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.

BigDogg82 wrote:The problem I have with this whole discussion is everyone keeps talking about targeting. No where does the BRB say you can't target a unit in close combat. In the targeting section it does not mention CC. The place it is mentioned is pg. 40 which also does not mention targeting units in CC it clearly states shooting units in CC is not permitted. So unless you it has a written exception giving it permission in the SW codex or FAQ which it does not then you can't. Unless you can show how hitting them with it would not be considered shooting them. And no not targeting them is not enough as I have already shown the reasons for above.

Page 16, Heading- Check Line of Sight & Pick Target
Read the first sentence, please.

BigDogg82 wrote:The problem I have with this whole discussion is everyone keeps talking about targeting. No where does the BRB say you can't target a unit in close combat.

Pg 16 first paragraph, first sentence.

A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in combat as its target, and may not split its fire among different targets.

Damn you Grey Eldar

Very first sentence on page 16 under Check Line of Sight and Pick a Target.

Damn you liturgies of blood. Oh and what you addded.

Try to focus on the discussion instead of attacking people. I have stated my opinion several times why you can't do it and it's very simple. I don't need to keep repeating myself either.

We all agree on what the first sentence on page 16 says, but it does nothing to override the proscription on shooting models in close combat from page 40.

-666- wrote:Try to focus on the discussion instead of attacking people. I have stated my opinion several times why you can't do it and it's very simple. I don't need to keep repeating myself either.

I haven't attacked anyone.
Not a single thing you've stated has refuted any of my arguments.
I've cited rules multiple times, and I've been openly mocked by some for arguing how the rules are written.
All I've gotten in return is statements that page 40 über alles even though it only references page 16, which prevents targeting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jwolf wrote:We all agree on what the first sentence on page 16 says, but it does nothing to override the proscription on shooting models in close combat from page 40.

Page 40 says nothing - at all - that page 16 doesn't.

Didnt read the entire 10 page forum, just the first and last pages. I'm going to sit my opinion on, as long as the thing you are hitting is not your initial target you are kosher as a pickle. It would be comprable to me firing a blast template and it scattering onto CC. If my opponen says "well no wounds are done because you cant shoot into CC" I reply with "collateral damage". The inital target was within the rules and things like that do happen on the battlefield.

Ahh pg. 16 I see it now. Well I would have to change my opinion on it then. While I think it is not something I would do in a friendly game I can see how it could work that way.

@ Vindicare-Obsession - Already covered how it is most emphatically not like a blast scattering, as it doesn't scatter. It is most like a template being placed over models in combat, which is illegal, but even if is somehow not a form of template (which it is not defined as in the rules, but which it is in the sense of having fixed dimensions and coming from a particular spot) it is still a shooting attack by a ranged weapon, and ranged weapons cannot hit models in combat without express permission, which Jaws does not have.

@rigeld2 - Page 40 does not reference Page 16, please do not make things up. It does have a blanket proscription from shooting into combat while page 16 has a specific restriction from targeting a unit in combat. Shooting is still not equivalent to targeting, no matter how much you'd like that to be true.

jwolf wrote:@ Vindicare-Obsession - Already covered how it is most emphatically not like a blast scattering, as it doesn't scatter. It is most like a template being placed over models in combat,

See that is where you are incorrect.

it is not at all like a "template being placed over models in combat" because the template specifically restricts you from placing it over models in CC.

Jaws only targets the first model hit by the line, any other damage is is incidental.

It's intentional though which some have even admitted. The template comparison is a very good one too.

Intentional = targeted. This conclusion comes from the Blast rules. Anything hit that is not targeted is unintentional.

you only target the first model.

anything else is simply hit.

The template comparison is bad. The line is not a template. so you can not compare the two. you do not have to maximize hits with the line, the line is about 3 times longer than the template, and the line is about 800 times thinner than the template at its thickest point.

Page 40 contains the rules section specifically covering shooting in close combat. It contains additional rules above, beyond, and more restrictive than the targeting restriction on page 16.

Page 40 makes clear, above and beyond the targeting restriction, that you cannot shoot into close combat EVEN if targeting a unit outside of it. It explicitly discusses the most common types of shooting attacks able to hit multiple units, those being template and blast weapons, and clarifies that you cannot place a template or blast marker so that it covers models in close combat, EVEN if you're targeting a unit outside of close combat.

Based on the rationale some have expressed in this thread, that page 40 does not contain rules forbidding shooting into close combat, you would be perfectly free to place a flamer template in a way which clips models in HtH. This is obviously an erroneous interpretation as it comes directly into conflict with the rules specifically covering shooting into HtH.

Just as with a template weapon, if you place the line for Jaws in such a way that it crosses models in HtH, you ARE shooting those models/that unit. You may be targeting another unit, but you are shooting more than one. The shooting process DOES require a target, but nothing about the shooting process states or even implies that when you hit multiple units with a given shooting attack, that the one not named as the target is somehow not being shot. That's simply absurd. It's not supported in the rules and it's contrary to common English. It fails the sniff test.

Further, straining to interpret the rules in a way which would let jaws do this stinks of twisting the rules for advantage. The sportsmanlike way to go, if you genuinely do think this is ambiguous, is to default to the less-powerful interpretation, the one less likely to make your opponent think you're trying to pull a fast one.

jwolf wrote:@rigeld2 - Page 40 does not reference Page 16, please do not make things up. It does have a blanket proscription from shooting into combat while page 16 has a specific restriction from targeting a unit in combat. Shooting is still not equivalent to targeting, no matter how much you'd like that to be true.

I'm not making things up.
"... may wish their warriors to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combats in the hopes of hitting the enemy, this is not permitted."
We know that to fire is defined in 40k as to shoot.
We know that the shooting process is defined on page 15.

Therefore the sentence should be read as "... may wish their warriors to shoot a unit involved in close combat, this is not permitted."
If you try to take it as 100% literal (ie not follow 40k definitions), then you must also take the word "indiscriminately" as literal. Since non blast/template weapons are by definition discriminate, this sentence would allow them to be fired into CC.

And please stop saying that ive said shooting is equivalent to targeting. They aren't. I've not said that they are.
Shooting requires targeting. That's all I've said.

In form, Jaws is most like a template, if our choices are bolter round (regular shooting attack), blast, or template.

And clearly it doesn't matter what the form is, it has no permission to shoot into combat in any form.

Rigel, we all agree that shooting requires a target. But it can and often does hit multiple units.

In common English and in the rules, if a shooting weapon strikes/hits a thing, that thing is said to have been shot.

The flip side of your argument, as Jaws is a shooting attack, is that if you say that the line crossing a model in close combat is not shooting that model, than that model cannot possibly be affected. As the shooting attack has not shot it.

rigeld2 wrote:

And please stop saying that ive said shooting is equivalent to targeting. They aren't. I've not said that they are.
Shooting requires targeting. That's all I've said.

Shooting at something requires targeting. Shooting is a by product if a target being shot at. Shooting a model does not require it to be targeted, which is what you have said multiple times. It's not true.

jwolf wrote:In form, Jaws is most like a template, if our choices are bolter round (regular shooting attack), blast, or template.

And clearly it doesn't matter what the form is, it has no permission to shoot into combat in any form.

Jaws is not like any of the three you listed.

They are not similar.

Mannahnin wrote:Rigel, we all agree that shooting requires a target. But it can and often does hit multiple units.

100% agreed. Hitting multiple units does not mean multiple units are shot. Unless you have a rule citation saying otherwise?

In common English and in the rules, if a shooting weapon strikes/hits a thing, that thing is said to have been shot.

I've asked for a rules citation showing this, but haven't gotten one from jwolf. Can you provide one - since you brought it up?
You cannot use common English to define a term when that term is already defined in the rule book.

The flip side of your argument, as Jaws is a shooting attack, is that if you say that the line crossing a model in close combat is not shooting that model, than that model cannot possibly be affected. As the shooting attack has not shot it.

False. The rules for Jaws say that if the line touches a model - it says nothing about being shot.

DeathReaper wrote:

jwolf wrote:In form, Jaws is most like a template, if our choices are bolter round (regular shooting attack), blast, or template.

And clearly it doesn't matter what the form is, it has no permission to shoot into combat in any form.

Jaws is not like any of the three you listed.

They are not similar.

They are all shooting attacks.

Jaws targets model under a line.

Jaws has a defined range.

While is not exactly the same it is in many ways very similar to a template. That might be an advanced concept so I can see the pushback.

DeathReaper wrote:

jwolf wrote:In form, Jaws is most like a template, if our choices are bolter round (regular shooting attack), blast, or template.

And clearly it doesn't matter what the form is, it has no permission to shoot into combat in any form.

Jaws is not like any of the three you listed.

They are not similar.

Please explain your position, as it makes no sense to me. And again, regardless of similarity (or lack thereof) ALL shooting attacks are prohibited from shooting into close combat unless they have explicit permission to do so. The BEST argument your side has produced is:

P.16 only prohibits targeting in combat (in one sentence, without any more information).
P.40 is only fluff, or somehow refers to P. 16, or is for some reason not valid.

And that's not a RAW argument, it's wishful thinking.

rigeld2 wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Rigel, we all agree that shooting requires a target. But it can and often does hit multiple units.

100% agreed. Hitting multiple units does not mean multiple units are shot. Unless you have a rule citation saying otherwise?

In common English and in the rules, if a shooting weapon strikes/hits a thing, that thing is said to have been shot.

I've asked for a rules citation showing this, but haven't gotten one from jwolf. Can you provide one - since you brought it up?

How about the template/blast weapons, which make clear that you score one hit for each model covered?

How about the rules for JotWW, which make clear that this shooting attack affects each model which is crossed by the line? If a shooting attack is affecting a model, that model is being shot. This is basic English on the level of "If I am to measure a distance accurately, I need to use some sort of measuring implement like a tape measure".

rigeld2 wrote:You cannot use common English to define a term when that term is already defined in the rule book.

Only true when the two conflict. Which they do not in this case.

rigeld2 wrote:

The flip side of your argument, as Jaws is a shooting attack, is that if you say that the line crossing a model in close combat is not shooting that model, than that model cannot possibly be affected. As the shooting attack has not shot it.

False. The rules for Jaws say that if the line touches a model - it says nothing about being shot.

It's a shooting attack. If it touches/affects a model, it is shooting that model. There is nothing ambiguous or unclear about this.

jwolf wrote: The BEST argument your side has produced is:

P.16 only prohibits targeting in combat (in one sentence, without any more information).
P.40 is only fluff, or somehow refers to P. 16, or is for some reason not valid.

And that's not a RAW argument, it's wishful thinking.

I haven't said page 40 isn't valid - I've even addressed it multiple times as if it's rules and not fluff.
You've refused to acknowledge my posts about it, instead insisting that I've said silly things like shooting is equivalent to targeting (which I've never said) or that something on page 40 expands on the restriction put forth on page 16 (but haven't said what).
I've cited rules. You've cited common English definitions for 40k defined terms, and assumptions about intent.

Who's using the RAW?

Nurgle's Rot - explicitly gives you permission to fire into close combat from its rules.

Vibro-cannon - explicitly gives you permission to fire into close combat from its FAQ.

Jaws - I don't see anywhere in its rules or FAQ that gives you permission to fire into close combat.

Mannahnin wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Rigel, we all agree that shooting requires a target. But it can and often does hit multiple units.

100% agreed. Hitting multiple units does not mean multiple units are shot. Unless you have a rule citation saying otherwise?

In common English and in the rules, if a shooting weapon strikes/hits a thing, that thing is said to have been shot.

I've asked for a rules citation showing this, but haven't gotten one from jwolf. Can you provide one - since you brought it up?

How about the template/blast weapons, which make clear that you score one hit for each model covered?

How about the rules for JotWW, which make clear that this shooting attack affects each model which is crossed by the line? If a shooting attack is affecting a model, that model is being shot. This is basic English on the level of "If I am to measure a distance accurately, I need to use some sort of measuring implement like a tape measure".

So you don't have a rule saying that hit is the same thing as shot?
And you do have something that says shot and shot at are different?
Because in common English, if you've shot something you shot at it. Possibly intending to shoot something else, but the bullet didn't get there by magic -it got there because you shot at whatever was hit.

rigeld2 wrote:You cannot use common English to define a term when that term is already defined in the rule book.

Only true when the two conflict. Which they do not in this case.

Erm. Shot is the past tense of shoot. To shoot in 40k is a defined process. Therefore to have shot something, you must have followed the shooting process in the past.

No?

rigeld2 wrote:

The flip side of your argument, as Jaws is a shooting attack, is that if you say that the line crossing a model in close combat is not shooting that model, than that model cannot possibly be affected. As the shooting attack has not shot it.

False. The rules for Jaws say that if the line touches a model - it says nothing about being shot.

It's a shooting attack. If it touches/affects a model, it is shooting that model. There is nothing ambiguous or unclear about this.

So every model touched is a target (which they have to be if you're shooting them)? Funny, I'm pretty sure the FAQ says otherwise...

rigeld2 wrote:

jwolf wrote: The BEST argument your side has produced is:

P.16 only prohibits targeting in combat (in one sentence, without any more information).
P.40 is only fluff, or somehow refers to P. 16, or is for some reason not valid.

And that's not a RAW argument, it's wishful thinking.

I haven't said page 40 isn't valid - I've even addressed it multiple times as if it's rules and not fluff.
You've refused to acknowledge my posts about it, instead insisting that I've said silly things like shooting is equivalent to targeting (which I've never said) or that something on page 40 expands on the restriction put forth on page 16 (but haven't said what).
I've cited rules. You've cited common English definitions for 40k defined terms, and assumptions about intent.

Who's using the RAW?

At this point you are just flat out lying.

And you continue to say that in order to shoot something you have to shoot at it or target it, which is manifestly untrue.

-666- wrote:They are all shooting attacks.

Correct.

-666- wrote:Jaws targets model under a line.

Incorrect, Jaws only targets the first model it hits.

-666- wrote:Jaws has a defined range.

Correct.

-666- wrote:While is not exactly the same it is in many ways very similar to a template. That might be an advanced concept so I can see the pushback.

"very similar to a template" is a fallacy.

A Template is about 1/3rd the length and about 800 times thinner than the template. you also do not have to maximize hits with the Jaws line, but a Template does. the template does not have to target the first unit it hits. Etc.

They are two very different weapons. (Even in the fluff they are not similar)

So how are the similar?

Also Shoot in 40k is a defined process.

P.40 says you can not shoot into cc. This means you can not use the shooting sequence to target any unit locked in CC. It means this because shooting is a defined process in 40K as per P.16

To say otherwise is linguistically incorrect.

Jwolf is shooting a process?
Is it defined as such? Does the process require targetting as one of it's steps?

Of course it requires a target. However you can often and frequently shoot other units than the one you targeted, in addition.

jwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

jwolf wrote: The BEST argument your side has produced is:

P.16 only prohibits targeting in combat (in one sentence, without any more information).
P.40 is only fluff, or somehow refers to P. 16, or is for some reason not valid.

And that's not a RAW argument, it's wishful thinking.

I haven't said page 40 isn't valid - I've even addressed it multiple times as if it's rules and not fluff.
You've refused to acknowledge my posts about it, instead insisting that I've said silly things like shooting is equivalent to targeting (which I've never said) or that something on page 40 expands on the restriction put forth on page 16 (but haven't said what).
I've cited rules. You've cited common English definitions for 40k defined terms, and assumptions about intent.

Who's using the RAW?

At this point you are just flat out lying.

What have I cited that isn't a rule?
If you're trying to say I was lying about your citations or assumptions - I apologize. That's what I've understood. What rules have you cited?

And you continue to say that in order to shoot something you have to shoot at it or target it, which is manifestly untrue.

Within the bounds of 40k it absolutely is true.
Not one rule has been cited saying that a unit suffering hits has been shot. I've asked for one many times.
You cannot use a plain English definition in this case because of how 40k defines shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Of course it requires a target. However you can often and frequently shoot other units than the one you targeted, in addition.

Actually, the rules use the word "hit" and not "shoot" when referencing things other than the shooting process. Almost as if it was intentional.