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.

Thanks Grakmar.

Jidmah wrote:Checking LoS to a model instead of a unit and measuring to the the hole of the blast marker instead of measuring to the closest model of a unit is explicitly telling you to do something different. It really can't get any more explicit.

Yet the first rule paragraph states:

"MODELS DO NOT ROLL TO HIT"
"Instead....."
So, thats step 3. Not two. Quit now, seriously.

jidmah, it is more than possible to follow steps 1 and 2, and then do it all again in the blast revamp of step 3.

The reason why Blast weapons do not completely replace the first 2 steps of shooting is because you will rarely(excepting ordnance) only be firing Blast weapons, therefore you must check LOS from each model and pick the target with your unit, then check the range from your firing models to their targets, then your non-blast weapons will roll to-hits and your blast weapons will begin following the blast procedures(which incorporate steps 1 and 2 for the blast marker placement, but do go above and beyond the normal step 1 & 2 rules).

Realizing this is why I had changed my answer to mostly agree with Nos earlier.

Kommissar Kel wrote:jidmah, it is more than possible to follow steps 1 and 2, and then do it all again in the blast revamp of step 3.

The reason why Blast weapons do not completely replace the first 2 steps of shooting is because you will rarely(excepting ordnance) only be firing Blast weapons, therefore you must check LOS from each model and pick the target with your unit, then check the range from your firing models to their targets, then your non-blast weapons will roll to-hits and your blast weapons will begin following the blast procedures(which incorporate steps 1 and 2 for the blast marker placement, but do go above and beyond the normal step 1 & 2 rules).

Realizing this is why I had changed my answer to mostly agree with Nos earlier.

Actually it's not. You are premeasuring on your blast, which is effectively cheating. There are many models which fire only blast weapons, probably half the imperial codex. If you shoot two (non-barrage)blast you place all your blast markers before checking range, just as the blast rules tell you to. It the same as any unit firing multiple blasts, you do not get to check if the first blast is in range to then place all other blasts closer to the weapon if the first one missed.

Nos: You are not right because you say so. You failed to refute any of my argument with anything other but stating "because!" or misquotes. If anything, the second paragraph replaces step two, but I also disagree with that. You have no proof for anything other than placing the blast marker being part of the "to hit step". And it does not tell you to replace any steps in the first place, even if the word "instead" is used.
"We usually go swimming, then to the movies, then to a bar. Today we are not going to the movies, instead we go shopping, then have lunch, and then we go to sleep".
Does not result in "We go swimming, shopping, have lunch, got to sleep and then to a bar".
The rule does not tell you to replace rolling to hit with the described procedure. It might be wrongly read that way, but getting stupid rules is perfect proof for which way it is supposed to be read.

By the way, telling people to quit an argument because being at a loss of arguments is bad style. It also makes you look like an idiot who is unable to argument properly, rather than what you are.

"Models do not roll to hit"

Roll to hit is defined as Step 3

Meaning you follow steps 1 and 2 - as you are not told otherwise. Instead of following step 3, you do smoething else - which is follow the blast procedure.

This does refute your argument, entirely. You have not given a single *rule* that *explicitly* denies use of the default shooting process, not a single one.

Nos- read the entire section under blast. The first sentence says they do not roll to hit, but then the rest of the section completely overrides standard shooting procedure.

Standard from pg 15:

1)Check LOS and pick a target
2)Check Range
3)Roll to hit
4)Roll to wound
5)Take Saving throws
6)Remove Casualties

Now here is the blast procedure in the order from the 'Blast' section:

1)Check LOS and pick target
2)Place blast marker with hole completely over target model
3)Check range-if beyond maximum range, shot misses
4)Roll scatter
5)Roll to wound
6)Saving throws
7)Remove casualties

The second list is the order specified by the 'Blast' section on page 30.

Jidmah is right, they are two different procedures.

-cgmckenzie

"pick one enemy model visible to the firer"(BRB, pg 30)
explicit change to
"chose a single enemy unit" and "at least one model in the firing unit must have line of sight to at least one model in the firing unit" (BRB, pg. 16)

"If the hole at the center of the marker is beyond the weapon' maximum range, it automatically misses."(BRB, pg. 30)
explicit change to
"When checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit"(BRB. pg 16)

Just like
"Models with rapid fire weapons can move and shoot two shots at targets up to 12" away."(BRB, pg. 28)
is an explicit change to
"Some weapons [...] fire multiple shots. Where this is the case the number of shots a weapon fires is noted after it's type"(BRB, pg. 27)
So as rapid fire does not explicitly invalidate this rule, you may not fire two shots with rapid fire weapons? Don't think so.

If a rule states an explicit change of procedure the more specific rule takes precedence, without the rule needing to tell you so. Obviously a blast weapon is more specific than generic shooting rules.
Your argument is invalid as you break many other rules if you apply it to the whole ruleset. Rules explicitly stating to invalidate others are not the common case. Unit types are probably the best case to look at, but also many pieces of wargear and special rules across all codices. For example a servo arms doesn't explicitly invalidate that the attack is made at the models strenght(BRB, pg. 39), nor do personal teleporters explicitly invalidate the 12" movement limit for jump infantry(BRB, pg. 52), nor does "By any means necessary " explicitly lift the restriction for a blast marker not being allowed to touch any friendly models(BRB, pg 30), nor does Snikrot's Ambush explicitly invalidate the rule requiring to come on from your own table edge (BRB, pg. 94). However all those rules do work just the way they were written. If you measure twice for your blast marker, you will break all wargear or special rules changing regular rules in any way without explicitly stating to invalidate the original rule.

"Blast weapons do not roll to hit" states nothing but that they do not roll to hit. Ever. Skip step 3, instead, this is how you are supposed to figure out what was hit, starting with checking LoS, then placing a blast marker, then checking range.
There is no technical replacement definition here as there is for templates. Even if there was, it would not tangent how you check range for blasts, as this is described in a different paragraph.

The only way that you would be premeasuring the blast by following Steps 1 and 2 before applying the Blast rules would be if you are placing the blast marker's center hole over the nearest model/edge of hull to the Blast weapon. Any other placement is going to be farther and very likely to not be all that easily guessed.

Also how do you handle a blast weapon being fired along side non-blast weapons if you do not follow steps 1 and 2?

Blast weapons only replace step 3; it is the only way for them to function in all situations. Completely replacing the first 3 steps only works for a unit with only blast weapons, or only firing blast weapons.


There is more to address but I had some parental responsibilities to attend to.

Jidmah, your last post is a well thought out argument. However there are some flaws in it.

Jidmah wrote:"pick one enemy model visible to the firer"(BRB, pg 30)
explicit change to
"chose a single enemy unit" and "at least one model in the firing unit must have line of sight to at least one model in the firing unit" (BRB, pg. 16)

"If the hole at the center of the marker is beyond the weapon' maximum range, it automatically misses."(BRB, pg. 30)
explicit change to
"When checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit"(BRB. pg 16)

Neither of these pg 30 quotes are actually changes to the page 16 quotes. They are however explicit changes, in combination to "to determine if the firing models have hit there target, roll a D6 for each shot that is in range." et al (BRB page 17)

This is the case because of this quote "When firing a blast weapon, models do not roll to hit, instead..." because your first quote is the continuation of this quote, we can confidently state that the LOS check is a part of the modification to the "To-Hit" rules, not the LOS rules. The second quote you provided is a continuation of modifying the "To-hit" rules as evidenced by beginning that section of rules with the Article "Next", indicating that it is the next step in determining what the blast marker hits.

So, while you are correct that the rules are specifying a change in procedures, you are incorrect as to which procedures are being changed. If you were to discount the the not rolling to hit as defining which step the rest of the rules are changing, then you must still roll to hit at some point, somehow.

If the closest model is exactly 23" away from a 24" blast weapon, you could measure to it and would realize that you have to center the blast marker on this model rather than a model behind it, which would have resulted in many more hits. It's also easy to find out where to put the blast maker in less close cases, by extending the tape measure to the maximum distance of the weapon and holding it to the gun.

You fire mixed weapons easily by following the steps explained in the blast weapon rules.
1) Pick target and check Los for regular weapons. Check LoS for blast marker placement and place it.
2) Next, check if blast marker is out of range. Check if regular weapons are out of range at the same time.
3) Roll to hit for regular weapons. Do not roll to hit for blast weapons. Scatter blast weapon to figure out hits.
4) Roll to wound
5) Take saving throws
6) Remove casualties

Nos claims that 1) and 2) are not affected by blast rules, even though the are explicitly changed, but folds them all into 3), which is nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Note that special close combat weapons also change the sequence of resolving their attacks (ignoring armor, funky ways of figuring out amount of attacks, changing to-wound roll) without causing any problems to regular attacks resolved at the same time.

I am sorry I was editing my post while you were posting this, please re-read my earlier post.

As explained in an earlier post, the "instead" construct used here by the writer does not make these rules a clear one-for-one replacement.

As rules work much worse and conflict by reading it as such a replacement, that sort of interpretation must be wrong. The blast weapon rules can and should be read as an replacement for the entire shooting procedure. Doing so causes no rules conflict or even unintuitive actions, while arbitrarily forcing actions clearly defined in their own specific steps of shooting into another step that has no business with them causes obvious problems.

In short: There is no proof of the blast rules being a replacement of step three and nothing else.

My previous post still stands - playing any other way would be unfair premeasuring.

On a side note, if "Roll to hit" would be clearly defined as "Step 3" as nos states, "Do not Roll to hit" would also forbid you from replacing that step with any actions in it's stead, as you can only replace something you are allowed to do. Just like a model which may not shoot can not run.

BRB page 15 Shooting sequence box-out, step 3: "Roll to Hit"

BRB page 17 Header for section in second column: "Roll to Hit"

Roll to hit is a clearly defined step, and is a clearly defined section of rules in the shooting procedures. "Roll to hit" is the rules that are explicitly changed by the blast rules via the verbiage: " When firing a Blast weapon, do not roll to hit, instead..." the Instead goes on to explain how you determine hits with a blast weapon and includes some special range and LOS considerations for determining the hits, this does not replace the Check range and LOS steps/rules in the shooting procedures.

As you probably didn't ignore it on purpose, I'll quote myself.

"We usually go swimming, then to the movies, then to a bar. Today we are not going to the movies, instead we go shopping, then have lunch, and then we go to sleep".
Does not result in "We go swimming, shopping, have lunch, go to sleep and then to a bar".

Blast rules are not a replacement of the "Roll to hit" step.

They are not a replacement for the 'roll to hit' step only. They replace the entire shooting procedure. Sure, there is some overlap between the two in how things happen, but they are two different procedures.

-cgmckenzie

Except, they are not. Nothing you have provided shows this.

Instead of doing A, you do B

Instead of rolling to hit, follow the steps listed

NOTHING states "dont follow steps 1 and 2" as well. Neither explicitly or implicitly

Guys,if you want to debate this,get your own thread.This was about melta blast weapons.How did it become about Blast weapons and hitting?

BEcause a) theyre blast and b) it matters as to when you measure range.

That was a rhetorical question.

No, it really wasnt. You made an erroneous statement - theres a difference.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except, they are not. Nothing you have provided shows this.

Instead of doing A, you do B

Instead of rolling to hit, follow the steps listed

NOTHING states "dont follow steps 1 and 2" as well. Neither explicitly or implicitly

This statement is utterly wrong, as shown by me. As you refuse to answer even a single argument, I assume that you can't or don't want to. In either case, you have failed to prove your argument. Five times in a row now. You have brought no arguments to this debate, have been unfriendly and condescending for the whole thread. You are not right because you claim to be so. That's all there is to it.

Being a veteran of this forum does not make your word the law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and you are violating Tenets of You Make Da Call #1 and especially #1a.

?

I have brought the only rule needed, the first rule int he Blast shooting rules. This disproves your argument. Your attempt at pretending the rule "instead..." doesnt *really* mean "instead of rolling to hit" but "instead of following any shooting rules at all" has been noted by many and refuted. You cannot create rules out of whole cloth and then claim I havent disproved them. I have.

You declare shooting with a unit.
You follow step 1
You follow step 2
You follow step 3 - and you are using a blast, so INSTEAD of "rolling to hit" you follow the rules in that paragraph (and beyond)

That is how the rules for shooting work: you follow the basic rules, get to step three and do what you are told to do INSTEAD of performing step 3.

Prove that you do not do the above. You have yet to do so, putting you in violation of the tenets of YMDC. Also, please do a search for the first few times the devildog threads appeared (the first recent melta blast), and note how you are still in the wrong.

Being a veteran has nothing to do with it; not making up rules out of thin air is everything to do with it.

The rule does not say "Replace A with B". It simply doesn't.

It does say "Don't do A, do B". That's an entirely different case.

I proved that the rule can be read in another way than you propose. I proved that the rules work better that way. I proved that there are no conflicts or unintuitive things going on, unlike with your interpretation. I even applied your logic to other rules of the same chapter to proof it flawed. That is much more evidence than needed.

There is no evidence of the rule being a one-to-one replacement. Also "(beyond)" is even more wrong. There is not even a glimpse proof about anything but that single paragraph replacing any of the steps.

But I wrote all of this before, you are ignoring it anyway. Again.

I do not care whether this was nodded off as right in the past. Dreadknights entering Stormravens was, too. And it was proven wrong later, and finally burried by the FAQ.

And please lose that attitude. You used to be a great person to discuss rules with. Now you are doing exactly what you usually torch other people for - repeating the same dull argument over and over again, without even caring about the other's argument.

I never said "replace" - i didnt. I said "instead", which is what the rules say

You have also not responded to Kels point about mixed blast units - under you interpretation you cannot fire mixed blast units. When saying "unintuitive" surely your interpretation, which requires you to render mixed units unable to fire nonblast weapons, is the lesser interpretation?

You have still not shown how the specific phrase "do not roll to hit. Instead..." means anything other than what I have shown - you are lacking extensive parts to your argument here.

I have responded to your argument, you're just not seeing it. You're lacking a crucial element to your argument, which you keep glossing over. You are reading "follow none of the shooting rules, only these" when you see the phrase "do not roll to hit. Instead"

"do not roll to hit. Instead" is a one for one replacement - when you get to step 3, roll to hit, INSTEAD of rolling to hit (which youre told not to do) you follow the rules in that paragraph. That's what that phrase means, exactly.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I never said "replace" - i didnt. I said "instead", which is what the rules say

nosferatu1001 wrote:Blast weapons replace the step "roll to hit"
PRIOR to that step you pick a target, check LOS and check range.

Check range is, oddly enough, when you see if you are in half range.

Never say never.

You have also not responded to Kels point about mixed blast units - under you interpretation you cannot fire mixed blast units. When saying "unintuitive" surely your interpretation, which requires you to render mixed units unable to fire nonblast weapons, is the lesser interpretation?

My third post on this page.

You have still not shown how the specific phrase "do not roll to hit. Instead..." means anything other than what I have shown - you are lacking extensive parts to your argument here.

My fifth post on this page.

I have responded to your argument, you're just not seeing it. You're lacking a crucial element to your argument, which you keep glossing over. You are reading "follow none of the shooting rules, only these" when you see the phrase "do not roll to hit. Instead"

And you keep glossing over explicit explanation of procedure which are almost identical to how shooting is resolved. Why on earth should you check line of sight and measure range during a step called "Roll to hit", when there are two steps explicitly doing those exact two procedures?

"do not roll to hit. Instead" is a one for one replacement - when you get to step 3, roll to hit, INSTEAD of rolling to hit (which youre told not to do) you follow the rules in that paragraph. That's what that phrase means, exactly.

As above. "Do not roll to hit, instead..." only tells you to not roll a dice for hitting models. Not to replace the procedure of rolling the dice with rules which have nothing at all to do with them.

So youre trying to reference a post on the first page? Try doing that next time explicitly, it would be slightly more helpful.

Yet your third post this page doesnt actually follow the rules. You have performd "check range" for the blast marker at step 2, when you are told to check range TO THE UNIT at step 2. You have mixed rules up with no basis in the rules, as we have repeatedly attempted to explain to you, seemingly to no avail.

Your 5th post is :Blast rules are not a replacement of the "Roll to hit" step.

Excpet that is exactly the opposite of what the rules state. That statement is factually incorrect.

Do not roll to hit
Roll to hit is step 3
Roll to hit is a defined step
Being told not to perform a defined step IS tellng you not to perform the defined step

DO not roll to hit. INSTEAD. Note the period. Roll to hit is a defined step, as Kel proved to you (since you ignore mine)

nosferatu1001 wrote:So youre trying to reference a post on the first page? Try doing that next time explicitly, it would be slightly more helpful.

Yet your third post this page doesnt actually follow the rules. You have performd "check range" for the blast marker at step 2, when you are told to check range TO THE UNIT at step 2. You have mixed rules up with no basis in the rules, as we have repeatedly attempted to explain to you, seemingly to no avail.

If you had read and understand any part of my argument, you'd realize that this is not a mixup. It is explicitly changing the way you measure range, just like rapid fire shooting two shots, even though only a weapon with a number behind its type may fire multiple shots. But you were ignoring that argument as well.

Your 5th post is :Blast rules are not a replacement of the "Roll to hit" step.

Yup, after quoting myself. You should read that quote, and maybe even the post it originally came from. You missing all that stuff makes it pretty evident that you didn't read any of my posts.

Excpet that is exactly the opposite of what the rules state. That statement is factually incorrect.

Do not roll to hit
Roll to hit is step 3
Roll to hit is a defined step
Being told not to perform a defined step IS tellng you not to perform the defined step

Correct. You do not roll to hit. I never claimed to do so. However you want to do something during a step which you are not supposed to do. Paradox?

DO not roll to hit. INSTEAD. Note the period. Roll to hit is a defined step, as Kel proved to you (since you ignore mine)

Actually, the rule does not have a period. And so what? You skip step three, or more accurately you do nothing during that step concerning the blast weapon, as you potentially still have to roll to hit for other weapons in the same unit.
Whether roll to hit is a single step or not does not matter at all. You skip what you usually do during that step in any case.

You do not check range, check LoS and scatter your blast during the roll to hit step. What you are supposed to do is not roll to hit and simply follow blast rules instead to shoot a blast weapon, and then return to the normal procedure during wounding. I understand your argument perfectly and have declared it wrong and shown why. Unless you can proof that your interpretation is more right than mine, even though it makes less sense, you are not right.

Clinging to a caps-locked "INSTEAD" is all you have for an argument right now. That straw is not going to hold.

NOs, just read the entire page on blast weapons. It outlines an entire firing procedure that changes more than 'roll to hit'. There isn't a fancy table like on pg 16 but GW was probably hoping we could read the rules without visual aids.

Pg 16 has standard shooting procedures, pg 30 has blast. Read the entire page, not just the 1st paragraph.

-cgmckenzie

Oddly enough ive read all of it. Quite a few times.

Find a rule stating you do not follow the shooting procedure, starting at step 1. An actual rule. Not "this is a replacement for everything, even though it only tells you to not "roll to hit""

Jidmah - and you still claim "do not roll to hit" means "do not follow step 1, 2 or 3 of the shooting procedure", whereas it actually means "do not follow step 3, you know, the one called "roll to hit""

You are making up an entirely new procedure, starting by replacing step 1, when you only have permission (via "do not roll to hit, INSTEAD") to replace step 3

Find permission, or concede.

Note: i referred you to the devil dog argument, as this has been hashed out before. If you could actually reference that argument, where your position was shown incorrect, it would save a lot of hassle.

jidmah wrote:What you are supposed to do is not roll to hit and simply follow blast rules instead to shoot a blast weapon, and then return to the normal procedure during wounding

Note, this is where you are making rules up. You do, indeed, not roll to hit with blasts. You start at step 1, then step 2, then instead of performing step 3 you do everything it tells you to do after the "instead" word you consider so unimportant. You dont create an entirely new shooting process, because you have NO permission to do show.

I have proven your argument wrong a number of times. So has Kel. The fact you dont want to listen to this, or consider it wrong, doesnt alter facts. I dont *care* that you end up measuring twice - you are actually measuring two different things. One is distance to unit, one to a specific model. That can vary by up to 30" with EASE.

You have read it and don't see how it is an entire procedure, not just the 'roll to hit step'? I'm done with this. You are so convinced you are right that nothing, not even reading the source text, will convince you otherwise. Arguing with you is pointless.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:You have read it and don't see how it is an entire procedure, not just the 'roll to hit step'? I'm done with this. You are so convinced you are right that nothing, not even reading the source text, will convince you otherwise. Arguing with you is pointless.

-cgmckenzie

I came to the same conclusion when you posted the blast weapon procedure and it still went on.