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.

col_impact wrote:
The rules I quoted indicate 2 separate uses of 'shoot.' 'Shoot' occurs both with unit and with model. Charistophe, et al, are wrongly trying to apply the 'individuated' model definition to the 'collective' unit usage.

More than that for the first quote, and only by the synonym "firing" in the second. I even highlighted them in green for you in the first when I quoted you. Shall i do so again?

col_impact wrote:
'To Shoot'

for units - to make a collective shooting attack, ie in game terms to step through the shooting sequence, to resolve all the shots from the collective [unit]
for models - to fire a shot with a single shooting weapon

Either misquoting or misrepresenting does not a proper definition make. The definition of "shooting" for units is never actually defined as making a collective shooting attack. There is no distinciton of separation mentioned at all between when a weapon, model, or unit shoots. The only time a unit is referenced is only when the term "shooting" is used as an adjective, not as a verb. Reread your rules quotes and you will see this. Then reread the sections in question as they break it down, and you will see it even more so.

col_impact wrote:
At the unit level then, 'shoot' refers to dealing with the portion of the game that involves shooting (the shooting sequence) - when your unit of models collectively resolves its shots at a target unit of enemy models. This is wholly consistent with English semantic usage of 'shoot: to engage in a portion of a game that involves shooting' . We are not dealing with an individual instance of firing a shot with a single weapon from one individual model to another individual model but shooting en masse from a collective of models with a plethora of weapons to another collective of models.

No such distinction is made in anything you have quoted so far. A Shooting Attack is on the unit level, but even then, we can see that if poorly planned and ignoring the information in the explanation of Step 2, that no actual "shooting" occurs if you follow the rules of the process and you are out of range, not established Line of Sight, or even several other lost opportunities (such as firing Blast at an Invisible unit).

col_impact wrote:
Examples:

My raiders shoot at your space elves. (Collectively resolve all the shots from my [unit of] raiders various weapons at your space elves unit)
My raider shoots his pistol at your space elf (My [individual] raider [model] fires a shot with his single equipped pistol at your space elf [model]

In both cases, in order for shooting to occur, they must have answered any Line of Sight and Range restrictions in order to shoot. Just because you say they are shooting, doesn't mean they are until the attempt to Hit has been attempted. Once you reach the To-Hit point of the Shooting Sequence, any question of being able to Shoot has generally been answered.

col_impact wrote:
Consider:

1) "You can choose any order for your units to shoot, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you moveon to the next."

Incorrect: You can choose any order for your units to fire a shot with a single shooting weapon, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move
on to the next.
Correct: You can choose any order for your units to make their collective shooting attacks, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move
on to the next.
Correct: You can choose any order for your units to collectively resolve their shots, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move
on to the next.

Consider: You are really crappy at copy and pasting from PDFs. Your lack of correction makes for some very disjointed reading.
Consider: Your Incorrect statement actually doesn't apply in a couple situations where a unit can Shoot and Run. But I have not espoused it, either.

col_impact wrote:
2) "Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see."

Incorrect: Choose a Target. The unit can fire a shot with a single shooting weapon at an enemy unit that it can see.
Correct: Choose a Target. The unit can make a collective shooting attack at an enemy unit that it can see.
Correct: Choose a Target. The unit can collectively resolve its shots at an enemy unit that it can see.

Consider: This simple explanation of the outlined step misses out on the full aspect of the rules, actually. It also grants one level of permission, but it is not the only gate of shooting in the shooting sequence. The full read is:

See how the full read of the step actually provides definition with the "shoot" being in a future tense, not a current one?

col_impact wrote:
3) "Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one visible model in the target unit."

Incorrect: Every model that wishes to make a collective shooting attack must be within range of at least one visible model in the target unit.
Correct: Every model that wishes to fire a shot with a single shooting weapon must be within range of at least one visible model in the target unit. [/spoiler]

Consider: You are the one confusing a whole process with a single verb/action, not me. I'm not the one calling a "shooting attack" as "shooting".

col_impact wrote:
This isn't rocket science. The game implements the notion of 'shooting' differently when dealing with collective units versus individual models.
Collective - My group of As with its bunches of shooty things shoots at your horde of Bs. [resolve a shooting attack en masse at your bunch of stuff]
Individual - My individual A shoots his gun at your B. [fire a shot with a single weapon]

You are correct that this is not rocket science. That is mathematics, a pure language. This is semantics of the English Language which has all the purity of a crib house whore who ambushes other languages in dark allies to search for new words and concepts.

col_impact wrote:
And now for the bonus question . . . which usage of 'shoot' does Coordinated Fire refer to? Hint: collective!

Here's a bonus answer, your long misconsiderations and misrepresentations have not provided any actual evidence that the verb "shoot" is any different between unit, weapon, and model. While a unit initiates a Shooting Attack using the Shooting Sequence, the actual shooting follows restrictions as noted on Weapon and Model. You keep trying to use "shooting attack" and "shooting" as being synonymous, yet have provided no quotes to support this case other than your opinion and belief.

Seems as though loop holes are being attempted by these players. I sure hope not all players try as hard as these to use loop holes :/ if they do, stricter itc voting a for tau should be put in place.

Ceaser wrote:
Seems as though loop holes are being attempted by these players. I sure hope not all players try as hard as these to use loop holes :/ if they do, stricter itc voting a for tau should be put in place.

ITC only covers a small number of games around the world. Relying on them for clarity is not always possible or even desired in some locales. Remember, they are just a House Rules group (albeit a large and influential one), and some of their judgements are not always kindly looked upon by everyone.

Charistoph wrote:

Ceaser wrote:
Seems as though loop holes are being attempted by these players. I sure hope not all players try as hard as these to use loop holes :/ if they do, stricter itc voting a for tau should be put in place.

ITC only covers a small number of games around the world. Relying on them for clarity is not always possible or even desired in some locales. Remember, they are just a House Rules group (albeit a large and influential one), and some of their judgements are not always kindly looked upon by everyone.

True, but in a competitive scene with itc ruling, they can't argue their loop holes.

Charistoph wrote:

Here's a bonus answer, your long misconsiderations and misrepresentations have not provided any actual evidence that the verb "shoot" is any different between unit, weapon, and model. While a unit initiates a Shooting Attack using the Shooting Sequence, the actual shooting follows restrictions as noted on Weapon and Model. You keep trying to use "shooting attack" and "shooting" as being synonymous, yet have provided no quotes to support this case other than your opinion and belief.

Good. I see that you have doubled down on your argument and want to maintain that the BRB uses 'shoot' in the same way for unit as well as for model. So you insist that 'shoot' always refers to an individual firing of a shot by a single weapon.

So to clarify you will interpret this statement . . .

"The unit of orks shoots the unit of centaurs" as


and you will not interpret it this way . . .


The astute onlooker will have already noticed that your simple definition of 'shoot' runs afoul of the rules and the way the game actually plays out. When a unit shoots another unit it is a multi-step process involving many shots from many models and often more than one weapon and definitely not a singular shot from a single weapon. Any player of 40k knows units involve often complex gathering of models and when a unit 'shoots' another unit it almost never involves simply a shot with a single weapon. In fact when a unit 'shoots' another unit, the game must march through an array of models with an array of weapons, with each model firing shots with sometimes different weapons, with many different checks of line of sight and range, etc. To say that a unit 'shoots' another unit is shorthand for what can be a lengthy process of resolving an often complex 'collective shoot' or shooting attack.

Luckily, we need to look no further than a dictionary to reinforce what we already know to be true.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shoot

Definition 4a: to shoot: 'to engage in a portion of a game that involves shooting.'

So the dictionary reinforces what we already know to be true. "Shoot" can refer to and be shorthand for a lengthier, complex, and multi-step shooting process. In 40k, a unit shooting another unit can be very complex, but unit shooting ultimately breaks down to a granular level of individual models firing shots with singular weapons at other models. In fact, the semantically astute here will simply see the meaning of 'shoot' used when a unit 'shoots' another unit as merely a metonymic use of 'shoot' to stand for a more complex 'shooting process'.

So when a unit of orks 'shoots' a unit of centaurs in 40k we can safely ascertain that it means more than that just a shot from a single weapon being exchanged between the units. The semantics of 'shoot' support its use as shorthand for a "shooting process" or a "shooting sequence" or a series of steps in the game (indeed a portion of the game) that involves "shooting." When a unit of orks 'shoots' a unit of centaurs it is 'engaging [the unit of centaurs] in the portion of a game [of 40k] that involves shooting' (ie the shooting sequence).

col_impact wrote:
Good. I see that you have doubled down on your argument and want to maintain that the BRB uses 'shoot' in the same way for unit as well as for model. So you insist that 'shoot' always refers to an individual firing of a shot by a single weapon.

To be accurate, I am stating that there is no stated differentiation when the verb shoot is used between unit, model, and weapon, nor have you provided this differentiation.

col_impact wrote:
So to clarify you will interpret this statement . . .

"The unit of orks shoots the unit of centaurs" as

Spoiler:

"The unit of orks fires a shot with a single weapon at the unit of centaurs."

and you will not interpret it this way . . .

Spoiler:

"The unit of orks collectively resolves all of its shots with all of its shootings weapons against the units of centaurs"

Better question, why can they not be both? In order for the unit of orks to shoot the unit of centaurs, at least one weapon must be used to shoot at the unit of centaurs (and is not limited to one). Now, this means that the shooting attack is resolved against the unit.

But in the case of "The unit of orks fails to shoot the unit of centaurs because they are out of range." would also be accurate. Or, "I choose not to shoot with this unit of orks since they are not in range of anything." would also be an accurate statement.

Shooting is an action that is part of a noun known as either the shooting process or a shooting attack. It is the central verb for these nouns, indeed it is the adjective for them. But that does not mean the verb changes definition because it is couched within these nouns from one level to another. A statement must be made to differentiate them, and you have yet to provide it.

col_impact wrote:
The astute onlooker will have already noticed that your simple definition of 'shoot' runs afoul of the rules and the way the game actually plays out. When a unit shoots another unit it is a multi-step process involving many shots from many models and often more than one weapon and definitely not a singular shot from a single weapon. Any player of 40k knows units involve often complex gathering of models and when a unit 'shoots' another unit it almost never involves simply a shot with a single weapon. In fact when a unit 'shoots' another unit, the game must march through an array of models with an array of weapons, with each model firing shots with sometimes different weapons, with many different checks of line of sight and range, etc. To say that a unit 'shoots' another unit is shorthand for what can be a lengthy process of resolving an often complex 'collective shoot' or shooting attack.

An astute onlooker and listener would have noted that never once have I limited "shoot" or "shooting" to a maximum of one shot from a single weapon. That is a case you have made up on your own. It is the minimum, yes, otherwise the use of the verb "shoot" has not actually been used in the process you are talking about. You seem to be having this argument in your head and making assumptions about my position. No wonder you keep getting lost.

Is shooting a multi-step process? Most definitely, nor did I state otherwise. The actual shooting starts with the To-Hit actions and is resolved with through the process of success or failure of Hitting, Wounding/Penetrating, and possibly Saving. The act of shooting is not stated before that point and it is the act of shooting that initiates the rest of the Sequence. Indeed, the 3 steps before are what setup the act of shooting and define the parameters which follows, such as success targets.

But right before that To-Hit section it asks Which Models Can Fire? And at that point it literally states that only if Line of Sight and/or range can be satisfied, that it can shoot. No LOS, no shooting. No range, no shooting. As mentioned before, there are other things that can stop shooting as well, but they are not really pertinent to this discussion.

col_impact wrote:
Luckily, we need to look no further than a dictionary to reinforce what we already know to be true.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shoot

Definition 4a: to shoot: 'to engage in a portion of a game that involves shooting.'

So the dictionary reinforces what we already know to be true. "Shoot" can refer to and be shorthand for a lengthier, complex, and multi-step shooting process. In 40k, a unit shooting another unit can be very complex, but unit shooting ultimately breaks down to a granular level of individual models firing shots with singular weapons at other models. In fact, the semantically astute here we simply see the meaning of 'shoot' used when a unit 'shoots' another unit as merely a metonymic use of 'shoot' to stand for a more complex 'shooting process'.

So when a unit of orks 'shoots' a unit of centaurs in 40k we can safely ascertain that it means more than that just a shot from a single weapon being exchanged between the units. The semantics of 'shoot' support its use as shorthand for a "shooting process" or a "shooting sequence" or a series of steps in the game (indeed a portion of the game) that involves "shooting." When a unit of orks 'shoots' a unit of centaurs it is 'engaging [the unit of centaurs] in the portion of a game [of 40k] that involves shooting' (ie the shooting sequence).

And if we look at how the rules state them, those orks can only shoot if they have Line of Sight and Range on the chosen target. Not all definitions from Merriam Webster or Oxford will apply in every situation. One must take context and use in to consideration.

Try as you like, you can't get around this situation because we are dealing with rulebook terms which have been admitted by yourself are not literally defined only used and demonstrated in a specific use. Nor have you demonstrated at any point that a unit going through the entire shooting process but never applying a To-Hit process for a weapon still counts as shooting. Indeed, someone on your position admitted that it does not exist.

So have fun with your false arguments and applying statements and positions to me and others that we have not stated. Since you have not quoted it by now, I assume you cannot or will not, and so violating that first tenet of providing proof to support your position.

Ceaser wrote:
Seems as though loop holes are being attempted by these players. I sure hope not all players try as hard as these to use loop holes :/ if they do, stricter itc voting a for tau should be put in place.

Oh hello Pain4Pleasure! Long time no see.

Rather than again quoting a ton of text, I'll address this here.

Charistoph, your problem is that you do not realize the difference between a unit shooting (ie. go through the shooting sequence steps) and one model shooting. There is a clear distinction as explained in the rules. You keep repeating that if no roll to hit is made, then no shooting has been done. Your failure is to produce a quote from the rules to support this. Want to try one more time? As a reminder, one or more models form up a unit. The check is for whether a unit has shot or not, not the model to allow someone to proceed to the shooting sequence, verbatim from Shooting sequence step #1: Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.

Now let's see your quote from the rulebook which says rolling to hit equals that the unit has shot. I'll help you, there is no rule. Pg 31 says: All models in the unit must shoot at the same target unit. If a model cannot shoot at the same target as the other models in its unit then it cannot shoot at all in that phase. [...] Once a model has fired its maximum number of weapons, it cannot fire again in that phase.

Caeser/Charistoph, I'll re-use my example but make it simpler for you and remove the +1BS from the equation. I'd like an answer from you:

I have three units of Crisis suits who are all in range with all of their weapons. As per the shooting rules, I nominate Unit A (Shooting sequence step #1) with 3 dual missile pods selects a target (Shooting sequence step #2). As per the rules for Coordinated Firestorm, now other units can join in and I add Unit B (2x3 plasma rifles) and Unit C (2x3 fusion blaster) join the shooting as per pg 71 of Codex: Tau: resolving their shots as if they were a single unit. Instead of three different units, I now have 9 models with 3 different weapons behaving as a single unit.

Moving on I choose a weapon group and select missile pods and check the range for them and am found to be in range (Shooting sequence step #3). I then proceed to roll to hit (Shooting sequence step #4) with 6 missile pods, scoring multiple hits. I proceed to roll to wound (Shooting sequence step #5), causing 12 wounds. Next step is allocating wounds and removing casualties (Shooting sequence step #6), which wipes out the target unit. Next step tells us to select another weapon (Shooting sequence step #7), but as the target unit is dead, I can't shoot anymore.

I placed some questions that you completely failed to answer probably because you didn't like the answers you were required to give, but let's try again:

Question 1: Has Unit B and Unit C by your reading completed their shooting as they didn't roll a single dice?
Question 2: Are Unit B and Unit C allowed to choose new targets and proceed to shooting as per your reading of the rule they never participated to a shooting?
Question 3: Are Unit B and Unit C allowed to take part to new Coordinated Firestorm as per your reading of the rule they never participated to a shooting?

There are other questions I could make based on above perfectly legal situation, now I'd like to hear your excuses.

For Caesar: Page 31 of the Rulebook says following: A player can choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers.

As models make a unit, there is on obligation for me to even try to shoot with a specific model.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:
In order for something to shoot, it must check off the Line of Sight question AND check off the Range question.

Let's try that again. Step 2 is to select target, the target can be anywhere on the table as long as I have line of sight. That is the only requirement there. Then I choose which weapons (and models) shoot in step 3 and it says: Every model that wishes to shoot. So I am given the option of choosing which models will fire and additionally not shoot at all with some models. Now I do agree that if a MODEL wants to shoot, it needs both range and line of sight, but there is no requirement for the UNIT as shown in steps 1 and 2. This is the part that you keep constantly ignoring or mixing up.

I feel this discussion is quite fruitless and your refusal to follow written rules is duly noted.

Naw wrote:
Charistoph, your problem is that you do not realize the difference between a unit shooting (ie. go through the shooting sequence steps) and one model shooting. There is a clear distinction as explained in the rules. You keep repeating that if no roll to hit is made, then no shooting has been done. Your failure is to produce a quote from the rules to support this. Want to try one more time? As a reminder, one or more models form up a unit. The check is for whether a unit has shot or not, not the model to allow someone to proceed to the shooting sequence, verbatim from Shooting sequence step #1: Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.

Now let's see your quote from the rulebook which says rolling to hit equals that the unit has shot. I'll help you, there is no rule. Pg 31 says: All models in the unit must shoot at the same target unit. If a model cannot shoot at the same target as the other models in its unit then it cannot shoot at all in that phase. [...] Once a model has fired its maximum number of weapons, it cannot fire again in that phase.

No quote has been provided that says going through the shooting sequence is a unit shooting. This would be sufficient, but it is only an assumption by you and others, not written nor even suggested.

As I have stated and as I have demonstrated IN THE RULES, in Which Models Can Fire? that it explicitly states that only those with Line of Sight and range can shoot. Therefore, if it fails with either, it is not shooting. This is the last check that states such before the To-Hit section.

And that's just the general rules and doesn't consider things like moving and firing Ordnance with a non-Vehicle, Snap Firing with template weapons, etc.

Not that it means anything. You haven't paid any actual attention to what I've said, or you would know I've addressed this point several times.

Naw wrote:
Caeser/Charistoph, I'll re-use my example but make it simpler for you and remove the +1BS from the equation. I'd like an answer from you:

I have three units of Crisis suits who are all in range with all of their weapons. As per the shooting rules, I nominate Unit A (Shooting sequence step #1) with 3 dual missile pods selects a target (Shooting sequence step #2). As per the rules for Coordinated Firestorm, now other units can join in and I add Unit B (2x3 plasma rifles) and Unit C (2x3 fusion blaster) join the shooting as per pg 71 of Codex: Tau: resolving their shots as if they were a single unit. Instead of three different units, I now have 9 models with 3 different weapons behaving as a single unit.

Moving on I choose a weapon group and select missile pods and check the range for them and am found to be in range (Shooting sequence step #3). I then proceed to roll to hit (Shooting sequence step #4) with 6 missile pods, scoring multiple hits. I proceed to roll to wound (Shooting sequence step #5), causing 12 wounds. Next step is allocating wounds and removing casualties (Shooting sequence step #6), which wipes out the target unit. Next step tells us to select another weapon (Shooting sequence step #7), but as the target unit is dead, I can't shoot anymore.

I placed some questions that you completely failed to answer probably because you didn't like the answers you were required to give, but let's try again:

Not my fault you cannot extrapolate an answer from what I've said.

Naw wrote:
Question 1: Has Unit B and Unit C by your reading completed their shooting as they didn't roll a single dice?

What shooting? If they didn't shoot, they didn't follow the instructions laid out in the rule. This is like the Walker Defiler firing its Ordnance Battle Cannon AFTER firing its Reaper Cannon at full BS. Firing it second is fully allowed for in the rules, but the Reaper would still need to be Snap Fired.

Naw wrote:
Question 2: Are Unit B and Unit C allowed to choose new targets and proceed to shooting as per your reading of the rule they never participated to a shooting?

They didn't shoot, and so failed to fulfill their part in the CF. Is this a challenge for you?

Naw wrote:
Question 3: Are Unit B and Unit C allowed to take part to new Coordinated Firestorm as per your reading of the rule they never participated to a shooting?

Why not? They didn't shoot, much less at the same target. Therefore, they did not follow the CF instructions.

Naw wrote:
There are other questions I could make based on above perfectly legal situation, now I'd like to hear your excuses.

For Caesar: Page 31 of the Rulebook says following: A player can choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers.

As models make a unit, there is on obligation for me to even try to shoot with a specific model.

True, you don't. But nothing has been presented that if a unit's models do not shoot, the unit is still considered to have been shooting.

Naw wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:
In order for something to shoot, it must check off the Line of Sight question AND check off the Range question.

Let's try that again. Step 2 is to select target, the target can be anywhere on the table as long as I have line of sight. That is the only requirement there. Then I choose which weapons (and models) shoot in step 3 and it says: Every model that wishes to shoot. So I am given the option of choosing which models will fire and additionally not shoot at all with some models. Now I do agree that if a MODEL wants to shoot, it needs both range and line of sight, but there is no requirement for the UNIT as shown in steps 1 and 2. This is the part that you keep constantly ignoring or mixing up.

Yes, let's look at the full rules of Step 2, shall we, not just the outline you look at:

No, I'm not ignoring or mixing up the situation. My point has been from the beginning that the verb "shooting" is used any differently between levels of the game. YOU and your party are the ones who are applying a noun to be a verb. That its use by the models is its use by the unit and nothing else tells me to do otherwise.

Naw wrote:
I feel this discussion is quite fruitless and your refusal to follow written rules is duly noted.

I follow the written rules. I have not misplaced them, nor have I added to them, nor misrepresented them. You have ignored my statements and placed your own narrative over them to try and strawman them down, and that's even worse.

Charistophe, it's time for you to start contributing to the actual debate and put forth something substantive behind what has so far been just an evasive line of argumentation on your part. I suggest you start by defining your terms - what does it mean when a model 'shoots'? What does it mean when a unit 'shoots'?

The rulebook does not provide an explicit definition of 'shoot'. The only thing the rulebook provides explicitly is a shooting sequence that units use to make shooting attacks. Within the confines of the shooting sequence we note instances where models are given permission to 'shoot' so we can infer that shooting at the model level involves something along the lines of . . .



However, Coordinated Fire requires us to make sense of what it means when a unit 'shoots' a target unit.



We are required by the rule to only count units that can successfully join in and 'shoot'. Determining what counts as a successful instance of 'unit shoots' is at the crux of this debate.

A big problem emerges in the sense that the definition of 'shoot' that we have inferred so far at the model level does not work at the unit level. Units are collectives of models and to resolve an instance of 'unit shoots' we need to march through the array of models and weapons and situations contained within and resolve each instance of 'model shoots' in the unit.

Charistophe, et al, largely ignores the problem of tackling what it means when a 'unit shoots'. He leaves the notion of 'unit shoots' wholly undefined. He avoids it entirely and instead looks only at whether or not a model shoots as some litmus test to determine if the undefined 'unit shoots' has happened. However, by leaving 'unit shoots' undefined he can attest absolutely nothing as to whether a 'unit shoots' or not when all of the models in the unit do not shoot. The rulebook offers no rule indicating the relationship between 'unit shoots' and 'model shoots'. He demands rulebook quotes from the other side to provide support that a successful instance of 'unit shoots' can occur when no instance of 'model shoots' occurs. But just as easily, the other side can demand rulebook quotes to provide support that a successful instance of 'unit shoots' requires an instance of 'model shoots' to occur. Even further, the other side can demand Charistophe to define what 'unit shoots' means because his leaving it undefined makes his argument wholly untenable and unworthy of serious consideration. One cannot test for success against something undefined. Until Charistophe clarifies what 'unit shoots' means in his argument, he has no argument.

So in order to avoid the trap that Charistophe's argument falls into (of leaving critical things undefined), we are required to offer up a definition of 'unit shoots'. Just as we can infer a definition of 'model shoots' we can infer a definition of 'unit shoots'. In many ways it is easier to infer from the rules what 'unit shoots' means as opposed to what 'model shoots' means since the rulebook explicitly provides us with what the shooting sequence is and the shooting sequence manages what happens at the unit level. The shooting sequence is a series of steps a unit follows to march through step by step each model and weapon in the unit to resolve the shooting attack it makes against a target unit. The shooting sequence provides us with everything we need to encapsulate the complexity of what occurs when a 'unit shoots' - all the steps involved in marching through the models and weapons are laid out for us. In fact the simplest thing to infer is that 'unit shoots' means straightforwardly 'unit attempts a shooting attack by following the shooting sequence'. In fact, given the concreteness in the rules of the shooting sequence itself and its direct relationship to handling shooting at the unit level, there are no other tenable options but to define 'unit shoots' in exactly this manner. So to summarize . . .





In order for a unit to successfully 'shoot', the unit must legally complete the shooting sequence. For a unit to participate in the shooting sequence, the rules only require line of sight. Per the rules, units that are out of range of a target unit can still engage that target unit in 'shooting' and work through the 'shooting sequence'. Depending on player choice, Gets Hot! results, and range to target - all, some or none of the models in a unit can participate when a 'unit shoots'. A successful instance of 'unit shoots' can occur despite no instance of 'model shoots' in that unit.

So the issue has been resolved and the debate is effectively over (ie my argument stands uncontested) unless the counter argument being offered up by Charistophe can present some actual substance - some definition of 'unit shoots' - that proves better than mine. He has evaded offering up any such definition and by doing so he is unable to deal with the crux of the debate - namely, what does it mean when Coordinated Fire requires that "these units must shoot the same target". I have directly answered what it means when "these units must shoot". Charistophe needs to directly answer as well or concede the argument.

I have offered my definitions of 'model shoots' and 'unit shoots' without any evasion and provided an answer to the issue that works in all test cases (e.g. the test case for Gets Hot!). Since a unit shoots by running through the shooting sequence, a unit composed of 1 model that gets a Gets Hot! result with a blast weapon still counts as having shot (the unit indeed shoots) even though the model comprising the unit fires no shot and does not shoot.

I am wondering how much longer this will go on ...

Charistoph wrote:

Naw wrote:
Charistoph, your problem is that you do not realize the difference between a unit shooting (ie. go through the shooting sequence steps) and one model shooting.

No quote has been provided that says going through the shooting sequence is a unit shooting.

I see. Well, it makes for short games if you forego shooting completely.

As I have stated and as I have demonstrated IN THE RULES, in Which Models Can Fire?

And I am not in disagreement here. Those indeed are rules for models. Now what are units made of? How do units in your game shoot? We have explicit permission not to shoot with a model if we don't want to. Do you think the shooting sequence is there just for fun?

doesn't consider things like moving and firing Ordnance with a non-Vehicle, Snap Firing with template weapons, etc.

What?? Why does my unit of 9 crisis suits care?

You haven't paid any actual attention to what I've said, or you would know I've addressed this point several times.

It might have helped your case if you actually managed to quote any rules. But you didn't.

Naw wrote:
Caeser/Charistoph, I'll re-use my example but make it simpler for you and remove the +1BS from the equation. I'd like an answer from you:

I have three units of Crisis suits who are all in range with all of their weapons. As per the shooting rules, I nominate Unit A (Shooting sequence step #1) with 3 dual missile pods selects a target (Shooting sequence step #2). As per the rules for Coordinated Firestorm, now other units can join in and I add Unit B (2x3 plasma rifles) and Unit C (2x3 fusion blaster) join the shooting as per pg 71 of Codex: Tau: resolving their shots as if they were a single unit. Instead of three different units, I now have 9 models with 3 different weapons behaving as a single unit.

Moving on I choose a weapon group and select missile pods and check the range for them and am found to be in range (Shooting sequence step #3). I then proceed to roll to hit (Shooting sequence step #4) with 6 missile pods, scoring multiple hits. I proceed to roll to wound (Shooting sequence step #5), causing 12 wounds. Next step is allocating wounds and removing casualties (Shooting sequence step #6), which wipes out the target unit. Next step tells us to select another weapon (Shooting sequence step #7), but as the target unit is dead, I can't shoot anymore.

I placed some questions that you completely failed to answer probably because you didn't like the answers you were required to give, but let's try again:

Not my fault you cannot extrapolate an answer from what I've said.

Naw wrote:
Question 1: Has Unit B and Unit C by your reading completed their shooting as they didn't roll a single dice?

What shooting? If they didn't shoot, they didn't follow the instructions laid out in the rule. This is like the Walker Defiler firing its Ordnance Battle Cannon AFTER firing its Reaper Cannon at full BS. Firing it second is fully allowed for in the rules, but the Reaper would still need to be Snap Fired.

I think this has gone around enough for now...