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.

 Stux wrote:
It needs an FAQ for clarification, but if I'm forced to parse this with the information available I have to fall on the side of if a model shoots the unit has shot.

If you order a unit not to shoot and one guy shoots, the unit has broken that order.

The destroyed argument doesn't work. Destroyed is a state, not an action. They aren't comparable in this context.

But you are not ordering a unit not to shoot, you are using an ability that lets a model shoot before he is removed. This has nothing to do with the unit being selected to shoot.

It was an illustration of how if someone in unit has shot, you would naturally say the unit had shot. Thats all we have to go on, so it's the only conclusion I can come to.

 Stux wrote:
It needs an FAQ for clarification, but if I'm forced to parse this with the information available I have to fall on the side of if a model shoots the unit has shot.

If you order a unit not to shoot and one guy shoots, the unit has broken that order.

The destroyed argument doesn't work. Destroyed is a state, not an action. They aren't comparable in this context.

lol and having shot isnt a state... you guys really are abandoning logic... either it always works one way, or it doesnt... a lot of people are adding "special states" and "special statuses" to units and models that simply do not exist... the rules talk about what happens when you select a unit to shoot...and when that happens models in the unit shoot... my model can be in cover, but that doesnt mean the entire unit is in cover (this is true as of 9th edition and wasnt exactly true in 8). there are tons of examples where a model is in one state and the unit is not.

I know this feels right to you, but think about the logic your using, it is clearly false demonstrated by so many other rules, cover, being destroyed, fleeing, range, etc,etc,etc.

 Stux wrote:
It was an illustration of how if someone in unit has shot, you would naturally say the unit had shot. Thats all we have to go on, so it's the only conclusion I can come to.

Well That's all we have to go on if you ignore the shooting phase rules.

Normally how does a unit shoot? You pick a unit to shoot with and follow the process outlined.

Does the Ancient banner have you choose a unit to shoot with?

If not, then it is not a normal shooting attack. So there needs to be something that says the unit has shot.

In the case of the ancient we have allowance for that model to either shoot or make one melee attack, but that is all. The banner does not allow the unit to shoot or fight.

What happens if they choose to make the melee attack? Has the unit fought? If so it gets to consolidate.

Therefore the unit has not shot. only the model that is not in the unit anymore has shot.

 Stux wrote:
It was an illustration of how if someone in unit has shot, you would naturally say the unit had shot. Thats all we have to go on, so it's the only conclusion I can come to.

how people talk about the game is not a RAW conclusion on how the game works... I know when a model has shot from an ancients ability, I absolutely do not say the unit has shot,,, i say the model has shot. Because the unit has not shot. just one model has.
having shot is absolutely a state, just like every other action a model or unit makes in the game XD. its ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

 Type40 wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It was an illustration of how if someone in unit has shot, you would naturally say the unit had shot. Thats all we have to go on, so it's the only conclusion I can come to.

how people talk about the game is not a RAW conclusion on how the game works... I know when a model has shot from an ancients ability, I absolutely do not say the unit has shot,,, i say the model has shot. Because the unit has not shot. just one model has.
having shot is absolutely a state, just like every other action a model or unit makes in the game XD. its ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

I think it's fair to say there's no obvious answer to this question. However, I can understand the logic of saying if a model shoots the unit counts as having shot. It's not just some random conclusion based on no evidence - that's how it works in the shooting phase so it's not entirely unreasonable to suggest that's how it works in this case. It's not definitive but there is a logical basis to the argument.

Slipspace wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It was an illustration of how if someone in unit has shot, you would naturally say the unit had shot. Thats all we have to go on, so it's the only conclusion I can come to.

how people talk about the game is not a RAW conclusion on how the game works... I know when a model has shot from an ancients ability, I absolutely do not say the unit has shot,,, i say the model has shot. Because the unit has not shot. just one model has.
having shot is absolutely a state, just like every other action a model or unit makes in the game XD. its ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

I think it's fair to say there's no obvious answer to this question. However, I can understand the logic of saying if a model shoots the unit counts as having shot. It's not just some random conclusion based on no evidence - that's how it works in the shooting phase so it's not entirely unreasonable to suggest that's how it works in this case. It's not definitive but there is a logical basis to the argument.

However, if that is the case, there are so many extra implications. like double shooting eradicators. the entire unit shooting (because if its done just like the shooting phase, when one model shoots, the entire the entire unit shoots... thats what the rules say and its either totally like this or not at all, it cant be half way)

That then leads you into a situation where only one model per unit can ever benefit from the Ancient, though. Because if we're taking the entire Shooting phase rules into account, you can only choose each unit to fire once. So the second time you roll a die for a model in that unit, it's no longer permitted to fire.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
This debate has really left logic and defenitions behind.

All the models in the unit is part of the unit. If one part of the unit does something by defenition the unit has done something. Not all of the models in the unit, but some part of the unit. That id enough to qualify for the statement that the unit has done something.

That is false of course.

Jut because a model in the unit did something does not mean the entire unit did that thing. It just means a model in that unit did a thing.

If a model shoots does it mean a team shoots? If a player scored a goal, does it mean the team scored a goal?

If a model was destroyed does it mean the team was destroyed? If a player was expelled does it mean the team was expelled?

 Niiai wrote:
If a model shoots does it mean a team shoots?

Not 100% sure what you mean by "team" here, but...

If a player scored a goal, does it mean the team scored a goal?

Yes, but not always - for example, own goals in football/soccer.

If a model was destroyed does it mean the team was destroyed?

No.

If a player was expelled does it mean the team was expelled?

Depends on the rules of the sport. Sometimes a player being disqualified does disqualify the team as well.

You've just managed to perfectly demonstrate that circumstances can vary, and that a model and a team/unit are not to be considered one and the same under all situations.

It says if a unit makes ANY ranged attacks then the action fails.

Seems pretty straight forward to me, when a model within the unit uses the ancient ability it is making a ranged attack, this causes the action to immediately fail.

 Leth wrote:
It says if a unit makes ANY ranged attacks then the action fails.

Seems pretty straight forward to me, when a model within the unit uses the ancient ability it is making a ranged attack, this causes the action to immediately fail.

Since the UNIT did not make any ranged attacks(only a model did), the action does not fail.

This one fell down a rabbit hole, eh?

Other examples change the answer and don’t help illuminate anything.

HIWPI in lieu of FAQ is that shooting procced by the Ancient’s ability does not make the Action fail, as it’s a weird-special-unique rule that was written before Actions but carried over without any thought to its interaction with this ability. For now I’d play it as not stopping the Action, and would bow to any FAQ that came along.

Just choose pre-game how you and your opponent want to play it and play on. Don’t try and gotcha anyone or deny them based on what’s advantageous to you at the time. Be a sportsman.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This one fell down a rabbit hole, eh?

Other examples change the answer and don’t help illuminate anything.

HIWPI in lieu of FAQ is that shooting procced by the Ancient’s ability does not make the Action fail, as it’s a weird-special-unique rule that was written before Actions but carried over without any thought to its interaction with this ability. For now I’d play it as not stopping the Action, and would bow to any FAQ that came along.

Just choose pre-game how you and your opponent want to play it and play on. Don’t try and gotcha anyone or deny them based on what’s advantageous to you at the time. Be a sportsman.

Perfect answer thank you JohnnyHell