Do you have to be in range to be able to shoot?

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.

**Mr. Shine**

col_impact wrote:
Not really just my interpretation. It's the rules. Units are said to shoot and the way in which the BRB defines a unit shooting is the process of a unit running through the shooting sequence.

No. One of your earlier posts on the subject makes it clear it is your interpretation:

col_impact wrote:
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 . . .

You are drawing an inference to support your opinion. That is not the same to pointing to the rules and saying, "The rules actually say this."

It's not drawing an inference however to say that we can conclusively know a model has shot once it has reached step 4 of the Shooting Sequence, or that similarly it must at least pass step 3 of the Shooting Sequence. The rules are crystal clear that a model cannot have shot if it stumbled at step 3, and that by reaching and completing step 4 it has fired shots.

What we can conclusively say about units shooting is that to do so they must complete the Shooting Sequence. That is not the same as saying we know that attempting the Shooting Sequence qualifies for a unit as having shot.

**Charistoph**

col_impact wrote:
Mr. Shine wrote:
col_impact wrote:
The Shooting Sequence itself is a quote for that.

Spoiler:

The Shooting Sequence
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but
has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models
equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the
target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one
visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in
range, cannot shoot.
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines
what it must roll in order to hit the target.
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the
target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing
weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing
unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target
unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has
one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed
as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to
allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
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.

The rules don't allow for do-overs, so once you elect to start the shooting sequence for a unit you are stuck resolving the shooting attack for that unit even if that unit does not fire at all. You will wind up expending the units shooting and be unable to choose to run.

An opponent might allow you to do a do-over, but that will be up to them and is not part of the rules.

I think what Charistoph is after is something which supports the contention that resolving the shooting sequence equates to shooting, given the potential for being explicitly disallowed from shooting as part or a result of the shooting sequence.

For a unit, resolving the shooting sequence equates to shooting.

For a model, firing a shot equates to shooting.

And where does it state that when a unit attempts to generate a Shooting Attack, the unit is considered to have been shooting?

And where does it state that if no actions are performed past Step 3 the first time, that the Shooting sequence is resolved and the unit is considered to have been shooting?

I see neither of these things in what you have put in your spoiler quote.

And do everyone a favor (including yourself), clean up your quotes a little. PDF copies carry over carriage returns and generates a bloated sloppy mess, especially in a quote.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

WaughGoff wrote:
What I am saying is that the wording of this rule is less about the dice rolling of the shooting sequence and more about the sequence of events covered by this rule.

Units in this formation are allowed to move 2d6 immediately after they shoot, in the shooting phase.

This means:
1) They may move 2d6 inches. A umique movement value to this rule
2) It must be done AFTER resolving shooting. They may not make this move and then decide to shoot. Once this move is made, this units shooting is done.
3)It must be done BEFORE moving on to another unit. Once shooting is declared by another unit you cannot then come back to this unit and move. Which means that the movement made under this rule may interfere with the shooting phase of other units, so pick your sequence of events carefully. It may block LOS or offer a cover save that was not available beforehand.

A declaration to "cease fire" or "hold your fire" or "get your finger off the trigger and shag your ass" is one of several possible resolutions of the shooting sequence for a unit.

But if no models shoot, no shooting is resolved, so no permission to move the 2D6 in the Shooting Phase.

Yes, NOT shooting is a choice, but the rule still requires shooting in order to operate, not just completing its participation in the Shooting Phase.

**_ghost_**

But why does anyone think a shooting attack does magicaly stop if there are no weapons in range?

What if i have a model with two weapons. One in range one not. let's pretend we resolve the one in range first. do we get a blue screen when we come to the second one?
what happens if we first handle the weapon out of range? Blue screen?

In both cases we go through the shooting attack sequence.
Reswolving shooting means to go through the shooting attack sequence. thats it.
What happens when i choose a target to far away for my unit.?
Am i allowed to make another try? No. so why can't ? Because the unit count's as "having shot"

**Naw**

There is this difficulty again. Shooting has not been defined anywhere. I'll use logic myself and if no models in the unit have shot, then the unit has not shot, but did spend their turn of doing a shooting attack. As the rule says, once you pick a unit for the shooting, it needs to go through the shooting sequence steps.

**Mr. Shine**

_ghost_ wrote:
But why does anyone think a shooting attack does magicaly stop if there are no weapons in range?

What if i have a model with two weapons. One in range one not. let's pretend we resolve the one in range first. do we get a blue screen when we come to the second one?
what happens if we first handle the weapon out of range? Blue screen?

In both cases we go through the shooting attack sequence.
Reswolving shooting means to go through the shooting attack sequence. thats it.
What happens when i choose a target to far away for my unit.?
Am i allowed to make another try? No. so why can't ? Because the unit count's as "having shot"

Common sense should have it clear that steps 4, 5 and 6 of the Shooting Sequence assume some models in the unit with the selected weapon are within range, but even selecting weapon is done at a point where the lines between unit shooting and model shooting have been blurred:

"Whilst some units are comprised entirely of models with the same weaponry, many units are equipped with a variety of different weapons or contain models that are themselves equipped with more than one gun."

Beyond that, though, shooting is resolved weapon by weapon rather than model by model, so not being in range with one weapon but being in range with another does not disallow that model from shooting at all.

And if all models in a unit are out of range of their target, the models do not "count as having shot" but rather are simply disallowed from shooting. Many players of course will allow you to go back and re-declare a target if found to be out of range. The phrases "counts as" and "count as" are not in 'The Shooting Phase' at all.

**FlingitNow**

This is similar to a the "a unit with X special rule" issue. Units don't have special rules models do. So we go to normal English and by transitive properties if a model in the unit has the special rule then the unit does. Same here the game only defines when a model has shot. Thus for a unit to have shot at least one model in the unit must have shot.

**Charistoph**

_ghost_ wrote:But why does anyone think a shooting attack does magicaly stop if there are no weapons in range?

Why do you think it continues if there are no weapons in range?

I would allow someone to skip to selecting another weapon if the chosen weapons weren't in range, personally, but I wouldn't consider the weapon to have been shot. Also, if the unit did not shoot, they still qualify as a unit which did not shoot yet, so qualify to be selected to choose another target that IS in range.

Also note that a Shooting Attack and Shooting have not been proven to be one and the same. The former is a noun resulting from the latter verb.

_ghost_ wrote:What if i have a model with two weapons. One in range one not. let's pretend we resolve the one in range first. do we get a blue screen when we come to the second one?
what happens if we first handle the weapon out of range? Blue screen?

Different situation than we are dealing with. First, one weapon is in range, so shooting DID occur. If one fails to complete a task, one moves on. One is not stuck in the Assault Phase just because no units can Charge.

_ghost_ wrote:In both cases we go through the shooting attack sequence.
Reswolving shooting means to go through the shooting attack sequence. thats it.
What happens when i choose a target to far away for my unit.?
Am i allowed to make another try? No. so why can't ? Because the unit count's as "having shot"

And do you have a quote to support "resolving shooting means to go through the shooting attack sequence"?

FlingitNow wrote:This is similar to a the "a unit with X special rule" issue. Units don't have special rules models do. So we go to normal English and by transitive properties if a model in the unit has the special rule then the unit does. Same here the game only defines when a model has shot. Thus for a unit to have shot at least one model in the unit must have shot.

This is no longer the case. Formation Special Rules are noted to be given to units, as one example. Datasheet Special Rules are noted only as being rules that apply to the models in the unit.

**FlingitNow**

I made no mention of Formations. I was talking about rules like Fire Team or Canticles of the Omnissiah etc with refer to a "unit with this special rule results in Y".

**col_impact**

I think we can decide this with certainty by examining Step 7 of the Shooting Sequence. One rule interpretation breaks the rules. The other works fine with the rules.

Spoiler:

Let's say we choose a unit to go through the shooting sequence that has more than one weapon and all weapons are out of range.

Step 7 will go into infinite repeat if going through the shooting sequence does NOT count as exhausting the shooting weapons ability to fire. There will always be a differently named weapon than the current one selected that has 'yet to fire'.

Step 7 will resolve if going through the shooting sequence does count as exhausting the shooting weapons ability to fire. When a weapon is selected, it is considered fired by going through the sequence.

In logic terms, going through the shooting sequence sets the flag on the weapon to 'has fired'.

**Charistoph**

col_impact wrote:
I think we can decide this with certainty by examining Step 7 of the Shooting Sequence. One rule interpretation breaks the rules. The other works fine with the rules.

Spoiler:

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.

Let's say we choose a unit to go through the shooting sequence that has more than one weapon and all weapons are out of range.

Step 7 will go into infinite repeat if going through the shooting sequence does NOT count as exhausting the shooting weapons ability to fire. There will always be a differently named weapon than the current one selected that has 'yet to fire'.

Step 7 will resolve if going through the shooting sequence does count as exhausting the shooting weapons ability to fire. When a weapon is selected, it is considered fired by going through the sequence.

In logic terms, going through the shooting sequence sets the flag on the weapon to 'has fired'.

Now, read the whole section instead of relying on the blurb. Important details tend to come up in there.

Did you see anything about models not Shooting having considered the unit to have shot?

**FlingitNow**

Nope because step 3 removes options as those weapons out of range can't fire...

**Mr. Shine**

Units aren't equipped with weapons, models are, so it's clearly referring to weapons models in the unit are equipped with, further strengthening the inference that the unit's shooting depends on the models' ability to do so.

**col_impact**

Charistoph wrote:

Now, read the whole section instead of relying on the blurb. Important details tend to come up in there.

Did you see anything about models not Shooting having considered the unit to have shot?

Not relevant. The rule in question only cares that the unit shoots and not whether or not it is considered to have shot.

Consider the Gets Hot case example where a unit shoots and exhausts its shooting but is not considered to have shot.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. Shine wrote:
Units aren't equipped with weapons, models are, so it's clearly referring to weapons models in the unit are equipped with, further strengthening the inference that the unit's shooting depends on the models' ability to do so.

Units shoot by queuing up the models in the unit and processing the shooting attacks of the equipped weapons.

Units successfully shoot by marching through the queue.

Models successfully shoot by attempting to shoot and not by having shot (see Gets Hot example).

**FlingitNow**

col_impact wrote:
Charistoph wrote:

Now, read the whole section instead of relying on the blurb. Important details tend to come up in there.

Did you see anything about models not Shooting having considered the unit to have shot?

Not relevant. The rule in question only cares that the unit shoots and not whether or not it is considered to have shot.

Consider the Gets Hot case example where a unit shoots and exhausts its shooting but is not considered to have shot.

And you're yet to prove the unit has shot when it hasn't shot. You have shown it has gone through the shooting sequence, but have yet to prove that equates to the unit having shot.

**col_impact**

FlingitNow wrote:
col_impact wrote:
Charistoph wrote:

Now, read the whole section instead of relying on the blurb. Important details tend to come up in there.

Did you see anything about models not Shooting having considered the unit to have shot?

Not relevant. The rule in question only cares that the unit shoots and not whether or not it is considered to have shot.

Consider the Gets Hot case example where a unit shoots and exhausts its shooting but is not considered to have shot.

And you're yet to prove the unit has shot when it hasn't shot. You have shown it has gone through the shooting sequence, but have yet to prove that equates to the unit having shot.

Not relevant. The rule only cares that the unit shoots not that it has shot.

**FlingitNow**

Why does tense matter? Shoots and has shot is literally the same thing.

**col_impact**

FlingitNow wrote:
Why does tense matter? Shoots and has shot is literally the same thing.

First the rule uses 'unit shoots' so you are not allowed to change the tense and pretend it's equivalent. Present tense only conveys an attempt. The past tense conveys successful completion. The rule in question only cares that an attempt to shoot is made.

You can satisfy being a unit that shoots without having fired a shot, e.g. Gets Hot.

**Mr. Shine**

col_impact wrote:
First the rule uses 'unit shoots' so you are not allowed to change the tense and pretend it's equivalent. Present tense only conveys an attempt. The past tense conveys successful completion. The rule in question only cares that an attempt to shoot is made.

That's not how present tense works. Just stop, please.

You can satisfy being a unit that shoots without having fired a shot, e.g. Gets Hot.

Gets Hot has passed the point of rolling To Hit, i.e. the model has shot.

**insaniak**

col_impact wrote:
In logic terms, going through the shooting sequence sets the flag on the weapon to 'has fired'.

That would be true if kicking out at any step in the shooting phase process resulted in the weapon automatically missing .

It doesn't. If your target is not in range, the model doesn't shoot. If the model doesn't shoot, the weapon hasn't fired.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
This, however...

col_impact wrote:

Units shoot by queuing up the models in the unit and processing the shooting attacks of the equipped weapons.

Units successfully shoot by marching through the queue.

Models successfully shoot by attempting to shoot and not by having shot (see Gets Hot example).

... I would agree with up to the second step.

Which is sufficient for the rule in question. Whether or not individual models actually fire any weapons, if you declares that the unit is shooting, the the unit is shooting.

**col_impact**

Mr. Shine wrote:
col_impact wrote:
First the rule uses 'unit shoots' so you are not allowed to change the tense and pretend it's equivalent. Present tense only conveys an attempt. The past tense conveys successful completion. The rule in question only cares that an attempt to shoot is made.

That's not how present tense works. Just stop, please.

You can satisfy being a unit that shoots without having fired a shot, e.g. Gets Hot.

Gets Hot has passed the point of rolling To Hit, i.e. the model has shot.

The rules disagree with you on both counts.

Spoiler:

**FlingitNow**

col_impact wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:
Why does tense matter? Shoots and has shot is literally the same thing.

First the rule uses 'unit shoots' so you are not allowed to change the tense and pretend it's equivalent. Present tense only conveys an attempt. The past tense conveys successful completion. The rule in question only cares that an attempt to shoot is made.

You can satisfy being a unit that shoots without having fired a shot, e.g. Gets Hot.

Actually if you shoot after that action you have shot. That is how English works there is no more (or less) requirement for success of the action in either tense. Since the 2d6" move happens AFTER the unit shoots it must have shot when you do the move. That is simply how English works.

**col_impact**

FlingitNow wrote:
col_impact wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:
Why does tense matter? Shoots and has shot is literally the same thing.

First the rule uses 'unit shoots' so you are not allowed to change the tense and pretend it's equivalent. Present tense only conveys an attempt. The past tense conveys successful completion. The rule in question only cares that an attempt to shoot is made.

You can satisfy being a unit that shoots without having fired a shot, e.g. Gets Hot.

Actually if you shoot after that action you have shot. That is how English works there is no more (or less) requirement for success of the action in either tense. Since the 2d6" move happens AFTER the unit shoots it must have shot when you do the move. That is simply how English works.

Incorrect. The unit can shoot and wholly misfire, not having shot. See Gets Hot.

Second, the rule only requires 'unit shoots' to be satisfied. You are not permitted to sneak 'unit has shot' in as a requirement. Stick to the rules as they are written.

**Mr. Shine**

col_impact wrote:
The rules disagree with you on both counts.

Spoiler:

For each roll of a 1, the weapon Gets Hot; that shot is not fired and the firing model immediately suffers a single Wound

I like how you selectively quoted one part of a rule (the part about Gets Hot and Blasts) to support one claim I am incorrect but not the other.

The shot not being fired is not the same as the model not having shot, in any event.

**FlingitNow**

col_impact wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:
col_impact wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:
Why does tense matter? Shoots and has shot is literally the same thing.

First the rule uses 'unit shoots' so you are not allowed to change the tense and pretend it's equivalent. Present tense only conveys an attempt. The past tense conveys successful completion. The rule in question only cares that an attempt to shoot is made.

You can satisfy being a unit that shoots without having fired a shot, e.g. Gets Hot.

Actually if you shoot after that action you have shot. That is how English works there is no more (or less) requirement for success of the action in either tense. Since the 2d6" move happens AFTER the unit shoots it must have shot when you do the move. That is simply how English works.

Incorrect. The unit can shoot and wholly misfire, not having shot. See Gets Hot.

Second, the rule only requires 'unit shoots' to be satisfied. You are not permitted to sneak 'unit has shot' in as a requirement. Stick to the rules as they are written.

Sorry but "has shot" is the same as "shoots" except for tense. If you do not accept that then we can not progress the discussion until you learn English. There is literally nothing we can do until you accept that "has shot" is the past tense of "shoots".

**col_impact**

FlingitNow wrote:
col_impact wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:
col_impact wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:
Why does tense matter? Shoots and has shot is literally the same thing.

First the rule uses 'unit shoots' so you are not allowed to change the tense and pretend it's equivalent. Present tense only conveys an attempt. The past tense conveys successful completion. The rule in question only cares that an attempt to shoot is made.

You can satisfy being a unit that shoots without having fired a shot, e.g. Gets Hot.

Actually if you shoot after that action you have shot. That is how English works there is no more (or less) requirement for success of the action in either tense. Since the 2d6" move happens AFTER the unit shoots it must have shot when you do the move. That is simply how English works.

Incorrect. The unit can shoot and wholly misfire, not having shot. See Gets Hot.

Second, the rule only requires 'unit shoots' to be satisfied. You are not permitted to sneak 'unit has shot' in as a requirement. Stick to the rules as they are written.

Sorry but "has shot" is the same as "shoots" except for tense. If you do not accept that then we can not progress the discussion until you learn English. There is literally nothing we can do until you accept that "has shot" is the past tense of "shoots".

Sorry, but the rule clearly only requires that we satisfy 'unit shoots'. If you cannot read the rule and see that that is indeed the case, then you have a problem reading and adhering to the rules as they are written and cannot meaningfully participate in this discussion.

**FlingitNow**

col_impact wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:
col_impact wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:
col_impact wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:
Why does tense matter? Shoots and has shot is literally the same thing.

First the rule uses 'unit shoots' so you are not allowed to change the tense and pretend it's equivalent. Present tense only conveys an attempt. The past tense conveys successful completion. The rule in question only cares that an attempt to shoot is made.

You can satisfy being a unit that shoots without having fired a shot, e.g. Gets Hot.

Actually if you shoot after that action you have shot. That is how English works there is no more (or less) requirement for success of the action in either tense. Since the 2d6" move happens AFTER the unit shoots it must have shot when you do the move. That is simply how English works.

Incorrect. The unit can shoot and wholly misfire, not having shot. See Gets Hot.

Second, the rule only requires 'unit shoots' to be satisfied. You are not permitted to sneak 'unit has shot' in as a requirement. Stick to the rules as they are written.

Sorry but "has shot" is the same as "shoots" except for tense. If you do not accept that then we can not progress the discussion until you learn English. There is literally nothing we can do until you accept that "has shot" is the past tense of "shoots".

Sorry, but the rule clearly only requires that we satisfy 'unit shoots'. If you cannot read the rule and see that that is indeed the case, then you have a problem reading and adhering to the rules as they are written and cannot meaningfully participate in this discussion.

Seriously? After a unit shoots the unit has shot. That is how English works. Your refusal to accept this basic fact illustrates you don't even have a basic grasp of English. If you wish to discuss rules written in English you need to learn the language first otherwise the debate quickly deteriorates like this with the side not understanding basic English thinking the requirement to shoot before you do something and the requirement to have shot before you do that thing are different.

**col_impact**

FlingitNow wrote:

Seriously? After a unit shoots the unit has shot. That is how English works. Your refusal to accept this basic fact illustrates you don't even have a basic grasp of English. If you wish to discuss rules written in English you need to learn the language first otherwise the debate quickly deteriorates like this with the side not understanding basic English thinking the requirement to shoot before you do something and the requirement to have shot before you do that thing are different.

Seriously? You are having trouble reading the rule and seeing that to satisfy the rule one need only show that a 'unit shoots'? It's plain as day.

If you want to go above and beyond and satisfy the rule with 'unit has shot' then by all means mark you argument HYWPI since you are adding to the rules. The rules as they are written only require us to satisfy 'unit shoots'.

**FlingitNow**

col_impact wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:

Seriously? After a unit shoots the unit has shot. That is how English works. Your refusal to accept this basic fact illustrates you don't even have a basic grasp of English. If you wish to discuss rules written in English you need to learn the language first otherwise the debate quickly deteriorates like this with the side not understanding basic English thinking the requirement to shoot before you do something and the requirement to have shot before you do that thing are different.

Seriously? You are having trouble reading the rule and seeing that to satisfy the rule one need only show that a 'unit shoots'? It's plain as day.

If you want to go above and beyond and satisfy the rule with 'unit has shot' then by all means mark you argument HYWPI since you are adding to the rules. The rules as they are written only require us to satisfy 'unit shoots'.

So after a unit shoots what has the unit done?

**col_impact**

FlingitNow wrote:
col_impact wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:

Seriously? After a unit shoots the unit has shot. That is how English works. Your refusal to accept this basic fact illustrates you don't even have a basic grasp of English. If you wish to discuss rules written in English you need to learn the language first otherwise the debate quickly deteriorates like this with the side not understanding basic English thinking the requirement to shoot before you do something and the requirement to have shot before you do that thing are different.

Seriously? You are having trouble reading the rule and seeing that to satisfy the rule one need only show that a 'unit shoots'? It's plain as day.

If you want to go above and beyond and satisfy the rule with 'unit has shot' then by all means mark you argument HYWPI since you are adding to the rules. The rules as they are written only require us to satisfy 'unit shoots'.

So after a unit shoots what has the unit done?

Once the 'unit shoots' it has satisfied the storm lance battle demi company rule that lets you move 2d6 after shooting.

**FlingitNow**

So what has the unit done?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I never stated the unit was from this formation. So a generic unit shoots. What has the unit done?