Switch Theme:

Targeting a unit out of range  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
RAW: Can you target a unit that is out of range?
Yes
No
Other/No opinion/Confused

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

Rigeld2,
What about situations that do not involve players choice?

The original question I put forth in the other thread used Gets Hot and a Plasma Cannon because it requires us to verify if the shot even occurs via random chance. It is entirely possible for a player to nominate a Unit which only has the Plasma Cannon in range, measure the range to this Weapon, fully intend to fire this weapon during the Shooting Sequence. Then, thanks to random chance, the only Weapon which "legally" could of fired is now denied from firing... all because Resolving a Rule led to this situation after the Target was nominated.

8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,
What about situations that do not involve players choice?

The original question I put forth in the other thread used Gets Hot and a Plasma Cannon because it requires us to verify if the shot even occurs via random chance. It is entirely possible for a player to nominate a Unit which only has the Plasma Cannon in range, measure the range to this Weapon, fully intend to fire this weapon during the Shooting Sequence. Then, thanks to random chance, the only Weapon which "legally" could of fired is now denied from firing... all because Resolving a Rule led to this situation after the Target was nominated.

Then the shooting attack doesn't happen. It's an exception because Gets Hot says "that shot is not fired". Having an exception doesn't mean that you can do that in general - and I'd like to point out that the Target was still in range in your example.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

So situations which prevent the generation of Shots after Step 2 are 'exceptions to the normal?'

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/10/20 19:24:11


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





JinxDragon wrote:
So situations which do not support your concepts are automatically 'exceptions to the normal?'

...
Nice accusation, but no.
Please actually address my arguments instead of making up insults - the discussion will go better.
I've presented the facts and supporting rules. All you've come back with (that I can see) is "But what about...?!??! CAUGHTYOULOLZ".

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

Feel free to think that it is an accusation and an insult if you wish, but I find it to be a very real concern when anyone replies 'That is an exception' to any evidence posted that weakens a concept.
Remember also whom you are arguing against on this Forum, I have switched position on many things based on a single post in the past so it is clear I am not in the business of 'catching you' in some sort of trap. Should you be able to post something which proves that a Shooting Attack can not consist of 0 Shots, from a Rule as Written perspective and not just common sense that a Shooting Attack must involve some sort of shooting, I would switch my position very quickly.

But if you are serious about claiming that gets Hot is an exception to the 'No Shooting Attack may consist of 0 Shots' Rule you claim exists I will entertain the concept:
As an Exception to a Restriction it must address the Restriction in some fashion... so where in the Get Hot's Rule does it state that the Shooting Attack is legal even if 0 Shots are generated after Gets Hot has been Resolved?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/20 19:34:36


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





JinxDragon wrote:
Feel free to think that it is an accusation and an insult if you wish, but I find it to be a very real concern. Simply claiming 'it is an exception' when a scenario is presented which does not support your conclusion does not lend strength to your argument.

You find a single scenario and then use that to claim that everything I've said is incorrect? And you don't actually argue against what I've said, just "Nope, you're wrong because Gets Hot." How is that polite debate?

not common sense that a Shooting Attack must involve some short of shooting, I would switch my position very quickly... I have not yet seen enough evidence to state that the Rules Support that Concept.

So the steps of a shooting attack aren't enough to prove that? ... Okay. Sure.

But if you are serious about claiming that gets Hot is an exception to the 'No Shooting Attack may consist of 0 Shots' Rule you claim exists I will entertain the concept:
As an Exception to a Restriction it must address the Restriction in some fashion... so where in the Get Hot's Rule does it state that the Shooting Attack is legal even if 0 Shots are generated after Gets Hot has been Resolved?

It's not a legal shooting attack - Gets Hot makes it illegal, but that doesn't mean you have to rewind and undo the Gets Hot roll.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

Rigeld2,
I have found several scenarios that allow 0 Shots to be generated, but you won't take the vast majority of them as 'valid' because they all involve some form of Player Choice. It is your counter-argument to these scenarios that the Player has the ability to avoid the 'illegal scenario' with some fore-thought, so they have to avoid any situation which will lead to an illegal outcome. This has led to the core scenario I originally put forth, because I knew it did not involve player choice, having not at all been addressed, and when requested your reply was 'it is an exception' which needed more detailing before I could accept it as correct.

However, as you are now saying it is not an exception and the Shooting Attack would be illegal we are back to my original pondering on the subject:
How can a situation which exists purely because of Rule interactions be an 'illegal outcome' by the very Rules governing it?





8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





JinxDragon wrote:
How can a situation which exists purely because of Rule interactions be an 'illegal outcome' by the very Rules governing it?

Because it is? It's an illegal shooting attack, so it stops there. Just like the FNP "paradox" that people are unable to accept.

Still no addressing my actual argument with rule quotes I note. Perhaps you'd like to do so?

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





RAW yes..Note however this rule is a a leftover from previous editions ..we had to designate targets without measuring (ie had to guess) and if out of range we were out of luck REPEAT this is a holdover from when we could not check range prior to designating targets ..later on an out of range target cannot be shot at ..

'\' ~9000pts
'' ~1500
"" ~3000
"" ~2500
 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





morfydd wrote:
RAW yes..Note however this rule is a a leftover from previous editions ..we had to designate targets without measuring (ie had to guess) and if out of range we were out of luck REPEAT this is a holdover from when we could not check range prior to designating targets ..later on an out of range target cannot be shot at ..

So you just skipped the 6th edition rules completely?

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

You mean posting something along the lines of this:
This is the Rule for how we go about choosing an enemy to shoot at so let us break it down again:
Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, - Timing Restraint telling us when these instructions are followed
choose a single enemy unit for them to shoot at. - What we do when the above Timing Restraint is met, if left there it would let us select any Unit to shoot at
To do so - An important line that no one ever seems willing to address: What do these three words mean if not detailing that the following instructions are how we go about choosing an enemy to shoot at?
you must check the range and line of sight from your unit to the enemy unit you are targeting - A Requirement to physically check the Range of a Target, but one which fails to inform us what to do if we find the value is X or Y which is the underlining problem with this Rule
Note that you may check the range and line of sight to multiple enemy units - Permission to do this multiple times before making a decision, in order to prevent us being in a 'can not target, can not re-measure' situation
before deciding which one to shoot at and declaring it to your opponent. - a Requirement to decide to shoot at just one Unit and inform our opponent which Unit that is
You cannot target a unit that is locked in combat. - Patched on Restriction against targeting a Unit that is Locked in Combat


That was where I dissected Step 2 in it's entirety to show that it does one thing, and only one thing: Grant us permission to nominate a Target to Shoot at. The only Restrictions that should be contained at this point are those related to Targeting a Unit, as that is the subject matter of this Step after all. Such Restrictions do already exist for the purpose of Line of Sight, which raises the question of why Line of Sight has such a Restriction if your core concept is correct. I can only concluded, after dissecting Step 2 is that the obedience of this step tells us exactly which Unit will be Shot at regardless of how many Shots will be generated at a later step.

However let is go a little macro on this problem, let us ignore the individual steps themselves and ponder the entire Shooting Sequence as that is really what governs how a Unit shoots at another Unit:
Why should permission to access the sequence, and obedience to the instructions within, ever lead to an 'illegal Shooting Attack?'
If it is possible for the Rules to be followed then the Shooting Attack has to be legal, even if it generated 0 Shots....

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/20 21:09:45


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





JinxDragon wrote:
You mean posting something along the lines of this:
This is the Rule for how we go about choosing an enemy to shoot at so let us break it down again:
Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, - Timing Restraint telling us when these instructions are followed
choose a single enemy unit for them to shoot at. - What we do when the above Timing Restraint is met, if left there it would let us select any Unit to shoot at
To do so - An important line that no one ever seems willing to address: What do these three words mean if not detailing that the following instructions are how we go about choosing an enemy to shoot at?
you must check the range and line of sight from your unit to the enemy unit you are targeting - A Requirement to physically check the Range of a Target, but one which fails to inform us what to do if we find the value is X or Y which is the underlining problem with this Rule
Note that you may check the range and line of sight to multiple enemy units - Permission to do this multiple times before making a decision, in order to prevent us being in a 'can not target, can not re-measure' situation
before deciding which one to shoot at and declaring it to your opponent. - a Requirement to decide to shoot at just one Unit and inform our opponent which Unit that is
You cannot target a unit that is locked in combat. - Patched on Restriction against targeting a Unit that is Locked in Combat

You keep asserting that no one addresses the bolded line - except that I have. The following does require you to "decid[e] which one to shoot at" and since "shoot at" means "make a shooting attack" and you can't make a shooting attack if you're out of range...

So perhaps you could address that fact that you've continuously ignored? That'd be great.

Such Restrictions do already exist for the purpose of Line of Sight, which raises the question of why Line of Sight has such a Restriction if your core concept is correct. I can only concluded, after dissecting Step 2 is that the obedience of this step tells us exactly which Unit will be Shot at regardless of how many Shots will be generated at a later step.

No, it can not. Your analysis is flawed - as I've pointed out.

However let is go a little macro on this problem, let us ignore the individual steps themselves and ponder the entire Shooting Sequence as that is really what governs how a Unit shoots at another Unit:
Why should permission to access the sequence, and obedience to the instructions within, ever lead to an 'illegal Shooting Attack?'
If it is possible for the Rules to be followed then the Shooting Attack has to be legal, even if it generated 0 Shots....

Please explain how this is different from the FNP "paradox"? Both begin normally, both have something (rules based with no choice) happen in the middle, both result in something illegal. For FNP it's that the wound never happened, which means FNP couldn't have been triggered, which means the wound happens, which means FNP triggers...

So far you haven't said why my argument is wrong, just that yours is right. I've pointed out that "To do so" means you must be able to declare a shooting attack (or that you lie to your opponent). I've pointed out that you cannot make shooting attacks to units that are out of range ("A weapon must be in range of the target unit to shoot."). You've disproved neither of these, instead deciding to play "Gotcha!" with potential exceptions and re-assert your interpretations.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

Which I keep addressing, but we keep going around and around on this matter:
You view the words 'Choose a Target to Shoot at' as a Requirement to nominate only Units which can be Shot at
I have concluded that the 'Choose a Target to Shoot at' is a Rule telling us to follow instructions that govern how such a choice is made....

The reason I come to this conclusion, as I have stated many times in the past, is because of the words 'to do so.' These words have one single purpose which can not be ignored, to inform us what comes afterwards are instructions detailing how to go about about doing "something." As the part which came before these three words is the requirement to Nominate a Target to shoot at, the instructions following must be informing us how to go about Nominating a Target to Shoot at. If the instructions that followed the To Do So portion of the rule contained Restrictions on whom we can target due to Range, then you would be able to state that part of the instructions involve making sure the Target can be legally shot.

As the instructions do not contain any such requirement, it is entirely possible to state that obeying these instructions is all that is required to Nominate a Target to Shoot at.

As for proving your concept incorrect, I have a simple request:
Post a Rule which literally states that a Shooting Sequence can never be Resolved if 0 Shots are generated.

After all, we are debating a Rule which is utilized as part of the Shooting Sequence so it is obvious we must already have permission to evoke the entirety of the Shooting Sequence. That would mean, from a Rule as Written point of view, that a quotable Restriction needs to exist in order to revoke or limit the scope of previously granted permissions. Step 1 has Restrictions but they would all prevent us from getting to Step 2 unless a legal choice can be followed so we assume we already have legal access to this Step. Step 2 does not provide any instructions on what to do if a Target is in or out of Range, unlike Sight, so it is entirely possible to obey these instructions and move onto Step 3. Step 3 has been shown to allow a Weapon Group to be nominated and still end up with 0 Shots fired. Steps past this point are all designed around the concept of 'Successful Results,' which already accounts for the possibility of there being 0 Successful results so they function easily when faced with the problem of 0 Shots.

As it has been proven possible to obey steps 1-3 in the Sequence, and still have 0 Shooting attacks, I need a specific Rule which makes the entire Shooting Attack illegal at this point to continue this debate.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/20 22:47:20


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




To check range in step 2 requires nothing more than the generation of a number. There is no requirement to have any weapon capable of shooting the target until you get farther in the sequence.

2. To do so, you must check the range and line of sight from your unit to the enemy unit you are targeting.
-- I have LOS and the range is 25".

Nothing stops me from going to step 3 here. LOS is the only thing that has a requirement at this step.

If no model has line of sight, then a different target must be chosen.


Unless you can find a similar line for Range, then RAW you can "Target" a unit that is OOR.
   
Made in fi
Neophyte Undergoing Surgeries




So, why are people arguing about this? Is there some kind of benefit for targeting units that are out of range?
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Buffalo, NY

Julistaja wrote:
So, why are people arguing about this? Is there some kind of benefit for targeting units that are out of range?


There is/was a thread regarding whether or not a unit of Swooping Hawks could Battle Focus away from the target of their Grenade Pack so they could shoot a different unit. Since that thread kept getting de-railed by this topic, I felt it would be better to just start a new thread.

Near as I can tell the only time there is a benefit to targeting something out of range, is with Searchlights. For example, you could have a column of tanks sitting on your backfield with Searchlights, lighting up various units they would not be able to shoot due to range, thus allowing closer units an easier time spotting them.

Otherwise there is no tactical reason I can think of.
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

Julistaja
Resolving a Shooting attack with 0 Shots in it would be pointless, so this is pure academical at this point to get a better understanding of how Game Workshop writes their sorry excuse for Rules.

Honestly though, if the only two things that come from this are related to Searchlights and Swooping Hawks then I see no problem. I have long, long, lamented just how pathetic Searchlights are to other forms of Night Fighting and I play Blacksun-Filter-by-Default Tau. To have a mechanic in the game which allows Searchlights to actually do some sort of Night Fighting Role, instead of simply driving the tanks closer under the cover of darkness instead, is something we should allow. The downside isn't that great either, Swooping Hawks just have to be a little more careful with placement and how they evoke their Run and Gun ability to get into range or out of sight.

Personally, I am sure most players will be like myself and grant the benefit while turning a blind eye to the disadvantage.

Rigeld2,
I am still toying if I should dissect the entire Shooting Sequence to see if you and I can come to some agreement over how it works from the Rule as Written perspective. I normally wouldn't bother offering something that large, and it would involve posting a hell of a lot of Rules designed to dictate how a Unit Shoots at an Enemy, but I don't like having such long winded disagreements with you. Do you even believe it is possible for us to come to an agreement over how this very Basic Rule function before either of go into such depths over this matter?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/21 02:00:36


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





JinxDragon wrote:
Which I keep addressing, but we keep going around and around on this matter:
You view the words 'Choose a Target to Shoot at' as a Requirement to nominate only Units which can be Shot at
I have concluded that the 'Choose a Target to Shoot at' is a Rule telling us to follow instructions that govern how such a choice is made....

Please actually read my last post and cite where I mentioned the quoted statement. I've addressed your "to do so" line.

As the instructions do not contain any such requirement, it is entirely possible to state that obeying these instructions is all that is required to Nominate a Target to Shoot at.

Except for where I've shown that's not correct.

As it has been proven possible to obey steps 1-3 in the Sequence, and still have 0 Shooting attacks, I need a specific Rule which makes the entire Shooting Attack illegal at this point to continue this debate.

No, you have 0 shots, which isn't a legal shooting attack. Correct terminology is important.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in gb
Confessor Of Sins





Newton Aycliffe

rigeld2 wrote:
JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,
What about situations that do not involve players choice?

The original question I put forth in the other thread used Gets Hot and a Plasma Cannon because it requires us to verify if the shot even occurs via random chance. It is entirely possible for a player to nominate a Unit which only has the Plasma Cannon in range, measure the range to this Weapon, fully intend to fire this weapon during the Shooting Sequence. Then, thanks to random chance, the only Weapon which "legally" could of fired is now denied from firing... all because Resolving a Rule led to this situation after the Target was nominated.

Then the shooting attack doesn't happen. It's an exception because Gets Hot says "that shot is not fired". Having an exception doesn't mean that you can do that in general - and I'd like to point out that the Target was still in range in your example.


Curious about this one Rigeld:

Would you not say that the Shooting sequence is resolved (1 to 7), but on the model itself rather than on the target chosen?

IE if the Plasma canon targets a Unit at 200" range, and gets hot, the entire Sequence is legal (range to himself is met) and runs from steps 1 to 7 (removing himself as casualty).
But if the Plasma canon targets a Unit at 200" range, and does not get hot, the range is illegal and the Sequence (in it's entirety) cannot be followed?

DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass. 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 BlackTalos wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,
What about situations that do not involve players choice?

The original question I put forth in the other thread used Gets Hot and a Plasma Cannon because it requires us to verify if the shot even occurs via random chance. It is entirely possible for a player to nominate a Unit which only has the Plasma Cannon in range, measure the range to this Weapon, fully intend to fire this weapon during the Shooting Sequence. Then, thanks to random chance, the only Weapon which "legally" could of fired is now denied from firing... all because Resolving a Rule led to this situation after the Target was nominated.

Then the shooting attack doesn't happen. It's an exception because Gets Hot says "that shot is not fired". Having an exception doesn't mean that you can do that in general - and I'd like to point out that the Target was still in range in your example.


Curious about this one Rigeld:

Would you not say that the Shooting sequence is resolved (1 to 7), but on the model itself rather than on the target chosen?

IE if the Plasma canon targets a Unit at 200" range, and gets hot, the entire Sequence is legal (range to himself is met) and runs from steps 1 to 7 (removing himself as casualty).
But if the Plasma canon targets a Unit at 200" range, and does not get hot, the range is illegal and the Sequence (in it's entirety) cannot be followed?

No, Gets Hot! doesn't follow the shooting sequence at all. Rather, the wound generated from it does not. (it doesn't get allocated, etc).

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in gb
Stitch Counter





The North

You would have assumed in the 41st millennium that advanced war gear on well trained soldiers would have range finders and experience with the range of their weapons.

Then the pre-measuring rule / changing targets would make sense.

Thousand Sons: 3850pts / Space Marines Deathwatch 5000pts / Dark Eldar Webway Corsairs 2000pts / Scrapheap Challenged Orks 1500pts / Black Death 1500pts

Saga: (Vikings, Normans, Anglo Danes, Irish, Scots, Late Romans, Huns and Anglo Saxons), Lion Rampant, Ronin: (Bushi x2, Sohei), Frostgrave: (Enchanter, Thaumaturge, Illusionist)
 
   
Made in gb
Confessor Of Sins





Newton Aycliffe

rigeld2 wrote:

No, Gets Hot! doesn't follow the shooting sequence at all. Rather, the wound generated from it does not. (it doesn't get allocated, etc).


I see, makes sense. Model simply suffers a Wound =/= allocating a Wound.

Also "immediately suffers" would separate it entirely from the shooting Sequence in the first place, sorry for the tangent.


DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass. 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

At this point I fear the only response I can make is to completely dissect the entire Shooting Sequence then, but that is quite a task to do and will involve quite a few hours just making the preliminary posts let alone the back and forth such a dissecting will need. Figured I will do each step in reverse, as that actually is a better way to explain how the Sequence works as a whole. There are some Steps which inform us what a result of the previous Step means, so it might be best to address those Steps first.

Before I begin, can we at least agree that the Shooting Sequence is the Rule mechanic covering how a Unit Shoots an Enemy?
Including an Agreement that a successful Resolution of the sequence is all it takes to have 'legally shot at the Enemy?'

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/10/21 18:35:34


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





JinxDragon wrote:
Before I begin, can we at least agree that the Shooting Sequence is the Rule mechanic covering how a Unit Shoots an Enemy?
Including an Agreement that a successful Resolution of the sequence is all it takes to have 'legal shot at the Enemy?'

Considering the rules say:
Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the Assault phase.

Sure.

Would you agree that you continue to emphasize "to do so" even after I've shown that my argument doesn't ignore that? To do so includes the requirement that you can resolve a shooting attack against the unit. Your argument ignores that.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

Previous arguments on the matter will have to be considered null and void, if we are to dissect something as large as the Shooting Sequence itself we must forgo any preconceptions as to what the findings will be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So let us begin by preliminaries, a break down of each Step in Reverse.

Summery:
7. Select Another Weapon. After resolving all shots from the currently selected weapon, if the firing unit is equipped with differently named weapons that have yet to fire, select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6.

Fleshed Rules:
SELECT ANOTHER WEAPON
After the attacks from the currently selected weapon have been completely resolved, if the firing unit is equipped with a differently named shooting weapon that has yet to fire, you can now select it and shoot with it at the same target unit. This is resolved in exactly the same way as the first weapon you selected, but you may now find that due to the casualties you inflicted that there are now fewer models in the target unit in range. Remember, you can choose the order in which you fire and resolve the differently named weapons your unit is equipped with, so you may want to consider shooting the weapons with the shortest range first. Repeat this process until you have selected and resolved attacks from all the weapons in the firing unit. If a unit has no differently named weapons, or if it chooses not to fire any of them, you can choose another of your units to make your next shooting attack, or proceed to the Assault phase.

Nice and easy one to begin with, I doubt there is much here that will raise any questions but do you have any pondering to put on E-paper before we go onto Step 6?
Please take note, I am not going to argue my own pondering at this point as we still have 6 other steps to review before we can really get down to discussing the findings in full.

My Own:
Curious how they keep to the concept of 'Weapon Groups" as I have taken to calling them, it isn't individual Weapons or Models but groups of them that seem to matter
This does contain reference to Range, but only reminding us we mind end up with Weapon Groups that fail to be in range so irrelevant
Curious that they require us to repeat the process till we have selected and resolved attacks from all the weapons in the firing Unit, then right after they say we can choose not to fire any of them....
- Maybe an earlier step will tell us how it is possible to resolve attacks from all weapon groups and still choose not to fire any of them

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/10/22 03:56:49


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: