one line at a time does not make you correct.
The flaws in your argument are the same flaws you are accusing others of having in their arguments. The things that you are accusing others of ignoring are similar to the things you are ignoring. You're claim that this is unambiguously and clearly a case of invisibility trumping wall of death is indefensible for all of the reasons I've pointed out above.
The really frustrating thing is that I know you will take this post apart one line at a time and just say "wrong for the reasons I've shown" after each line, just like you did with what was unarguably a very well written post by blacktalos.
Can we please get a MOD to lock this thread? This argument will not be resolved here.
Incorrect. You don't just "follow the rule" - you're firing a Template weapon per the Wall of Death rule. Templates are explicitly allowed to fire Overwatch shots - but they are not firing Snap Shots.
Incorrect. You have a special ability which inflicts auto-hits. This is more specific than snapshots. Specific>General.
No. You have a special rule that allows Templates to fire in Overwatch - since that's literally what the rule actually says. And it's not firing snap shots.
The restrictions are exactly the same: A) The weapons fired at the target must be Snap shots, or they break Rules. B) Close Combat attacks at the target must have rolled a 6 To Hit, or they break Rules.
Again, this is incorrect. Snap Shots is simply not the same as needing a 6 to hit.
Again, this is incorrect. Because the special rule "Wall of Death" is more specific than snapshots, you are allowed the D3 auto-hits.
What does that have to do with Snap Shots not being the same as needing a 6 to hit?
Your position disallows Hammer of Wrath and Wall of Death. If it only allows one and not the other, your are being inconsistent with the application of Rules (Cherry-picking which Auto-Hits are allowed).
That's a lie and I've explained why. You failed to rebut my explanation, and instead continue to repeat an incorrect statement. My position does not disallow HoW.
Actually, that's a lie. He has shown why it is exactly the same and you have failed to show how it is not.
No, he hasn't. They're demonstrably different. Here, I'll show you: in CC you need a 6 to hit. End of line. Snap Shots:
Spoiler:
Snap Shots Under specific circumstances, models must fire Snap Shots – opportunistic bursts of fire ‘snapped’ off in the general direction of the target. The most common occurrences of Snap Shots are when models with Heavy weapons move and shoot in the same turn or when units make Overwatch shots. If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of those shots, unless it has a Ballistic Skill of 0 (in which case it may not shoot). The Ballistic Skill of a model firing a Snap Shot can only be modified by special rules that specifically state that they affect Snap Shots, along with any other restrictions (some may only modify Ballistic Skill when firing Overwatch Snap Shots, for example). If a special rule doesn’t specifically state that it affects Snap Shots, then the Snap Shot is resolved at Ballistic Skill 1. Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots. In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot. These exceptions aside, Snap Shots are treated in the same manner as any other shooting attack made with a Ballistic Skill of 1.
---> Actually, I can't shoot, because i cannot Snap Fire with this weapon.
Again, you're literally ignoring the fact that Wall of Death explicitly says that the Template weapon is fired.
Again, you're literally ignoring the fact that Wall of Death is more specific than snapshots and therefore is allowed.
It's absolutely allowed to fire Overwatch. It may be more specific (I don't care to debate that) but it does not conflict with Invisibility, and therefore doesn't override the Snap Shot requirement on Invisibility.
nos wrote:Are you allowed to fire a non-snapshot shot at a unit that requires all firing is a snapshot?
No, as shown above.
Are you allowed to fire an Auto-Hit at a unit that requires all firing is a snapshot? Yes, as Shown above.
Despite the part of Snap Shot that explicitly disallows that?
Despite the part of Wall of Death being more specific than snapshots?
Are you just spamming the same thing over and over? I'm legitimately attempting to have an honest discussion and it feels like you (and others) are deliberately ignoring rules, not quoting the rules you assert exist, and just repeating the same thing for no reason.
Your continued insistence that you have to fire a snap shot when the WoD special rule is actually providing you with D3 Auto-Hits is getting grating.
Grating or not, it's a fact. You agreed that you are not allowed to fire a non-snap shot weapon at a target that requires snap shots. And then you go on to say that you can fire a Template weapon at a target that requires all firing is a snapshot.
It is clearly not a fact. It's your opinion and many believe for good reason that it is incorrect. They feel this way because the rules say you are incorrect as has been pointed out to you many times. The fact that you keep claiming that this is not ambiguous is what I think he is talking about when he says it's beginning to grate.
The sky is yellow at all times. I'm sure you disagree, therefore the statement "The sky is blue" cannot be fact. Right? Disagreement doesn't change fact - you can disagree that light exists, but that doesn't change a fact. The rules don't say I'm incorrect - and it hasn't been "pointed out". It's been asserted but with zero supporting rules.
You are not allowed to fire snapshots with a weapon that cannot snapshot. Wall of Death is a special rule that does auto-hits - bypassing the need to roll to hit at all and allowing you to inflict hits on a unit that requires you to use the general rule "snapshot".
The underlined is absolutely, 100% false. Quote the rule and prove me wrong.
Hammer of Wrath does not roll a 6 To Hit, yet the Invisibility rules requires that you have to roll a 6 To Hit for all close combat attacks. Does Hammer of Wrath not target the Invisible Unit? Is it not a CC Attack?
It is. Requiring a 6 to hit is not the same as requiring a Snap Shot. You continue to ignore a significant amount of rules to compare them.
Indeed it truly is. And requiring a 6 to hit when you are using a special rule that tells you you don't have to roll to hit is exactly the same as requiring a snapshot. You continue to ignore a significant amount of rules to say they are not similar.
I'm ignoring the Snap Shot rules? Really? What rules am I ignoring? You made the assertion, prove it.
On that note, i'm getting just as bored as with the Void Shield Blast argument. At least that one was fun because the RaW was complex. This is just easy stuff. I know what the RaW conclusion is, and will wait for FaQ confirmation or some other change in the rules before i post again.
I'd love for you to explain why you think ignoring rules is RAW. Just once.
I'd love for you to explain why you think ignoring rules is RAW. Just once
Again, what rules am I ignoring?
You see, just because you take a person's post apart one line at a time does not make you correct.
Would you prefer I just put my entire reply after his post in one block of text? I'd rather respond to his points individually.
The flaws in your argument are the same flaws you are accusing others of having in their arguments. The things that you are accusing others of ignoring are similar to the things you are ignoring. You're claim that this is unambiguously and clearly a case of invisibility trumping wall of death is indefensible for all of the reasons I've pointed out above.
What rules am I ignoring? You've literally failed to cite one rule I ignore. You've literally failed to prove that "requires a 6 to hit" and "requires a Snap Shot to fire" are similar.
The really frustrating thing is that I know you will take this post apart one line at a time and just say "wrong for the reasons I've shown" after each line, just like you did with what was unarguably a very well written post by blacktalos.
It was very well written. Unfortunately, well written doesn't mean correct. BlackTalos has consistently ignored and misstated what a Snap Shot is, and that stance is central to his argument.
Can we please get a MOD to lock this thread? This argument will not be resolved here.
Evidence that you can't actually prove your argument, but instead want the discussion to "go away". Unfortunately it'll likely get locked because of posts like yours.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/26 15:14:02
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
2015/02/26 15:15:21
Subject: Re:wall of death and invisibility question?
Manchu wrote:If you're not here to discuss RAW then you are not posting in the relevant forum, i.e., you are probably breaking Rule Number Two. YMDC is for discussing RAW, not for lecturing us about why discussing RAW is not fun (for you). Thanks.
NightHowler wrote:Wow. Thank you for so eloquently proving my point.
Can we please get this thread locked?
So you're not here to discuss RAW? Thanks.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Manchu wrote:If you're not here to discuss RAW then you are not posting in the relevant forum, i.e., you are probably breaking Rule Number Two. YMDC is for discussing RAW, not for lecturing us about why discussing RAW is not fun (for you). Thanks.
NightHowler wrote:Wow. Thank you for so eloquently proving my point.
Can we please get this thread locked?
So you're not here to discuss RAW? Thanks.
I've tried.
Again and again and again and again and again and each side is only repeating the same thing over and over. Both are convinced that they are correct and the discussion can not be resolved in this manner.
It begins to feel antagonistic by it's very nature and should be locked.
Again and again and again and again and again and each side is only repeating the same thing over and over. Both are convinced that they are correct and the discussion can not be resolved in this manner.
It begins to feel antagonistic by it's very nature and should be locked.
So you've quoted the rules I've ignored (that I asked you to do)?
You've proven how "requires a 6 to hit" and "requires a snap shot to fire" are the same?
You've proven that WoD is a special rule that causes auto-hits despite the rule literally saying that a Template weapon is firing?
I haven't seen that.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Again and again and again and again and again and each side is only repeating the same thing over and over. Both are convinced that they are correct and the discussion can not be resolved in this manner.
It begins to feel antagonistic by it's very nature and should be locked.
So you've quoted the rules I've ignored (that I asked you to do)?
You've proven how "requires a 6 to hit" and "requires a snap shot to fire" are the same?
You've proven that WoD is a special rule that causes auto-hits despite the rule literally saying that a Template weapon is firing?
I haven't seen that.
Yes. I know you haven't. And it is painfully clear that you won't. I could dig through the thread and find the pages where these have been written and I could quote them and I could go to all that work and you would take my post one line at a time and write your opinion under it just like you have been doing. It's not a debate. It's two sides repeating themselves with no clear answer who is correct because of poorly written rules and no appropriate FAQ.
I love a good debate, but that is not what this is. In a debate you can use logic. In a rules interpretation you can only use the rules you're given and in this case there is no clear answer.
Again and again and again and again and again and each side is only repeating the same thing over and over. Both are convinced that they are correct and the discussion can not be resolved in this manner.
It begins to feel antagonistic by it's very nature and should be locked.
So you've quoted the rules I've ignored (that I asked you to do)? You've proven how "requires a 6 to hit" and "requires a snap shot to fire" are the same? You've proven that WoD is a special rule that causes auto-hits despite the rule literally saying that a Template weapon is firing?
I haven't seen that.
Yes. I know you haven't. And it is painfully clear that you won't.
You've proven that "requires a 6 to hit" and "requires a snap shot to fire" are the same?
Seriously, please quote the post that explains that. I'd love to see it.
and you would take my post one line at a time and write your opinion under it just like you have been doing.
I don't write opinions. I write fact. And again, I'd rather respond to points individually - if we were having a conversation this is how I'd reply - when you finish a point I'd reply to it. Because it's a text based medium you're allowed to make several points at once and I'm allowed to address all of those points individually. Fact: "requires a 6 to hit" and "requires a Snap Shot to fire" are two completely different rules. Fact: Wall of Death is not a special rule that causes hits, it's a special rule that allows a Template to fire Overwatch (explicitly in its rules text) and explains what happens when you do. I've quoted the actual rules to support those facts. All I've been told in opposition is either "Nuh uh" or a post that says WoD is a special rules that causes hits.
It's not a debate. It's two sides repeating themselves with no clear answer who is correct because of poorly written rules and no appropriate FAQ.
Yes, it's not a debate when one side has proven their point repeatedly and the other literally ignores rules and makes knowingly incorrect statements.
I love a good debate, but that is not what this is. In a debate you can use logic. In a rules interpretation you can only use the rules you're given and in this case there is no clear answer.
Saying that is like saying there's no clear answer to if Dinosaurs lived or not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/26 15:41:00
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Again and again and again and again and again and each side is only repeating the same thing over and over. Both are convinced that they are correct and the discussion can not be resolved in this manner.
It begins to feel antagonistic by it's very nature and should be locked.
So you've quoted the rules I've ignored (that I asked you to do)?
You've proven how "requires a 6 to hit" and "requires a snap shot to fire" are the same?
You've proven that WoD is a special rule that causes auto-hits despite the rule literally saying that a Template weapon is firing?
I haven't seen that.
Yes. I know you haven't. And it is painfully clear that you won't.
You've proven that "requires a 6 to hit" and "requires a snap shot to fire" are the same?
Seriously, please quote the post that explains that. I'd love to see it.
It's been explained to you that snapshots require a roll of 6. Autohits do not allow you to roll at all - they simply generate hits.
Requiring 6s to hit in close combat require a roll of 6. Autohits do not allow you to roll at all - they simply generate hits.
These are pretty obviously similar and related as the interaction between both examples come from the same two rules.
This has been stated before but you ignore/dismiss/handwave
and you would take my post one line at a time and write your opinion under it just like you have been doing.
I don't write opinions. I write fact. And again, I'd rather respond to points individually - if we were having a conversation this is how I'd reply - when you finish a point I'd reply to it. Because it's a text based medium you're allowed to make several points at once and I'm allowed to address all of those points individually.
Fact: "requires a 6 to hit" and "requires a Snap Shot to fire" are two completely different rules.
Fact: Wall of Death is not a special rule that causes hits, it's a special rule that allows a Template to fire Overwatch (explicitly in its rules text) and explains what happens when you do.
I've quoted the actual rules to support those facts. All I've been told in opposition is either "Nuh uh" or a post that says WoD is a special rules that causes hits.
I love that you feel your opinions are fact. I really do. It's endearing. But saying, "I write facts" does not make what you say facts.
Fact: "requires a 6 to hit" and "requires a snap shot to fire" both come from exactly the same rule - invisibility.
Fact: Wall of death is a special rule that causes hits. It's found under the template rule in the special abilities section of the rulebook. It also allows you to fire overwatch with templates.
You haven't quoted any rules to support your opinion that these work differently than my opinion says they do. This is an opinion. You have one and I have one and they are different. Accept this and embrace it and your understanding of dialogue will deepen beyond your wildest dreams.
I love a good debate, but that is not what this is. In a debate you can use logic. In a rules interpretation you can only use the rules you're given and in this case there is no clear answer.
Saying that is like saying there's no clear answer to if Dinosaurs lived or not.
I appreciate your opinion that saying this isn't a debate is like talking about dinosaurs, but my opinion is different, as I have said.
Also, bringing discussion of dinosaurs into the thread is breaking Tenet 3 of YMDC. I'd appreciate it if you could stick to the tenets. Thanks.
2015/02/26 16:00:23
Subject: Re:wall of death and invisibility question?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
