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.

Shoot, shots, and hit are equated throughout the shooting rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If only a unit which is targeted is considered to be shot, then the rules for the Vibrocannon and Nurgle's Rot which have been cited are meaningless.

This should be a clue.

jwolf wrote:In form, Jaws is most like a template, if our choices are bolter round (regular shooting attack), blast, or template.

In form, Jaws is most like the Vibro Cannon, if our choices are Vibro Cannon (regular shooting attack), blast or template. I can play this game too.

But since we are trying to use real word definitions:

"...to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combat..."

(all definitions from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/)

to: quite a few definitions, not sure which applies.
fire: To cause a weapon to shoot bullets, arrows or missiles.
indiscriminate: not showing careful thought or planning, especially so that harm results.
into; towards the inside or middle of something and about to be contained, surrounded or closed off by it
the: quite a few definitions, not sure which applies.
middle: the central point, position or part.
of: used to show possession, belonging or origin
close: not far in position or time
combat: a fight, especially during a war

So what we have is
"...to cause a weapon to shoot bullets, arrows or missiles, in a way that does not show careful thought or planning, especially so that harm results, towards the central part of a fight that is not far is in position..."

The very first part, completely fails to prevent a number of weapons (including all psychic shooting attacks) from shooting into close combats.

This is why trying to use common definitions falls apart.

But as I said, there will be no consensus here.

By use of the word indiscriminately the rules are incorporating some fluff in to explain the rationale for why the restriction exists. The restriction is that you may not shoot into close combat, and it is not limited to targeting. This is an expansion, specific to shooting and HtH, of the brief mention on page 16.

DeathReaper wrote:

-666- wrote:They are all shooting attacks.

Correct.

-666- wrote:Jaws targets model under a line.

I ncorrect, Jaws only targets the first model it hits.

You are correct sir - I should have said it targets the first model. My bad there. I will note there that JotWW does not stop being an shooting attack after it targets the first model... the line continues on and can target other models as well or stops abruptly due to other mechanics of the rules for JotWW.

-666- wrote:Jaws has a defined range.

Correct.

Much like a template... and both can hit multiple models under the line or template. Note that there is a template shooting attack that works like jaws in the manner in which it removes enemy models (Warp Rift).

-666- wrote:While is not exactly the same it is in many ways very similar to a template. That might be an advanced concept so I can see the pushback.

"very similar to a template" is a fallacy.

Not really - I did not say they are the same - I only pointed out how the function in similar manners. A rectangle is not necessarily a square but they are quite similar and we can draw some valid conclusions between the two based on the similarities. Again I am not saying the are the same... just pointing out how they work in some similar manners and that is not a fallacy by any means... if I had said they are the same that would be a different story... cool story bro !


A Template is about 1/3rd the length and about 800 times thinner than the template.

800 times I don't think so if you are using the edge of a tape measure... the degree of wideness varies as well since the standard template is tear shaped. So not even close to 800 times from a practical point of view.

...you also do not have to maximize hits with the Jaws line, but a Template does. the template does not have to target the first unit it hits. Etc

Here I think you should have said model as opposed to unit for correctness.

The point is there are indeed similar aspects between the two... that is all I meant to say or imply and there is good reason for that. For instance you can't use a template to snip secondary targets locked in combat and I don't think anybody can refute that - it is a fact.

They are two very different weapons. (Even in the fluff they are not similar)

I have noted the similarities. They are there indeed. And I am not the only one to draw these conclusions either.

Mannahnin wrote:Shoot, shots, and hit are equated throughout the shooting rules.

I just read all 16 pages of the shooting rules, including weapon types, and found lots of "the shot" as in "the shot fired from the gun" but only two "shot" as in "incoming shots". Both of them are in fluff sentences in the first two paragraphs talking about cover saves.

Could you show me where I missed this equation throughout the shooting rules?

If only a unit which is targeted is considered to be shot, then the rules for the Vibrocannon and Nurgle's Rot which have been cited are meaningless.

This should be a clue.

Yea, GW never writes redundant rules. Ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:By use of the word indiscriminately the rules are incorporating some fluff in to explain the rationale for why the restriction exists. The restriction is that you may not shoot into close combat, and it is not limited to targeting. This is an expansion, specific to shooting and HtH, of the brief mention on page 16.

So we can use the literal definition of a 40k defined word, but write off other words as fluff?
Edit: heck, it does say "the middle". Can I graze the edge? Or is that fluff as well?
What are the actual rule words in that sentence? How much of it has to be fluff before we call it fluff and ignore it in a rules debate?

There is an easy and clear way to read it which does not require Jaws to work inconsistently to how templates work, and does not require dismissing the rules for Vibrocannons and Rot off as being redundant and meaningless.

The rule is clear. You can't use a shooting attack on a unit in HtH, except for random scatters, or attacks which explicitly say otherwise.

Mannahnin wrote:There is an easy and clear way to read it which does not require Jaws to work inconsistently to how templates work,

Since Jaws isn't a template, I'm fine with it being inconsistent with Template rules.

and does not require dismissing the rules for Vibrocannons and Rot off as being redundant and meaningless.

Is this what you're falling back on? I'm genuinely curious - did you not want to put forth the effort to find the rules you assured me were throughout the shooting rules, or are they really not there?
Rot does have targets - its even mentioned in the rules quoted in this thread. It has to have the exception.
Vibrocannons are a line attack... I wonder what other ability is a line attack that has been discussed in this thread....

The rule is clear. You can't use a shooting attack on a unit in HtH, except for random scatters, or attacks which explicitly say otherwise.

The first sentence is patently false. We wouldn't have a 10 page thread (99% without trolling or name calling! That's gotta be a record! :-) if it was perfectly clear.

I've mentioned the others (that I know of anyway). Of the 4, two definitely does not apply - Blood Lance. Jaws is under discussion. The Vibro Cannon and Death Ray function very similarly to Jaws.

Edit: Crap, we need more trolling and name calling.

It really is. You're invested in your side. The only reason this discussion exists is because folks using Jaws like it and want it to be broken.

Nothing can shoot into HtH unless it says it can. Page 40 is perfectly clear.

I would like to point out that I do not play SW. I *despise* Jaws, however, based on the wording, I am perfectly fine (albeit not necessarily happy) allowing Jaws to hit friendly models and models in cc.

I could be wrong, but I am fairly (99%) certain that rigeld does not play SW either.

...If SW players hadn't been using it wrong neither of you would have gotten inured to the idea that it's worse than it actually is.

Even if page 40 were ambiguous, as one option you've got an interpretation which is clear and consistent throughout the game, and consistent with the English meanings of the terms to shoot something and to hit something with a shot, and as the other an interpretation which is inconsistent, dismisses half of the first paragraph of rules titled "Shooting into & out of close combat" meaningless, and makes Jaws broken.

Mannahnin wrote:It really is. You're invested in your side. The only reason this discussion exists is because folks using Jaws like it and want it to be broken.

Really? You're accusing me of being biased? I only play Nids (and am slowly branching out to C:SM).
I dislike Jaws. It's (to me) an example of terrible game design.

Nothing can shoot into HtH unless it says it can. Page 40 is perfectly clear.

You're right - nothing can shoot into CC.
Jaws, while a PSA, isn't shooting. It isn't even hitting. It's drawing a line and affecting touched models.
It doesn't target anything after the first model touched.

Even with all that it's not broken. It's powerful, but I've won the last two fights against my SW buddy who uses it.

I'm still waiting on whether or not you were wrong about the equality being referenced throughout the shooting rules.
If you'd rather not answer I can understand that. I'm not trying to put you on the spot -rather I want to know if the cornerstone of my argument is actually correct. I just can't find it in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:...If SW players hadn't been using it wrong neither of you would have gotten inured to the idea that it's worse than it actually is.

Funnily enough I've never had this situation come up. Because of Jaws I always put myself where he'd risk nuking his own models.
If I'm wrong, all it means is slightly less stress during the movement phase, and me caring even less overall about the power.

Even if page 40 were ambiguous, as one option you've got an interpretation which is clear and consistent throughout the game, and consistent with the English meanings of the terms to shoot something and to hit something with a shot, and as the other an interpretation which is inconsistent, dismisses half of the first paragraph of rules titled "Shooting into & out of close combat" meaningless, and makes Jaws broken.

I'd give you that the intent is for no hits of any kind from outside CC are allowed without an exception. But the RAW don't say that.

Yes they do, unless you come up with a really strange and unintuitive meaning of "shoot" which is at odds with the English meaning. Which isn't necessary, because the shooting process isn't in conflict with the English meaning of shoot. It's completely compatible.

Mannahnin wrote:Yes they do, unless you come up with a really strange and unintuitive meaning of "shoot" which is at odds with the English meaning. Which isn't necessary, because the shooting process isn't in conflict with the English meaning of shoot. It's completely compatible.

Exactly. The English meaning of "to shoot" and the Rules meaning of "to shoot" aren't incompatible at all. ESPECIALLY when placed in the past tense, i.e. shot.

Mannahnin wrote:Yes they do, unless you come up with a really strange and unintuitive meaning of "shoot" which is at odds with the English meaning. Which isn't necessary, because the shooting process isn't in conflict with the English meaning of shoot. It's completely compatible.

Mannahnin wrote:Shoot, shots, and hit are equated throughout the shooting rules.

that's what I'm referring to.
You said they were equated throughout the shooting rules. I couldn't find one rules example of them being equated.
Did I miss one, or we're you wrong?

Feel free to PM me. I'd like to know if I missed something.

And it's not completely compatible. For the plain english definition I just have to pull a trigger and the bullet leaves the barrel. The 40k process I must pick a target, make sure I can see it, check to hit, check for wounds, check for saves, remove casualties.

I don't know about you, but I don't remove casualties when I shoot. Also, whatever I hit I shot at.
Plain English tells me that. Your assertion is that shot is different from shot at - which isnt true on plain English.
And again - you're falling back to a plain English definition of one word, calling multiple others fluff, and cherry picking how to read the sentence on page 40.

How much of a sentence has to be fluff before its ignored for a RAW discussion?

rigeld2 wrote: Also, whatever I hit I shot at.

Small nitpick, but this is not true at all.

I can shoot at you and hit a brick wall instead. So I hit the brick wall, but I shot at you.

They're equated by being used interchangeably.

You are misunderstanding what to be shot means in the rules of 40k and in English. It means to be hit/struck by a shooting attack. Which is the same thing it means in regular English.

You most certainly did not shoot at whatever you hit in regular English speech. People frequently hit things and even kill people they were not shooting at. If I shoot at one person and strike another, I have still shot that second person even though I was not shooting at them.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: Also, whatever I hit I shot at.

Small nitpick, but this is not true at all.

I can shoot at you and hit a brick wall instead. So I hit the brick wall, but I shot at you.

No, really - you intended to shoot at me, but bullets don't magically curve and hit things the gun wasn't pointed at. You didn't intend to, but you shot at the brick wall.

Or would you say that with an accidental discharge you didn't shoot at anything? Cause you did.., that sliding glass door over there is pretty sure my buddy shot at it a few years ago. (not you Unit1126PLL, you in general)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:They're equated by being used interchangeably.

But they aren't. I just read through the shooting section. Unless I missed something the only two times shot is used as a verb is fluff sentences in the cover section. Please, tell me where they're used interchangeably.

You are misunderstanding what to be shot means in the rules of 40k and in English. It means to be hit/struck by a shooting attack. Which is the same thing it means in regular English.

Shot is the past tense of to shoot.
To shoot in 40k is a process.

You most certainly did not shoot at whatever you hit in regular English speech. People frequently hit things and even kill people they were not shooting at. If I shoot at one person and strike another, I have still shot that second person even though I was not shooting at them.

Your intent was to shoot at the first person. You actually shot at the second person.

And still - how much of a sentence needs to be disregarded as fluff before its ignored?

rigeld2 wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: Also, whatever I hit I shot at.

Small nitpick, but this is not true at all.

I can shoot at you and hit a brick wall instead. So I hit the brick wall, but I shot at you.

No, really - you intended to shoot at me, but bullets don't magically curve and hit things the gun wasn't pointed at. You didn't intend to, but you shot at the brick wall.

Or would you say that with an accidental discharge you didn't shoot at anything? Cause you did.., that sliding glass door over there is pretty sure my buddy shot at it a few years ago. (not you Unit1126PLL, you in general)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:They're equated by being used interchangeably.

But they aren't. I just read through the shooting section. Unless I missed something the only two times shot is used as a verb is fluff sentences in the cover section. Please, tell me where they're used interchangeably.

You are misunderstanding what to be shot means in the rules of 40k and in English. It means to be hit/struck by a shooting attack. Which is the same thing it means in regular English.

Shot is the past tense of to shoot.
To shoot in 40k is a process.

You most certainly did not shoot at whatever you hit in regular English speech. People frequently hit things and even kill people they were not shooting at. If I shoot at one person and strike another, I have still shot that second person even though I was not shooting at them.

Your intent was to shoot at the first person. You actually shot at the second person.

And still - how much of a sentence needs to be disregarded as fluff before its ignored?

So you claim that "to shoot at" and "to shoot" are identical, while claiming that "to shoot at" is to target, because I have some bad news for you buddy:

TARGET - "something aimed or fired at" there at the end is your "to shoot at" phrasing

AIM - "to point (a camera or firearm) at a target" - there you go with target again.

Now, you're telling me that every time I aim my rifle at a target, I always hit that target without fail?

If that is true, then any soldier / hunter / shooter ever would like to have a word with you.

EDIT: In fact, I think you're being disingenuous with that claim. Be careful - disingenuity is tantamount to lying.

Unit, if you rad my long post near the top of this page, you'll see why using definitions won't work. If you use English definitions, Jaws does not meet any of the requirements to "fire" and therefore that paragraph on page 40 would not apply.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Now, you're telling me that every time I aim my rifle at a target, I always hit that target without fail?

If you were truly aimed at the target, yes you would hit every time.

Don't believe me? go to an indoor gun range, set the weapon up in a vice so it does not move, adjust for bullet drop off, and watch the bullets go in the same place every time.

If you thought you were aimed at the target, but because of wind conditions/shakey hands/forgetting to adjust for gravity you do not hit the target, then you truly were not aimed at the target like you had thought.

Because if you had been aimed at the target you would have hit the target.

Happyjew wrote:Unit, if you rad my long post near the top of this page, you'll see why using definitions won't work. If you use English definitions, Jaws does not meet any of the requirements to "fire" and therefore that paragraph on page 40 would not apply.

We're not using either the 40k or English words exclusively, but rather a blend of the two - kind of like how language usually works in a technical manual.

In the case of "fire" clearly it is not using the English definition - in fact, no use of the word "fire" in the rulebook is, because no projectiles are moving at all. In this case, there IS a conflict, in which event the 40k definition is used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Now, you're telling me that every time I aim my rifle at a target, I always hit that target without fail?

If you were truly aimed at the target, yes you would hit every time.

Don't believe me? go to an indoor gun range, set the weapon up in a vice so it does not move, adjust for bullet drop off, and watch the bullets go in the same place every time.

If you thought you were aimed at the target, but because of wind conditions/shakey hands/forgetting to adjust for gravity you do not hit the target, then you truly were not aimed at the target like you had thought.

Because if you had been aimed at the target you would have hit the target.

Actually, no, because:

The gun has moving parts, and so naturally must have tolerances. These tolerances induce unpredictability into every shot.
The gun is just slightly more worn after each shot, and this wearing induces unpredictability into each shot.
The gun is slightly warmer after each shot, and this slight expansion of the moving parts induces unpredictability into each shot.

Not even computers can put 30 rounds through a single hole on a target.

EDIT:

Hell, even fething QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS would through the shot off, not to mention manufacturing errors.

If people can't agree that people often shoot at things without hitting them, or hit things they weren't shooting at (aiming for), then this is really going nowhere.

Mann, trust me I agree whole-heartedly that you can shoot at something but either not hit it (because you are like me and only ever roll 1's To Hit), or hit something else entirely (like those large blast markers that always seem to scatter into my own guys...).

The problem is one side sees the first paragraph as rules (you cannot fire upon a unit locked in cc); where as the other side sees it as fluff, since page 16 says right off that you cannot target a unit in cc. In my opinion, the only parts of that section that are actual rules are: units in cc cannot shoot; templates and blast markers cannot be initially placed to hit models in cc; and models in cc hit by shooting attacks do not take Morale or Pinning tests.

Ok, I think this is getting a little side-tracked, so I'm going to try to bring it back on topic. Now, the rules in question are found on page 16, 40, 50 of the BRB, pg 37 of the SW codex, and pg 3 of the SW FAQ.

The rules from the BRB are:
"Likewise, while especially twisted and soulless commanders may wish their warriors to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combats in the hopes of hitting the enemy, this is not permitted." and "While blast markers and templates may not be deliberately placed such that they cover any models locked in combat, they may end up there after scattering and will hit any models they touch" - Pg. 40
- If this is a rule, you cannot simply ignore words from the rule. Unfortunately, "firing indiscriminately" vs. "firing discriminately" is never defined in the BRB or a codex, so it must be interpreted as it is written and in the plain English sense. This tells us you cannot fire indiscriminately into a close combat. It says nothing about discriminate fire. If this were the only rule, it could be argued that bolters could be fired into CC (as there is no chance of them hitting enemy models {They can only hit their target}, they are not firing indiscriminately {they might be considered "random" because of the dice roll to hit, however, that is not part of JotWW}). It also tells us you cannot place templates and blast markers over a close combat. It does not say you cannot hit models in close combat, with blast/template weapons or any weapon for that matter.

"A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locking in combat as its target..." - Pg. 16
- This tells us that you cannot target enemy units that are locked in combat to fire at. So even if your fire is completely discriminate, you cannot target a unit in combat. It does not say you cannot hit/wound models locked in combat. It also does not say you cannot "shoot" a unit in combat.

"Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon..." - Pg. 50
- This tells us that PSA's follow the normal rules for shooting.


The SW rules are:
"As a psychic shooting attack, the Rune Priest may trace a straight line along the board, starting from the RP and ending 24" away... Monstrous creatures, beasts, cavalry, bikes, and infantry models that are touched by this line..." - pg 37
This tells us how the psychic shooting attack occurs. It does not reference a target anywhere. This is fixed by the FAQ, which states: "The Rune Priest must have line of sight to the first model that the power affects – in effect he is treated as the target model; the power just happens to hit everybody else..." Thus, the only model targeted is the first model affected.

So, what do we have?
Premises:
1. You cannot target units in CC with shooting attacks.
2. You cannot fire indiscriminately into CC.
3. You cannot place a template over models in CC.
4. JotWW is a PSA, and thus it treated like a shooting attack.
5. JotWW targets the first model affected.
6. JotWW is not a template.
7. Indiscriminate means "not marked by careful distinction" or "Haphazard, random" - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indiscriminate
8. JotWW has a clearly defined area of effect and is neither random nor haphazard.

Conclusions:
9. Because of 6, ~3 (not three).
10. Because of 1, 4 and 5, the first model affected cannot be in combat.
11. Because of 4 and 8; ~7 and therefore JotWW is not "firing indiscriminately".
12. Because of 11, ~2.
13. As per 10 and ~2, JotWW can be "fired" into combat, provided it affects a model outside of combat first.

Nowhere in any of this does it forbid JotWW from hitting units locked in combat, provided you affect a model not locked in combat first (and thus do not target a model locked in combat). Is it RAI? Maybe. They do specifically say "models" and not enemy models in the JotWW power, implying you can hit friendly models. If you can hit friendlies, I see no reason you can't hit models in CC. Is it specifically allowed? Again, maybe. It is alluded to, but never specifically permitted. Does RAW say you can't? It does not actually out-right disallow it. In fact, it seems (to me) to lean in favour of allowing it to happen. Even though I don't play SW (I play Tau and CSM), I would allow it. Do I think it's ridiculous? Yes, but so is the Dreadknight.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
EDIT: In fact, I think you're being disingenuous with that claim. Be careful - disingenuity is tantamount to lying.

Again with the accusation of lying...

So my sliding glass door wasn't shot at? Then why did it shatter into a million pieces and a cop car roll up a few minutes later lights and sirens blazing?
The only thing that decides "at" is intent?

I wonder if this is a cultural usage thing - I was brought up an Army brat, was in the Army, hang out with a lot of ex-military and current police officers.

I'm not saying, never have said, and will not ever say that you only ever hit what you were intending to shoot at.
I am saying that whatever you actually hit, in the way I've always used English, is what you were shooting at. Intent has nothing to do with it.
"I'm going to shoot at you" but you point the gun at the ceiling and fire. You shot at the ceiling, not at me.

In the case of "fire" clearly it is not using the English definition - in fact, no use of the word "fire" in the rulebook is, because no projectiles are moving at all. In this case, there IS a conflict, in which event the 40k definition is used.

Okay, so even though the sentence is mostly fluff you still want to use it as rules. How much of the sentence needs to be fluff before its ignored?
Using it as rules - you're agreeing that fire is using the 40k definition. Great. Fire = shooting = shooting process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:If people can't agree that people often shoot at things without hitting them, or hit things they weren't shooting at (aiming for), then this is really going nowhere.

It's really a sidetrack. The main issue is if you treat page 40 as fluff or rules, and what definition of each word you use.
You haven't answered my two important questions:
1). How much of a sentence needs to be fluf before we treat the sentence as worthless in a rules discussion?
2). Did I miss anything during my reading of the shooting rules that shows equivalency or usage of the words interchangeably?

9 out of 32 words in the sentence could be rules.
"likewise .. To fire ... Into close combat, is not permitted."
Even then, fire = shooting = shooting process, which requires selecting a target, something Jaws doesnt do.

If people get easily sidetracked into irrelevant arguments, then this is really going nowhere.

kaisshau, I agree with you on all points except premise 2, and thus conclusions 12 and 13.

2. Indiscriminate is clearly fluff. It goes with "twisted and soulless", which is how the paragraph describes commanders who wish to shoot into HtH. In point of fact the rule on page 40 actually ONLY permits weapons which ARE haphazard or random to strike close combat, as only scattering blast weapons are permitted to do so, and are granted explicit permission to do so if and only if they scatter there. They may not be placed in such a way that they initially cover models in close combat, EVEN if they target some other unit nearby. This makes clear that "indiscriminate" must be fluff, because if you try to apply it literally it contradicts the immediately-following rules about blast marker placement.

If only "indiscriminate" firing cannot go into HtH, then the rulebook on page 40 is telling us that every other kind of shooting can. Which is obviously incorrect and absurd. It would also put it in conflict with its own following paragraph, where you are specifically forbidden from placing a template so that it covers models in HtH, despite that being non-random and exactly as precise in mechanics as Jaws. Your reading of this rule (taking "indiscriminate" to be literal rather than fluff) would put pages 16 and 40 into direct conflict, and page 40 in conflict with itself. One of the guiding principles of rules interpretation is "break no rule", where we look for the interpretation which satisfies and obeys all relevant rules. If you instead read page 40 as a set of additional restrictions and allowances specific to and provided to us in a section of rules titled "Shooting into & out of close combat", then it makes perfect sense and is entirely compatible with the targeting restriction given on page 16.

rigel2 wrote:I'm I wonder if this is a cultural usage thing - I was brought up an Army brat, was in the Army, hang out with a lot of ex-military and current police officers.

Likewise on both counts. I think that's probably a common background for wargamers.

rigel2 wrote:I'm not saying, never have said, and will not ever say that you only ever hit what you were intending to shoot at.
I am saying that whatever you actually hit, in the way I've always used English, is what you were shooting at. Intent has nothing to do with it.

Absolutely incorrect. Shooting AT something expresses what you are attempting to do. Shooting something expresses the effect achieved. I can shoot at you and hit the wall behind you instead, or in addition, to my attempt to shoot you. My intent was to shoot you, and maybe I DID shoot you- but I also shot the person or the wall behind you, whether or not that was what I was aiming at.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigel2 wrote:9 out of 32 words in the sentence could be rules.
"likewise .. To fire ... Into close combat, is not permitted."

There you go. You've got it. The fluff expresses why you may not, and that they understand and anticipate that you may want to.

rigel2 wrote:Even then, fire = shooting = shooting process,

With you so far.

rigel2 wrote:...which requires selecting a target,

Yes but irrelevant. If I target a chimera with a heavy flamer, and I shoot it in the the side armor using that heavy flamer, and I cover other enemy models at the same time, I have not targeted them but I most certainly am shooting them.

You select a target with a flamer template, with Jaws, or with a blast marker. But you choose exactly where any of the three are specifically placed, you are forbidden from including any models in close combat under them, and page 40 expresses explicitly that blast markers can in fact hit models in close combat if and only if they scatter there.

rigel2 wrote: something Jaws doesnt do.

Incorrect since it was FAQ'd. When you draw the line the first model crossesed is your target. You're still not allowed to target models you can't see, so you're not allowed to draw the line so that it first crosses a model out of LOS.

Happyjew wrote:And that is why the Vibro-cannon is able to shoot models in close combat, because there is no target. Though I do agree it is stupid that JotWW and Blood Lance don't require a To Hit roll.

But they do require a Psychic test which comes with the possibility of perils of the warp. Not as bad as that wierd door on a Necron Monolith which causes any enemy model within D6 inches to be "removed from the game". No roll to hit, no roll to wound.

Mannahnin wrote:kaisshau, I agree with you on all points except premise 2, and thus conclusions 12 and 13.

2. Indiscriminate is clearly fluff. It goes with "twisted and soulless", which is how the paragraph describes commanders who wish to shoot into HtH. In point of fact the rule on page 40 actually ONLY permits weapons which ARE haphazard or random to strike close combat, as only scattering blast weapons are permitted to do so, and are granted explicit permission to do so if and only if they scatter there. They may not be placed in such a way that they initially cover models in close combat, EVEN if they target some other unit nearby. This makes clear that "indiscriminate" must be fluff, because if you try to apply it literally it contradicts the immediately-following rules about blast marker placement.

If only "indiscriminate" firing cannot go into HtH, then the rulebook on page 40 is telling us that every other kind of shooting can. Which is obviously incorrect and absurd. It would also put it in conflict with its own following paragraph, where you are specifically forbidden from placing a template so that it covers models in HtH, despite that being non-random and exactly as precise in mechanics as Jaws. Your reading of this rule (taking "indiscriminate" to be literal rather than fluff) would put pages 16 and 40 into direct conflict, and page 40 in conflict with itself. One of the guiding principles of rules interpretation is "break no rule", where we look for the interpretation which satisfies and obeys all relevant rules. If you instead read page 40 as a set of additional restrictions and allowances specific to and provided to us in a section of rules titled "Shooting into & out of close combat", then it makes perfect sense and is entirely compatible with the targeting restriction given on page 16.

I know there is a tenant of specific overrides general, but where does it say that the rules in the book must be interpreted in order? IE, why is it wrong for a rule on Pg. 16 to restrict a rule on Pg. 40 and it must be that the rule on page 40 expands/restricts the rule on Pg. 16? The sentences themselves are all internally consistent. I tend to look at the rulebooks as a whole when interpreting them, not as a discrete set of instructions to be followed in specific order. Unless this is stated to be false somewhere, here's how I see it working, from general to specific:

No rules - All firing permissible.
Pg. 40 says no indiscriminate firing into combat (Most general, deals with all "firing") - Discriminate fire into combat is the only permissible fire into combat.
Pg. 16 says cannot target a unit into combat (More specific, deals only with targeting) - Discriminate fire that does not target a unit in combat is allowed. Templates/blasts that do not target units in combat but touch them would be permissible, under just these two.
Pg. 40 also say no blasts/templates touching combat (More specific, deals only with firing using templates) - Discriminate fire that is not a template/blast and does not target a unit in combat is allowed.
Pg. 40 then says scattered templates/blasts can touch combat (More specific, it a permissive rule rather than a restrictive rule - mentions something specifically allowed, rather than restricting, which leaves all that is not restricted as permissible) - Discriminate fire that is not a template/blast and does not target a unit in combat is allowed; templates/blasts can scatter into combat, only "indiscriminate" fire allowed into combat.

I do not see how this is ever "in direct conflict". You don't have one rule saying All infantry move 6" and another one saying All infantry move 16'. You have one saying infantry move 6". A subset of this group (Jump Infantry) move 12". While these rules are in conflict, they are not in direct conflict, and we apply the principle of specific supersedes general to get "Infantry move 6", except Jump Infantry who move 12"". I admit this never says firing into combat is allowed, but again, by RAW, it is never specifically forbidden.

Mannahnin wrote:

rigel2 wrote:I'm I wonder if this is a cultural usage thing - I was brought up an Army brat, was in the Army, hang out with a lot of ex-military and current police officers.

Likewise on both counts. I think that's probably a common background for wargamers.

I'm sure it is - just trying to figure out the disconnect.

rigel2 wrote:I'm not saying, never have said, and will not ever say that you only ever hit what you were intending to shoot at.
I am saying that whatever you actually hit, in the way I've always used English, is what you were shooting at. Intent has nothing to do with it.

Absolutely incorrect. Shooting AT something expresses what you are attempting to do. Shooting something expresses the effect achieved. I can shoot at you and hit the wall behind you instead, or in addition, to my attempt to shoot you. My intent was to shoot you, and maybe I DID shoot you- but I also shot the person or the wall behind you, whether or not that was what I was aiming at.

The way I was brought up to understand is that anything in front of the barrel is shot at. Like I said, evidently cultural issues. Apologies for any misunderstanding.

rigel2 wrote:9 out of 32 words in the sentence could be rules.
"likewise .. To fire ... Into close combat, is not permitted."

There you go. You've got it. The fluff expresses why you may not, and that they understand and anticipate that you may want to.

So it's cool to ignore almost 75% of a sentence and still use it as rules?

rigel2 wrote:...which requires selecting a target,

Yes but irrelevant. If I target a chimera with a heavy flamer, and I shoot it in the the side armor using that heavy flamer, and I cover other enemy models at the same time, I have not targeted them but I most certainly am shooting them.

The template rules say you hit them, not that you're shooting them. Shooting would require targeting and rolling to hit (although with a template you'd auto-hit).

You select a target with a flamer template, with Jaws, or with a blast marker. But you choose exactly where any of the three are specifically placed, you are forbidden from including any models in close combat under them, and page 40 expresses explicitly that blast markers can in fact hit models in close combat if and only if they scatter there.

Technically with Jaws, you place the line and then have a target - since the FAQ says that the first model touched is the target.

rigel2 wrote: something Jaws doesnt do.

Incorrect since it was FAQ'd. When you draw the line the first model crossesed is your target. You're still not allowed to target models you can't see, so you're not allowed to draw the line so that it first crosses a model out of LOS.

Sorry, I should've said "something Jaws doesn't do after the first model."

This hasn't been about hitting CC as the first model and hence targeting them. It's about the fact that Jaws explicitly doesn't target anything after the first model, so you get a legal target between you and the CC you want to snipe out of and power away.

You agreed that the "fire" in the sentence on page 40 is referencing the shooting rules. The shooting rules deny targeting of a CC and that's it. The blast marker rules support that - the only way to wound models in a CC with a blast is to scatter there - which hits rather than shoots.

Since Jaws does not target any model after the first, it can shoot into a CC.