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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It uses the word target, what is so difficult about accepting that it really does mean "target" and not something else?

You're really hung up on this word "target" but that has nothing to do with the assault rules.

You choose who to shoot at.
The Talos wildfires and hits a bunch of other targets.
You are now allowed to assault the unit you shot at. Not the unit that you actually hit for whatever reason.

This is exactly like the blast weapon rules - sometimes the talos involuntarily hits something which was not what you shot at.

And what defines the unit you SHOT at?
The unit you target. nothing else. And what happens when you have more than one target?

You can assault both.

And what exactly does "target" mean in the context of the assault rules? Nothing.

However, if you wanted to construe "target" as meaning "the unit that you shot at" then you still have a problem because the talos wildfire doesn't target units, it targets models. Does targetting one model out of the squad mean that the whole unit is now a target and hence assaultable?

nosferatu1001 wrote: Your interpretation of "intention" determining target is flawed....

It's not flawed. It's an interpretation. Your argument is based on models being hit in a unit. They are being shot at by the Talos. This is a perfectly valid interpretation. Another argument put forward is that because the Talos has to declare a target unit, that unit is the unit shot at, regardless of which models are hit. This is also valid.

Because the codex was written before this rule existed there is no point in fighting over which is right because it is all interpretation.




If you say that my argument is trivial to find flaws in I don't know what I'll do.

The point I'm making is that shot at == target, otherwise the assault rules do nothing, as the only time you define your "shot at" unit is when you target them. Luckily this fits English as well...

Targetting one model has to be the same as targetting a unit in this case, as you cannot shoot models, only ever units - the rules dont handle it, unless you have an exception like the vindicare whcih does specify what happens.

So either wilfire does nothing, or you can assault anything in range.

Now you're making ridiculous arguments. The wildfire rule can function perfectly well without making every unit that has a model hit by it assaultable.

Shot at = the unit you chose as a target in step one of shooting.

Hitting something else by accident != the unit you shot at.

How is it by accident?

it deliberately targets EVERY model in range and LOS. There is no "accident" to this, unless you are claiming it is an "accident" when you shoot at a model and find it is in range AND los?

It isn't deliberate when you hit something other than the unit you selected, is it?

How is this different to blast markers? You select a target unit and you hit something different.

Not to mention that you hit models rather than units, creating another problem. You totally gloss over that one to make it work they way you think it should.

Targetting one model has to be the same as targetting a unit in this case, as you cannot shoot models, only ever units - the rules dont handle it, unless you have an exception like the vindicare whcih does specify what happens.

No, it doesn't have to. Those units were not targetted so even under your interpretation they are still not eligible to be assaulted.

nosferatu1001 wrote:How is it by accident? it deliberately targets EVERY model in range and LOS.

Well, it actually rolls to hit first. Then it assigns those hits to models starting from the closest. One could certainly also interprete this as meaning the Talos can assault only those units it could potentially hit.

Scott-S6 wrote:It isn't deliberate when you hit something other than the unit you selected, is it?

So "deliberate" is the qualifier now?

Black Templar try to shoot hte non-closest unit. If they fail they shoot the closest unit - and do so entirely accidently. (unless you claim they "deliberately" rolled over Ld-1?) Under your "interpretation" they now cannot assault this unit.

I hope you see how absurd a position that is to take?

generally the talos does not pick a target. it just fires. then you allocate hits to the closest enemys moving out. since the talos shooting specifically states its diffrent then normal, it overrides "you must assault what you shot" and can then choose to assault anything within its charge range. to break it down:

-pick tyalos. declare its shooting (you dont specifiy WHAT its shooting at)
-roll to hit.
- all hits are allocated to closest enemy model moving out (meaning it CAN "snipe" enemy special weapons or squad leaders)
- roll wounds on required models, make saves, remove casulaties
-declare charge. the talos can charge anything in its range.

since the talos has unique rules for shooting and targetting those shots, it overrides the normal 40k rules of shooting and assault. however i imagine that will be changed and FAQ'd in the new DE codex due out on may 17th 2034.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:It isn't deliberate when you hit something other than the unit you selected, is it?

So "deliberate" is the qualifier now?

Black Templar try to shoot hte non-closest unit. If they fail they shoot the closest unit - and do so entirely accidently. (unless you claim they "deliberately" rolled over Ld-1?) Under your "interpretation" they now cannot assault this unit.

I hope you see how absurd a position that is to take?

Target priority tests are a relic of last edition. Now, target priority is different as it comes into effect during step one of shooting - if you fail your test then the targetted unit is changed.

No, it doesn't have to. Those units were not targetted so even under your interpretation they are still not eligible to be assaulted.

Except the bit which defines them as targets? I've said it 5 times now, but apparently when the rule defines sometihng as a target that isnt good enough for you....

Except that wildfire doesn't target units, it targets models. So the only target unit is the one selected during step one of shooting.

You are taking premission to target a model as permission to target the whole unit when that permission is not given.

Now, if you wanted to houserule that any unit with models targetted by wildfire is eligible for assault then that'd be a good ruling. Or the unit with the most models targetted, that would be okay also.

Black Templar still get to take them, hence it is a perfect counter to your "unintentional" determining what you unit you "shot at"

By targetting a model in a unit you HAVE targetted the unit, as the model is a component of the unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:By targetting a model in a unit you HAVE targetted the unit, as the model is a component of the unit.

Page refence?

Scott-S6 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:By targetting a model in a unit you HAVE targetted the unit, as the model is a component of the unit.

Page refence?

Page 3 of the rulebook. Is that what you're looking for?

I hope you're not suggesting that page 3 say that something which affects a model in a unit automatically then affects the whole unit?

Because it most certainly does not.

On page three it says that units are composed of models. The talos shoots at one of the models of the unit, and has therefore fired at a component of the unit.

So what's your grounds for saying that the talos hasn't fired at the unit?

Because having hit and damaged a member of the unit isn't the issue here. If it was then you could, for example, scatter a blast marker onto a unit and then assault them.

In order to assault a unit you need to have "shot at" them - i.e. selected them as a target in step one of shooting.

The Talos wildfire rules do not tell you to skip this so this step still happens. It then goes on to tell you to target a number of models. Since models != units in most cases, these do not become eligible for being assaulted. (and that's assuming you take Nos's interpretation which is that being a target = assaultable, personally I don't)

Scott-S6, I think you're confusing me for someone arguing (and supplying page references for) a point other than the fact that if you hit a model in a unit, you are by definition hitting (and thus affecting) the unit that contains that model. (Naturally, it's possible to hit units that one isn't targeting, of course.)

I'm curious how you play the Nurgle's Rot psychic power and the Aura of Decay weapon, though. Would you (or do you) expect a target unit to be nominated despite those abilities hitting every enemy model within their range?

Scott - the problem with your analogy, as has been explained a few times now, is that the blast weapon rules DO NOT SAY you have now targetted the scattered-onto unit.

So your analogy has a major flaw, and is therfore useless.

Step 1 of shooting requires you to nominate a target. That is the unit you "shot at" according to assault, meaning target == shot at OR assault does not work.

So if you generate multiple targets *at any titme* you can assault any target.