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.

Here's something...

Can you pre-measure range when shooting? No?

Then how can you say that I'm "intentionally" drawing a line so that it hits models in CC?

I say, "I want to shoot that model, the one that's not in close combat."

Next you make your psychic test.

Then, (and only then) you draw the line straight from the rune priest to the target model and beyond to a range of 24".
NOW everything on that line is affected.

The problem I see is that, people are drawing the line BEFORE they declare the target so as to make sure that they hit that big guy in CC that they really want to kill. This is NOT legal. You have to draw the line after you select the target and make your psychic test.

The intent is automatic, not by chance.

If the range was random, then you could accidentally get into melee. It's not random and it doesn't scatter.

If the FAQ didn't state you "Target" a model, there might be more room for the "It works in melee" party.

Consider this: a template targets lone guy in front of a melee, but not matter what the template will fire into melee. The template may not fire.

Furthermore, since this damn thread is starting to look like the defunct USA congress and senate, I'm going to point out that no were in the rulebook do line weapons exist. At all. I'll simply argue you can't use the damn thing.

juraigamer wrote:Consider this: a template targets lone guy in front of a melee, but not matter what the template will fire into melee. The template may not fire.

Templates are explicitly forbidden from hitting a model in CC.

Furthermore, since this damn thread is starting to look like the defunct USA congress and senate, I'm going to point out that no were in the rulebook do line weapons exist. At all. I'll simply argue you can't use the damn thing.

The entirety of how to handle the PSA is in the rules for Jaws. The rules for a line weapon don't have to exist in the BRB, the Codex provides everything.

rigeld2 wrote:
The entirety of how to handle the PSA is in the rules for Jaws. The rules for a line weapon don't have to exist in the BRB, the Codex provides everything.

Quite true sir, the codex provides all the rules you need to use the power beyond the standard rules for the game.

Which means, that since the rulebook states you cannot deliberately shoot into a melee, and the rules for jaws do not give you permission, nor does the FAQ, you cannot have it fire into melee in any respect.

Check. Your move?

juraigamer wrote: that since the rulebook states you cannot deliberately shoot into a melee

This (or specifically, the definition of "shoot") is the crux of the disagreement, you're right back into the same circular argument, no value added.

Seriously, you guys aren't going to settle this one.

rigeld2 wrote:

juraigamer wrote:Consider this: a template targets lone guy in front of a melee, but not matter what the template will fire into melee. The template may not fire.

Templates are explicitly forbidden from hitting a model in CC.

Furthermore, since this damn thread is starting to look like the defunct USA congress and senate, I'm going to point out that no were in the rulebook do line weapons exist. At all. I'll simply argue you can't use the damn thing.

The entirety of how to handle the PSA is in the rules for Jaws. The rules for a line weapon don't have to exist in the BRB, the Codex provides everything.

Where does it say that JotWW is a template weapon? It doesn't.

This question has been raised, beaten w/ a stick, shot in the head, dumped in the river & done all over again.

As has been stated several times throughout this thread & the one thing to remember is that this is a Psychic SHOOTING attack. Therefore, the actual target cannot be in CC as the specific rules for shooting come right out & say that you CANNOT target a model in CC. There is no SW FAQ that alters this rule in anyway, so therefore the targeting of the Carnifex in CC by the RP was not a legal move.

~Vryce

juraigamer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The entirety of how to handle the PSA is in the rules for Jaws. The rules for a line weapon don't have to exist in the BRB, the Codex provides everything.

Quite true sir, the codex provides all the rules you need to use the power beyond the standard rules for the game.

Which means, that since the rulebook states you cannot deliberately shoot into a melee, and the rules for jaws do not give you permission, nor does the FAQ, you cannot have it fire into melee in any respect.

Check. Your move?

That's not what the rule book says. Nice try though.
The rule book says that firing into close combat is forbidden.
Firing in 40k means to follow the shooting process.
The shooting process says you're not allowed to target a unit in close combat.
Jaws explicitly does not target any model after the first one.
Therefore as long as Jaws has a valid target on the line before the close combat, it touches models in the close combat, and those models must test.

It's like you didn't even read the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vryce wrote:This question has been raised, beaten w/ a stick, shot in the head, dumped in the river & done all over again.

As has been stated several times throughout this thread & the one thing to remember is that this is a Psychic SHOOTING attack. Therefore, the actual target cannot be in CC as the specific rules for shooting come right out & say that you CANNOT target a model in CC. There is no SW FAQ that alters this rule in anyway, so therefore the targeting of the Carnifex in CC by the RP was not a legal move.

~Vryce

As long as he targets a model outside CC, it can hit a model in CC. The original scenario put forth by the OP is illegal, but similar things could happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grugknuckle wrote:Where does it say that JotWW is a template weapon? It doesn't.

I never said it does?
I was responding to someone positing a similarity between templates and Jaws. Not saying that Jaws is a template.

rigeld2 wrote:

juraigamer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The entirety of how to handle the PSA is in the rules for Jaws. The rules for a line weapon don't have to exist in the BRB, the Codex provides everything.

Quite true sir, the codex provides all the rules you need to use the power beyond the standard rules for the game.

Which means, that since the rulebook states you cannot deliberately shoot into a melee, and the rules for jaws do not give you permission, nor does the FAQ, you cannot have it fire into melee in any respect.

Check. Your move?

That's not what the rule book says. Nice try though.
The rule book says that firing into close combat is forbidden.
Firing in 40k means to follow the shooting process.
The shooting process says you're not allowed to target a unit in close combat.
Jaws explicitly does not target any model after the first one.
Therefore as long as Jaws has a valid target on the line before the close combat, it touches models in the close combat, and those models must test.

It's like you didn't even read the thread.

The rulebook states you may not deliberately fire into close combat. You may scatter into close combat, that is the only way.

As such, since jaws doesn't have any randomness to it, nor a rule stating it may fire into close combat, it may not fire in a way that hits something in close combat.

I've read the thread, the SW rulebook, the SW FAQ, the INAT FAQ, the BRB and the BRB FAQ. Twice.

The rulebook says it can't happen, the SW stuff doesn't give you permission to, and the INAT says it cannot happen.

Therefore, since you are missing key details and haven't made another move, checkmate.

And with that, I bid you and this thread good day, until 6th edition.

juraigamer wrote:
The rulebook states you may not deliberately fire into close combat. You may scatter into close combat, that is the only way.

As such, since jaws doesn't have any randomness to it, nor a rule stating it may fire into close combat, it may not fire in a way that hits something in close combat.

I've read the thread, the SW rulebook, the SW FAQ, the INAT FAQ, the BRB and the BRB FAQ. Twice.

The rulebook says it can't happen, the SW stuff doesn't give you permission to, and the INAT says it cannot happen.

Therefore, since you are missing key details and haven't made another move, checkmate.

And with that, I bid you and this thread good day, until 6th edition.

Except that Jaws is firing randomly, because you target a model, then place the line. you are not allowed to premeasure this line so if you target a model, and the line happens to cross into CC then those models are hit. you can not premeasure and deliberately hit models in CC because you can not premeasure

That is what you are missing.

Checkmate indeed.

DeathReaper wrote:

juraigamer wrote:
The rulebook states you may not deliberately fire into close combat. You may scatter into close combat, that is the only way.

As such, since jaws doesn't have any randomness to it, nor a rule stating it may fire into close combat, it may not fire in a way that hits something in close combat.

I've read the thread, the SW rulebook, the SW FAQ, the INAT FAQ, the BRB and the BRB FAQ. Twice.

The rulebook says it can't happen, the SW stuff doesn't give you permission to, and the INAT says it cannot happen.

Therefore, since you are missing key details and haven't made another move, checkmate.

And with that, I bid you and this thread good day, until 6th edition.

Except that Jaws is firing randomly, because you target a model, then place the line. you are not allowed to premeasure this line so if you target a model, and the line happens to cross into CC then those models are hit. you can not premeasure and deliberately hit models in CC because you can not premeasure

That is what you are missing.

Checkmate indeed.

However, if in 40k you make an illegal action (such as moving too far when forgetting to DT test) then you are permitted to, depending on opponents consent:
1) Redo the action
2) Not do the action at all.

Checkmate indeed.

juraigamer wrote:Therefore, since you are missing key details and haven't made another move, checkmate.

DeathReaper wrote:Checkmate indeed.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Checkmate indeed.

You guys seem to be mistaken. This is not a checkmate but a stalemate.

DeathReaper wrote:
Except that Jaws is firing randomly, because you target a model, then place the line. you are not allowed to premeasure this line so if you target a model, and the line happens to cross into CC then those models are hit. you can not premeasure and deliberately hit models in CC because you can not premeasure

That is what you are missing.

Checkmate indeed.

Wouldn't that situation be the same as declaring a shot with a flamer, laying the template down on the target unit, and discovering that there is nowhere to place the template that doesn't cover a friendly model or a nearby close combat? It would become an illegal shot. It's not random, it is a just risky target choice.

Unit1126PLL wrote:However, if in 40k you make an illegal action (such as moving too far when forgetting to DT test) then you are permitted to, depending on opponents consent:
1) Redo the action
2) Not do the action at all.

Checkmate indeed.

Citation needed. Not that it matters because:
It is not an illegal action.

as you are not firing (Using the shooting rules which need a target) on a unit in CC. You are firing on the first model you hit, anything else is incidental damage.

zeshin wrote:Wouldn't that situation be the same as declaring a shot with a flamer, laying the template down on the target unit, and discovering that there is nowhere to place the template that doesn't cover a friendly model or a nearby close combat? It would become an illegal shot. It's not random, it is a just risky target choice.

No, as the template rules specifically restrict you from hitting a unit in CC. Jaws does not.

why would jaws need anything that restricts it from hitting a unit in CC?

Shooting into CC is already restricted.

What jaws lacks, is permission to affect models in CC... something several other abilities that may affect CC DO have.

BarBoBot wrote:Shooting into CC is already restricted.

Twelve pages says this is debatable. Which pretty much makes the rest of your post specious.

I don't care how it comes out, and am pretty sure it's NOT going to come out, but keep the logic clean. Don't assume the conclusion you're trying to prove as part of your argument.

BarBoBot wrote:why would jaws need anything that restricts it from hitting a unit in CC?

Shooting into CC is already restricted.

Because shooting in 40K = using the well defined shooting rules, which is a process which includes selecting a target.

Jaws only targets the first model in its path, everything else is incidental and thus you can hit things in CC if you do not target any model in CC.

Deathreaper wrote:Because shooting in 40K = using the well defined shooting rules, which is a process which includes selecting a target.

There are shooting attacks which ignore one or some of those steps. The process is not an exclusive list, or a definition.

kaisshau wrote:I know there is a tenet 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.

Certainly. It's not about page order, it's just the usual hierarchy of a more specific rule takes precendence over and/or expands on a general rule.

In this case you have general rules for shooting, including a firing process on page 15. Elsewhere in the rules, you have expansions on this which go into more detail, often covering specific situations with additional detail. For example, the shooting process on page 15 tells us that shooting (in general) has 6 steps:
1. Check LOS and pick a target.
2. Check range.
3. Roll to hit.
4. Roll to wound.
5. Take saving throws.
6. Remove casualties.

Now, this is obviously the generic version of the process, and several parts of it can be overridden and don't apply to all shooting attacks. For example, a Vibrocannon is a shooting attack, but does not pick a target or need LOS. An Orbital Barrage is a shooting attack, but does not check range. Jaws of the World Wolf is a shooting attack, but does not roll to hit. Lash of Submission is a shooting attack, but does not roll to wound, and thus does not allow saves, nor does it usually cause casualties. So you can see right there examples of shooting attacks which ignore one or more of literally every one of the steps of the shooting process.

This makes very clear that not all shooting follows all steps of the shooting process, and that the shooting process itself is not an exhaustive and exclusive definition of what constitutes shooting. In fact what defines shooting is in many case just the rule itself SAYING that it's shooting. If a rule tells us that it's a shooting attack, it's a shooting attack, whether it obeys all or none of those six steps above.

kaisshau wrote:No rules - All firing permissible.]

Well, with no rules at all, no firing is possible, of course.

kaisshau wrote: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.

This is where you're immediately tripped up.

By reading this literally, as opposed to as fluff, you create a conflict between that sentence and the very next paragraph on page 40, regarding placement of blasts and templates. Templates are not, in a mechanical sense, at all indiscriminate. They are exactly as precise and discriminating as the line from Jaws. We can precision-place either one, and there is no randomness at all about which models they touch. Yet templates are forbidden from being placed over models in combat.

This makes obvious that the word indiscriminate was meant purely as fluff. In real life, and in the story setting of the game, a flamethrower is in fact indiscriminate, and if you hosed a melee down with burning petroleum, you would burn your friends as readily as your enemies. This is the rationalization for why your troops would not fire it in combat, despite the mechanics being such that without the prohibition, you the player could easily do so with no risk.

kaisshau wrote:Pg. 16 says cannot target a unit into combat (More specific, deals only with targeting)

Page 16 is describing a general firing process. If there was a conflict regarding targeting, it might take precedence. In this case there is no conflict.

Page 40 instead expands on this rule, which is its natural role, as it is the section of the rules devoted to and titled "SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT". It is clearly labeled and designed to cover a specific subject in more advanced detail. It tells us several things, the first and broadest of which is that we are never allowed to fire into close combat. This is important and complementary to the rules on page 15 and 16, because as already demonstrated, there are many shooting attacks in the rules which do not obey all the normal rules for a shooting attack given in the shooting sequence. Importantly, some shooting attacks are capable of affecting multiple units, including ones they did not target. One of the three paragraphs of the "SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT" is devoted to making clear how to handle the two most common such shooting attacks- templates and blasts, and making clear that you may not use them to deliberately cover/shoot/affect models in close combat, which is a prohibition independent of and more restrictive than the simple prohibition on targeting given on page 16.

Mannahnin wrote:

Deathreaper wrote:Because shooting in 40K = using the well defined shooting rules, which is a process which includes selecting a target.

There are shooting attacks which ignore one or some of those steps. The process is not an exclusive list, or a definition.

Yes, and those have specific exceptions.

Without a specific exception we must follow the base rules.

This reminds me of the DoomFist argument back in 4th edition.

DeathReaper wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Deathreaper wrote:Because shooting in 40K = using the well defined shooting rules, which is a process which includes selecting a target.

There are shooting attacks which ignore one or some of those steps. The process is not an exclusive list, or a definition.

Yes, and those have specific exceptions.

Without a specific exception we must follow the base rules.

And Jaw's hitting models without targeting them is an exception to the base rules.

Unless you're going to claim that you can hit a model without targeting it within the base rules?

EDIT:
Do you even hit specific models within the base rules, or just units?

DeathReaper wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Deathreaper wrote:Because shooting in 40K = using the well defined shooting rules, which is a process which includes selecting a target.

There are shooting attacks which ignore one or some of those steps. The process is not an exclusive list, or a definition.

Yes, and those have specific exceptions.

Without a specific exception we must follow the base rules.

Sometimes those exceptions are implicit, rather than explicit. Lash doesn't say "this does not roll to wound", it just doesn't.

The base rules for "SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT" are that you may never shoot into close combat, and they detail that even with a template, you may not place it so as to cover models in close combat, which is a restriction above and beyond the simple targeting restriction on page 16. The paragraph about template and blast weapons is an example of how you apply the blanket prohibition on shooting into close combat on attacks which can hit units other than just the one targeted. It is illustrative and creates a clear and simple precedent for how to handle Jaws.

Mannahnin wrote:

kaisshau wrote: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.

This is where you're immediately tripped up.

By reading this literally, as opposed to as fluff, you create a conflict between that sentence and the very next paragraph on page 40, regarding placement of blasts and templates. Templates are not, in a mechanical sense, at all indiscriminate. They are exactly as precise and discriminating as the line from Jaws. We can precision-place either one, and there is no randomness at all about which models they touch. Yet templates are forbidden from being placed over models in combat.

I can either read it entirely literally, ignore it all as fluff, or choose bits and pieces based on my whim (which could never be the basis of a RAW argument). Let's reproduce the rule: ""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." To cut it up and interpret it your way, it must be read at saying "Likewise, players may try to have their units to fire into close combats, this is not permitted." It requires cutting just about half the sentence, and changing/adding a few words. That is not the rule as written. The rule applies to commanders, wishing their warriors to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combats, hoping to hit the enemy.

Mannahnin wrote:

kaisshau wrote:Pg. 16 says cannot target a unit into combat (More specific, deals only with targeting)

Page 16 is describing a general firing process. If there was a conflict regarding targeting, it might take precedence. In this case there is no conflict.

Here you reference a "conflict", saying that it would result in one rule taking precedence over the other, and this is fine. But somehow it being on the same page makes this "conflict" impossible?

Mannahnin wrote:
Page 40 instead expands on this rule, which is its natural role, as it is the section of the rules devoted to and titled "SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT". It is clearly labeled and designed to cover a specific subject in more advanced detail. It tells us several things, the first and broadest of which is that we are never allowed to fire into close combat.

No, the rule says that commanders cannot wish their warriors to fire indiscriminately into close combat. That is the RAW. What does this mean? A completely logical interpretation is that you may not fire anything that has a randomized element, which means anything that has a roll cannot be used (to-hit, psychic test, scatter). Or, it could be that anything that can miss the enemy/target (and could thus be described as haphazard) cannot be fired into combat (everything but some psychic attacks and templates/blasts which don't scatter). These are both possible logical interpretations, but this is RAI, not RAW.

Mannahnin wrote:
This is important and complementary to the rules on page 15 and 16, because as already demonstrated, there are many shooting attacks in the rules which do not obey all the normal rules for a shooting attack given in the shooting sequence. Importantly, some shooting attacks are capable of affecting multiple units, including ones they did not target. One of the three paragraphs of the "SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT" is devoted to making clear how to handle the two most common such shooting attacks- templates and blasts, and making clear that you may not use them to deliberately cover/shoot/affect models in close combat, which is a prohibition independent of and more restrictive than the simple prohibition on targeting given on page 16.

Yes. Which is why you cannot place blasts/templates that don't scatter over combat, as they are specifically ruled out. Templates that could scatter are already out because they are indiscriminate. The rules say nothing about non-template attacks that cannot miss (and are thus discriminate) and do not target a unit in close combat. What is JotWW? A non-template attack that cannot miss. Thus, the rules on Pg. 40 do not affect it.

kaisshau wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

kaisshau wrote: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.

This is where you're immediately tripped up.

By reading this literally, as opposed to as fluff, you create a conflict between that sentence and the very next paragraph on page 40, regarding placement of blasts and templates. Templates are not, in a mechanical sense, at all indiscriminate. They are exactly as precise and discriminating as the line from Jaws. We can precision-place either one, and there is no randomness at all about which models they touch. Yet templates are forbidden from being placed over models in combat.

I can either read it entirely literally, ignore it all as fluff, or choose bits and pieces based on my whim (which could never be the basis of a RAW argument). Let's reproduce the rule: ""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." To cut it up and interpret it your way, it must be read at saying "Likewise, players may try to have their units to fire into close combats, this is not permitted." It requires cutting just about half the sentence, and changing/adding a few words. That is not the rule as written. The rule applies to commanders, wishing their warriors to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combats, hoping to hit the enemy.

Game rules do not apply to fictional soulless commanders ordering their fictional soldiers to shoot indiscriminate weapons. I content that which parts are fluff is obvious to any reader who is not easter-egg hunting. It is a simple and blanket prohibition on using any shooting attack on a unit in close combat.

kaisshau wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

kaisshau wrote:Pg. 16 says cannot target a unit into combat (More specific, deals only with targeting)

Page 16 is describing a general firing process. If there was a conflict regarding targeting, it might take precedence. In this case there is no conflict.

Here you reference a "conflict", saying that it would result in one rule taking precedence over the other, and this is fine. But somehow it being on the same page makes this "conflict" impossible?

It doesn't make it impossible. It makes it extremely implausible. The sentences next each other are obviously meant to work together. If the way you are interpreting them causes them to instead clash, taking the phrase "indiscriminate" as being a rules statement, which is is obviously not because it's completely contrary to what the next paragraph says about template weapons, then it would seem extremely likely that your interpretation is erroneous. Break no rule here goes hand in hand with Occam's Razor.

kaisshau wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Page 40 instead expands on this rule, which is its natural role, as it is the section of the rules devoted to and titled "SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT". It is clearly labeled and designed to cover a specific subject in more advanced detail. It tells us several things, the first and broadest of which is that we are never allowed to fire into close combat.

No, the rule says that commanders cannot wish their warriors to fire indiscriminately into close combat. That is the RAW. What does this mean? A completely logical interpretation is that you may not fire anything that has a randomized element, which means anything that has a roll cannot be used (to-hit, psychic test, scatter). Or, it could be that anything that can miss the enemy/target (and could thus be described as haphazard) cannot be fired into combat (everything but some psychic attacks and templates/blasts which don't scatter). These are both possible logical interpretations, but this is RAI, not RAW.

Firing indiscriminately has no real relation to the rules, because the rules themselves don't really have such an option. It can only be fluff, because no rule in this game defines any procedure by which a unit could fire indiscriminately. People have speculated that perhaps it could possibly mean shooting with a randomized element, but if you go down that path it leads directly to paradox. Because if taken literally paragraph one, as you've said, forbids firing indiscriminately but not firing discriminately. Which leads to the absurd conclusion that templates and bolters can be fired right into HtH, but things which scatter cannot. But paragraph two says exactly the oppositie. In fact it says that precision-placed templates CANNOT, and only blast markers which randomly scatter there CAN. So if you try to find a way to make "indiscriminately" work as a mechanical reference, it causes two immediately-successive paragraphs to say directly opposed things.

kaisshau wrote:[

Mannahnin wrote:This is important and complementary to the rules on page 15 and 16, because as already demonstrated, there are many shooting attacks in the rules which do not obey all the normal rules for a shooting attack given in the shooting sequence. Importantly, some shooting attacks are capable of affecting multiple units, including ones they did not target. One of the three paragraphs of the "SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT" is devoted to making clear how to handle the two most common such shooting attacks- templates and blasts, and making clear that you may not use them to deliberately cover/shoot/affect models in close combat, which is a prohibition independent of and more restrictive than the simple prohibition on targeting given on page 16.

Yes. Which is why you cannot place blasts/templates that don't scatter over combat, as they are specifically ruled out. Templates that could scatter are already out because they are indiscriminate. The rules say nothing about non-template attacks that cannot miss (and are thus discriminate) and do not target a unit in close combat. What is JotWW? A non-template attack that cannot miss. Thus, the rules on Pg. 40 do not affect it.

The rules on page 40 titled "SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT" forbid all deliberate shooting into close combat, and allow only blast weapons which randomly scatter there. Jaws is a shooting attack, and lacks a rule stating that it can affect close combat (like Nurgle's Rot has), and thus is cannot be used on models in HtH.

rigeld2 wrote: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.

Just sayin. I haven't seen a valid response to this.

The rules on page 40 titled "SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT" forbid all deliberate shooting into close combat, and allow only blast weapons which randomly scatter there. Jaws is a shooting attack, and lacks a rule stating that it can affect close combat (like Nurgle's Rot has), and thus is cannot be used on models in HtH.

You can't use Jaws on a unit in close combat any more than you can use a heavy flamer on one by targeting another unit on the other side of the combat. Page 40 doesn't care what your target is. Just that you're using a shooting attack.

Mannahnin wrote:The rules on page 40 titled "SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT" forbid all deliberate shooting into close combat, and allow only blast weapons which randomly scatter there. Jaws is a shooting attack, and lacks a rule stating that it can affect close combat (like Nurgle's Rot has), and thus is cannot be used on models in HtH.

You can't use Jaws on a unit in close combat any more than you can use a heavy flamer on one by targeting another unit on the other side of the combat. Page 40 doesn't care what your target is. Just that you're using a shooting attack.

So you're going back on agreeing that "fire" on page 40 is referencing the shooting rules?
Because that's the only real rule in that sentence.

What? There are two rules in the first paragraph. The second one is gussied-up a bit with a fluff rationale, but they are two very simple and comprehensive rules.

1. If you're engaged in HtH, you can't shoot at all.
2. You can't shoot any unit engaged in HtH.

The second paragraph makes clear that templates and blast markers (even thought they might be targeting something else) still can't be placed so as to cover models in close combat, but blast markers can scatter there and will cause damage to anyone covered if they do.

The third says that if you're in close combat you don't have to take morale or pinning tests from shooting.

Each paragraph logically builds on and from the one before it. They're quite simple, unless you have a problem with a fluff rationale being included in a rule, in which case this is not a good game system for you.

And how do you shoot at something?

You use the shooting rules on P.16.

You check LoS, and pick your target.

The target of JotWW can not be in CC.

Mannahnin wrote:What? There are two rules in the first paragraph. The second one is gussied-up a bit with a fluff rationale, but they are two very simple and comprehensive rules.

1. If you're engaged in HtH, you can't shoot at all.
2. You can't shoot any unit engaged in HtH.

The second paragraph makes clear that templates and blast markers (even thought they might be targeting something else) still can't be placed so as to cover models in close combat, but blast markers can scatter there and will cause damage to anyone covered if they do.

The third says that if you're in close combat you don't have to take morale or pinning tests from shooting.

Each paragraph logically builds on and from the one before it. They're quite simple, unless you have a problem with a fluff rationale being included in a rule, in which case this is not a good game system for you.

Could you evade the question more?

You agreed that the word fire in the"indiscriminate" sentence is referring to the shooting rules.
The same shooting rules that require selecting a target.
If you're not selecting a target, you're not shooting (or firing) into a close combat by the 40k rules.
Jaws explicitly does not target anything after the first model.

Jaws is neither a template not a blast weapon, so restrictions on those weapon types are irrelevant.
Line weapons existed when the 5th Ed BRB was written. To lump them in with blasts and templates just because doesn't make sense.