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.

If you're using a shooting weapon or shooting attack you are shooting. Not all shooting attacks select targets (see Vibrocannon). In fact literally every one of the six points of the shooting process is ignored or disregarded by one or more different shooting attacks which exist in this game. If you are claiming that things which do not confirm to the six step shooting process are not shooting, then you are claiming that Jaws, Vibrocannon, and Lash are all not shooting attacks. Which they all explictly are.

If your shooting attack is affecting a model in close combat you are shooting into close combat. It's really just that simple and intuitive.

Mannahnin wrote:If you're using a shooting weapon or shooting attack you are shooting. Not all shooting attacks select targets (see Vibrocannon). In fact literally every one of the six points of the shooting process is ignored or disregarded by one or more different shooting attacks which exist in this game. If you are claiming that things which do not confirm to the six step shooting process are not shooting, then you are claiming that Jaws, Vibrocannon, and Lash are all not shooting attacks. Which they all explictly are.

If your shooting attack is affecting a model in close combat you are shooting into close combat. It's really just that simple and intuitive.

That's not what I'm claiming.
Jaws is definitely a shooting attack.
Models after the first are not targeted.
The rules prohibit targeting a unit in CC.
Remember, as you still haven't come forward with any rule that actually shows equivalence between hit and shot, they aren't equivalent. I've asked for such a rule, and despite being assured that they were used interchangeably throughout the shooting rules, I can't find a single example of such a thing.
Jaws doesn't even cause hits - it just draws a line and forces a test on models touching the line.

You're reading more into the word "fire" than the rules allow. Fire means the shooting process. The shooting process says on page 16 that you cannot target a unit in CC.

For someone who hates redundant rules, you're trying really hard to show that the prohibition on page 16 isn't just redundant - its irrelevant.

Page 15 and 16 discuss picking out a target. Right up front they tell you that you can't pick a unit in HtH. Later in the rules, in a section specifically devoted to it, they go into greater detail and expand on that.

Steps 3 & 4 on page 15 tell us the default most basic procedure to determine of a shot hits, and what to do if a shot hits.

Been busy so not been able to check on the amusing path this thread has taken nor been able to fully sit down and get back into the mix.

As per the course of a RAW argument, this one has taken the predictable course of redefining the World of Warhammer 40k definitions to make an argument work to what is now the fluff versus rules debate. Addressing the page 40 nonsense first:

Page 40, BRB: SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT:

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.

Semantics aside over what is fluff and what is rules, you only need to look at the damn title as to see what you are talking about and where you need to look for reference in the BRB. Small hint, SHOOTING into & out of close combat. You can try and argue exactly what "fire indiscriminately" means, but the very title references the World of Warhammer 40k defined rule of shooting. Considering the reference of the above page 40 entry, the only conclusion that can be drawn from it is that it only reinforces that which is already present in the rules for shooting on page 15/16 of the BRB as well as clarifying specific situations that occur in regard to template and blast weapons. Therefore it is old news that,

You cannot shoot into close combat.

However, page 40 is referencing a defined process in the World of Warhammer 40k, shooting. If everyone would turn their books to page 15, "THE SHOOTING SEQUENCE" is a defined process. This is of course the default general rules for shooting of which PSA are to follow unless a codex exception to the general rules for shooting a psychic power exists. However, it is this shooting sequence that page 40 is reinforcing;

Page 15, BRB: DISALLOWED SHOOTING:

Certain situations prevent a unit from firing. The most common are;

Units that are locking in close combat with a foe.

......

And then you find on on the following page of the BRB;

Page 18, BRB: CHECK LINE OF SIGHT & PICK A TARGET:

A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in close combat as its target, and many not split its fire among different targets.....

You must note that in both instances above the word "fire" or "firing" have been used in describing actions taken during the shooting sequence which ties it intrinsically to the page 40 entry of, "to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combat." Therefore, "to fire indiscriminately" into close combat specifically means that you are prohibited as per the rules as described on page 15 and 16 of the BRB; being disallowed from shooting if locked in close combat and from choosing a single enemy unit locked in combat as its target.

Summary of page 40 nonsense;

Page 40 only reinforces that firing into close combat is prohibited as already defined by the shooting rules on page 16 of which it clearly states, "A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that it not locked in combat as its target...".

How this then applies to JotWW when the power targets a model outside of close combat and the line then runs through models in close combat is simple reading comprehension;

Did JotWW choose a single enemy unit that was not locked in combat as its target?

Yes, and therefore per the defined rules of page 16 and page 40 it did not "fire" into close combat.

The second issue that has come up in the last page or two now addresses where does JotWW get permission to hit models in close combat with the example given of other types of shooting attacks (scattering templates) as well as other psychic shooting attacks (Nurgle's Rot) that give explicit permission.

Now I originally quoted the SW FAQ wrong to which JWolf was happy to jump on however he then obviously decided that the actual wording was just as devastating to his argument as my mistake. The FAQ entry is as follows;

SW FAQ VERSION 1.2, JANUARY 2012:

Q. Does Jaws of the World Wolf require line of sight?
Does it ignore terrain that blocks line of sight (i.e.,
impassable terrain)? (p37)
A. As a psychic shooting attack, Jaws of the World Wolf
requires line of sight. 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 on its way through!

Embolden part by myself as this is specific in who else, OTHER then the target model can be affected by the power. If you missed it, it says,

EVERYBODY ELSE!

Now my initial post regarding this was using the word "any", however the word "everybody" is just as applicable to include every eligible unit type the line touches after the initial target model is affected, will be affected. So to those asking for the permissive rule that allows the power to affect units in close combat behind the initial unengaged target model; they would be included in, "the power just happens to hit everybody else on its way through!"

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.

The similarity between JotWW and the flamer template (and how the flamer template is resolved) as presented by Yakface is essentially what convinced me. The flame template is the closest analogy to JotWW and seems to set a precedent, in my opinion.

And the Vibro Cannon (and how the Vibro Cannon is resolved) is even more similar than a template.
In fact, under the template rules, it specifically says that they are indiscriminate weapons. On page 40, it says they can hit models in cc, it just cannot initially be placed to do so, but must scatter into them.

Mannahnin wrote:Page 15 and 16 discuss picking out a target. Right up front they tell you that you can't pick a unit in HtH. Later in the rules, in a section specifically devoted to it, they go into greater detail and expand on that.

What expansion? The only extra rules they give are for templates and blasts. Everything else refers to the rules on page 15, 16, etc. Is JotWW a template or blast?
You'd think that the rules on targeting would be on the section specifically devoted to, I don't know... shooting and targeting?

Steps 3 & 4 on page 15 tell us the default most basic procedure to determine of a shot hits, and what to do if a shot hits.

A) that doesn't show equivalency.
B) shot in step 3 is synonymous with bullet or the past tense of shooting - neither of which is being used interchangeably with hit
C) shot in step 4 is referring to step 3 - you have to hit to roll to wound.

Those basic steps are a summary. If you go look at blast or template weapons you see that models underneath them are hit. They reference "the shot" a lot which, in context, can only mean the current shooting process resolution, not that the unit was shot.

Happyjew wrote:And the Vibro Cannon (and how the Vibro Cannon is resolved) is even more similar than a template.
In fact, under the template rules, it specifically says that they are indiscriminate weapons. On page 40, it says they can hit models in cc, it just cannot initially be placed to do so, but must scatter into them.

I'm not referring to the blast templates, I'm referring to the flame template. And yeah, since that template is indiscriminate, and you're not allowed to fire indiscriminately into close combat, you cannot fire the flame template into close combat. So, if you choose a target and then place the template, and the template covers models in close combat, you cannot fire it because you would be firing indiscriminately into close combat.

Tangent wrote:

Happyjew wrote:And the Vibro Cannon (and how the Vibro Cannon is resolved) is even more similar than a template.
In fact, under the template rules, it specifically says that they are indiscriminate weapons. On page 40, it says they can hit models in cc, it just cannot initially be placed to do so, but must scatter into them.

I'm not referring to the blast templates, I'm referring to the flame template.

It's blast markers and templates - there is no blast template. The rule on page 40 says that a template could scatter into CC. Obviously none of the current templates can scatter, but the rule is there to provide for the future.

I always get confused as to what they are called. The template that you normally use when you fire a flamer is just referred to as a "template," right? That's the one I'm talking about.

Tangent wrote:I always get confused as to what they are called. The template that you normally use when you fire a flamer is just referred to as a "template," right? That's the one I'm talking about.

Correct.
That doesn't change what page 40 says

There is no way to know that a model in CC is not targeted until you draw a deliberate line over the CC which is disallowed in shooting rules (that disallow targeting units in CC).

If you assume you do not break a rule because of some other outcome, you are (potentially) breaking a rule by (potentially) shooting into CC at a targeted unit.

As soon as you do that, you are deliberately attempting to break the rules.

editing to add:
This is really just being pedantic, as I think the others have posted actually valid reasons why this is disallowed.

kirsanth wrote:There is no way to know that a model in CC is not targeted until you draw a deliberate line over the CC which is disallowed in shooting rules (that disallow targeting units in CC).

Jaws draws the line, then asserts a target. Drawing the line is absolutely allowed. You then see which model is touched first by the line.

What your'e trying to say is that a target must be declared before the line is drawn - that's against the rules for Jaws.
The shooting rules say that you must target a unit that is not locked in CC - touching a model that is not in CC with the line makes that model the target. Anything after that is not targeted, and can never be considered to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:editing to add:
This is really just being pedantic, as I think the others have posted actually valid reasons why this is disallowed.

Intent, maybe.
RAW, I disagree (obviously). There's nothing except preventing the targeting of a unit in CC. Jaws explicitly doesn't do that (as long as the first model touched is not locked in combat)

Why dont you just it in your sig so you dont have to keep repeatedly typing it over and over again?

rigeld2 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:There is no way to know that a model in CC is not targeted until you draw a deliberate line over the CC which is disallowed in shooting rules (that disallow targeting units in CC).

Jaws explicitly doesn't do that (as long as the first model touched is not locked in combat)

See above. Doesn't the FAQ says the first model affected, which you cannot determine yet?

Only one model is targeted, Kirsanth. Doesn't change what models are shot, and shooting into close combat is prohibited on page 40. Targeting is prohibited on page 16, but targeting restrictions only matter on the first model with Jaws.

It would be awesome if the rules were well written, but they are not. There is enough grey area for an extremely slanted view to justify Jaws firing into close combat, and there are obviously plenty of people who are willing to go there. It doesn't matter if all other shooting attacks that can hit models in close combat spell it out, or that shooting into close combat is prohibited in a blanket statement (in a fairly poorly written section of what should be precise rules), or really anything; if one is really committed to claiming the RAW allows Jaws to hit models in close combat, the justification has been amply given ad nauseum in this thread. The proponents think that no specific allowance needs to be made because Jaws is a shooting attack that targets one model and just happens to hit other models, and (even though the rules prohibit "just hitting other models" in close combat with those basic weapons that can hit models besides the one targeted, with specific exceptions) Jaws is not defined as anything other than a shooting attack, so it is exempt not only from the direct shooting into combat rules (which restrict things like bolters that have only discreet "bullets" via the rules on p.16) but also the "incidental" shooting into combat rules that limit blasts and templates. Since Jaws isn't defined as any of those, it gets to follow (according to rigeld2 et al) the least restrictive portion of rules rather than the entire set of rules governing shooting and hitting models in close combat.

I personally think that the justification is garbage and ignores inconvenient rules - I have said that ad nauseum as well. Using all the rules as written I find no valid justification for allowing a ranged attack to hit models in close combat without specific allowance, and Jaws has no such provision.

Regardless of your personal reading of the rules, reading this thread is nearly useless. Neither side will budge an inch; I believe that this is because my reading is correct and my opponents have invested their egos into being right and cannot now admit their error. Likely they have a similar, if opposite, opinion.

Edits to make it clear that I am of good humor about the whole thing.

kirsanth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:There is no way to know that a model in CC is not targeted until you draw a deliberate line over the CC which is disallowed in shooting rules (that disallow targeting units in CC).

Jaws explicitly doesn't do that (as long as the first model touched is not locked in combat)

See above. Doesn't the FAQ says the first model affected, which you cannot determine yet?

So really you're objecting based on the fact that it's possible to place something in an illegal position? But you don't know if it'll be an illegal position until the line is drawn.

You can't draw the line because of the potential to be in an illegal position, but you can't know if it's in an illegal position until you draw the line.
That's what you're saying.

jwolf wrote:Only one model is targeted, Kirsanth. Doesn't change what models are shot, and shooting into close combat is prohibited on page 40. Targeting is prohibited on page 16, but targeting restrictions only matter on the first model with Jaws.

This though, is the silliness I am pointing out. Getting shot while in combat is ok. Getting targeted is not. Shooting "indiscriminately" into combat is also disallowed, but apparently that is neither here nor there.

Regardless, there is no way to know you did not target a unit in combat until you try to have tried to draw the line into combat - this is why the rules disallow it without needing to REstate it.
Target is decided after the power works - the fact that you deliberately made a CC unit a potential option is the problem, not how I read the rules.

All that said, I repeat this is simply being pedantic and somewhat silly - the rules have been covered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:You can't draw the line because of the potential to be in an illegal position, but you can't know if it's in an illegal position until you draw the line.
That's what you're saying.

Yes. You are not allowed to create a paradox or it is your problem.

The rules disallow one of your options from being legal, you cannot then say "Well, it may not happen so it's ok."

jwolf wrote:or that shooting into close combat is prohibited in a blanket statement

If only it was...

Mannahin, jwolf, etc.,

I understand your viewpoint and agree that the intent of the rules is likely that things like this shouldn't be permitted. I don't think it's perfectly clear, and in the absence of clarity we should go with the exact RAW.

I've tried to remain civil throughout this debate, and hope there's no ill will felt towards me - as I don't feel that way about any of you.

With that, I'm tired of repeating myself ad nauseum, and with the release of 6th so close I'm not really sure I care about this in the one - maybe two - more games I'm going to get to play before then.

If you're ever in the Houston area, hit me up if you'd like to play.

jwolf wrote:Only one model is targeted, Kirsanth. Doesn't change what models are shot, and shooting into close combat is prohibited on page 40. Targeting is prohibited on page 16, but targeting restrictions only matter on the first model with Jaws.

It would be awesome if the rules were well written, but they are not. There is enough grey area for an extremely slanted view to justify Jaws firing into close combat, and there are obviously plenty of people who are willing to go there. It doesn't matter if all other shooting attacks that can hit models in close combat spell it out, or that shooting into close combat is prohibited in a blanket statement (in a fairly poorly written section of what should be precise rules), or really anything; if one is really committed to claiming the RAW allows Jaws to hit models in close combat, the justification has been amply given ad nauseum in this thread. The proponents think that no specific allowance needs to be made because Jaws is a shooting attack that targets one model and just happens to hit other models, and (even though the rules prohibit "just hitting other models" in close combat with those basic weapons that can hit models besides the one targeted, with specific exceptions) Jaws is not defined as anything other than a shooting attack, so it is exempt not only from the direct shooting into combat rules (which restrict things like bolters that have only discreet "bullets" via the rules on p.16) but also the "incidental" shooting into combat rules that limit blasts and templates. Since Jaws isn't defined as any of those, it gets to follow (according to rigeld2 et al) the least restrictive portion of rules rather than the entire set of rules governing shooting and hitting models in close combat.

I personally think that the justification is garbage and ignores inconvenient rules - I have said that ad nauseum as well. Using all the rules as written I find no valid justification for allowing a ranged attack to hit models in close combat without specific allowance, and Jaws has no such provision.

Regardless of your personal reading of the rules, reading this thread is nearly useless. Neither side will budge an inch; I believe that this is because my reading is correct and my opponents have invested their egos into being right and cannot now admit their error. Likely they have a similar, if opposite, opinion.

Edits to make it clear that I am of good humor about the whole thing.

Welcome to YMDC because this post makes it seem like this is your first foray into these forums.

rigeld2 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:There is no way to know that a model in CC is not targeted until you draw a deliberate line over the CC which is disallowed in shooting rules (that disallow targeting units in CC).

Jaws explicitly doesn't do that (as long as the first model touched is not locked in combat)

See above. Doesn't the FAQ says the first model affected, which you cannot determine yet?

So really you're objecting based on the fact that it's possible to place something in an illegal position? But you don't know if it'll be an illegal position until the line is drawn.

You can't draw the line because of the potential to be in an illegal position, but you can't know if it's in an illegal position until you draw the line.
That's what you're saying.

He's not saying that, rigeld2. This is why we can't have nice things, because you love putting words in everyone elses' mouths. You declare your target, shoot, and if the line is illegal, the shot is illegal and cannot happen. I wonder, if you're shooting blast weapons at a unit next to a close combat, do you declare the exact location of the blast? When I do it, I say "I fire my blast at that unit, targeting that model, in such a way as to not be over the models in close combat near it," which seems like the simplest and best way to do it. I don't give an exact location on the board and then measure to see if that location is legal. Do you shoot a template near combat and give and angle then check to see of it's illegal, or do you adjust the placement to make sure it is legal? Granted, Jaws is a bit harder to fiddle with, but if your "target" is 1" from the Rune Priest you could draw a lot of VERY different lines at 24" away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

jwolf wrote:or that shooting into close combat is prohibited in a blanket statement

If only it was...

Mannahin, jwolf, etc.,

I understand your viewpoint and agree that the intent of the rules is likely that things like this shouldn't be permitted. I don't think it's perfectly clear, and in the absence of clarity we should go with the exact RAW.

I've tried to remain civil throughout this debate, and hope there's no ill will felt towards me - as I don't feel that way about any of you.

With that, I'm tired of repeating myself ad nauseum, and with the release of 6th so close I'm not really sure I care about this in the one - maybe two - more games I'm going to get to play before then.

If you're ever in the Houston area, hit me up if you'd like to play.

Come play with us later this month, we have sort of a big event happening. I hate you badly, and might go all naked cannibal on you, but that's the bath salts talking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:

jwolf wrote:Only one model is targeted, Kirsanth. Doesn't change what models are shot, and shooting into close combat is prohibited on page 40. Targeting is prohibited on page 16, but targeting restrictions only matter on the first model with Jaws.

It would be awesome if the rules were well written, but they are not. There is enough grey area for an extremely slanted view to justify Jaws firing into close combat, and there are obviously plenty of people who are willing to go there. It doesn't matter if all other shooting attacks that can hit models in close combat spell it out, or that shooting into close combat is prohibited in a blanket statement (in a fairly poorly written section of what should be precise rules), or really anything; if one is really committed to claiming the RAW allows Jaws to hit models in close combat, the justification has been amply given ad nauseum in this thread. The proponents think that no specific allowance needs to be made because Jaws is a shooting attack that targets one model and just happens to hit other models, and (even though the rules prohibit "just hitting other models" in close combat with those basic weapons that can hit models besides the one targeted, with specific exceptions) Jaws is not defined as anything other than a shooting attack, so it is exempt not only from the direct shooting into combat rules (which restrict things like bolters that have only discreet "bullets" via the rules on p.16) but also the "incidental" shooting into combat rules that limit blasts and templates. Since Jaws isn't defined as any of those, it gets to follow (according to rigeld2 et al) the least restrictive portion of rules rather than the entire set of rules governing shooting and hitting models in close combat.

I personally think that the justification is garbage and ignores inconvenient rules - I have said that ad nauseum as well. Using all the rules as written I find no valid justification for allowing a ranged attack to hit models in close combat without specific allowance, and Jaws has no such provision.

Regardless of your personal reading of the rules, reading this thread is nearly useless. Neither side will budge an inch; I believe that this is because my reading is correct and my opponents have invested their egos into being right and cannot now admit their error. Likely they have a similar, if opposite, opinion.

Edits to make it clear that I am of good humor about the whole thing.

Welcome to YMDC because this post makes it seem like this is your first foray into these forums.

Far from my first foray, and far from the first time people without rules support have stood firm against my perfect logic and flawless rules knowledge. I do think at a certain point one simply calls the game a stalemate, though.

jwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:There is no way to know that a model in CC is not targeted until you draw a deliberate line over the CC which is disallowed in shooting rules (that disallow targeting units in CC).

Jaws explicitly doesn't do that (as long as the first model touched is not locked in combat)

See above. Doesn't the FAQ says the first model affected, which you cannot determine yet?

So really you're objecting based on the fact that it's possible to place something in an illegal position? But you don't know if it'll be an illegal position until the line is drawn.

You can't draw the line because of the potential to be in an illegal position, but you can't know if it's in an illegal position until you draw the line.
That's what you're saying.

He's not saying that, rigeld2. This is why we can't have nice things, because you love putting words in everyone elses' mouths.

It's not intentional - it's how I read what you're writing.

You declare your target, shoot, and if the line is illegal, the shot is illegal and cannot happen.

That's not how Jaws works.
You draw the line and only then do you have a target. So you cannot have a target until after the line is declared. And if you can't draw the line for fear of hitting the combat...

I wonder, if you're shooting blast weapons at a unit next to a close combat, do you declare the exact location of the blast? When I do it, I say "I fire my blast at that unit, targeting that model, in such a way as to not be over the models in close combat near it," which seems like the simplest and best way to do it.

I normally walk over with the blast marker and pick a model to put the hole over. I don't adjust it after that because the rules don't allow for it. I then measure to make sure I'm in range and resolve the hits.

I don't give an exact location on the board and then measure to see if that location is legal.

But... that's what the rules say to do. You place the marker, then measure.

Do you shoot a template near combat and give and angle then check to see of it's illegal, or do you adjust the placement to make sure it is legal? Granted, Jaws is a bit harder to fiddle with, but if your "target" is 1" from the Rune Priest you could draw a lot of VERY different lines at 24" away.

I think I've used a template weapon... 3 times? in the past year. But when I do use them I adjust as required to get the most models in the target unit - as the rules require. (they don't say to adjust, but they do say to get the most models in the unit... and there's no way to guarantee that without the possibility to adjust)

To be clear, how then do you know you are not targeting a unit in combat when you deliberately and indiscriminately draw a line over a unit in combat while shooting with JotWW to determine who is the target?

My assertion is that you do not, so you cannot.

If you somehow know that the first model AFFECTED will be the same before looking at the results of the use of the power - which may include illegal models that are ignored - then you are probably running into other issues. Like assuming it worked on a potentially illegal target.

You are allowing for a potential illegal action to occur, this is where the problem starts. The fact that you are then looking for a resolution to a problem that is disallowed from happening is simply weird.

jwolf wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

jwolf wrote:Only one model is targeted, Kirsanth. Doesn't change what models are shot, and shooting into close combat is prohibited on page 40. Targeting is prohibited on page 16, but targeting restrictions only matter on the first model with Jaws.

It would be awesome if the rules were well written, but they are not. There is enough grey area for an extremely slanted view to justify Jaws firing into close combat, and there are obviously plenty of people who are willing to go there. It doesn't matter if all other shooting attacks that can hit models in close combat spell it out, or that shooting into close combat is prohibited in a blanket statement (in a fairly poorly written section of what should be precise rules), or really anything; if one is really committed to claiming the RAW allows Jaws to hit models in close combat, the justification has been amply given ad nauseum in this thread. The proponents think that no specific allowance needs to be made because Jaws is a shooting attack that targets one model and just happens to hit other models, and (even though the rules prohibit "just hitting other models" in close combat with those basic weapons that can hit models besides the one targeted, with specific exceptions) Jaws is not defined as anything other than a shooting attack, so it is exempt not only from the direct shooting into combat rules (which restrict things like bolters that have only discreet "bullets" via the rules on p.16) but also the "incidental" shooting into combat rules that limit blasts and templates. Since Jaws isn't defined as any of those, it gets to follow (according to rigeld2 et al) the least restrictive portion of rules rather than the entire set of rules governing shooting and hitting models in close combat.

I personally think that the justification is garbage and ignores inconvenient rules - I have said that ad nauseum as well. Using all the rules as written I find no valid justification for allowing a ranged attack to hit models in close combat without specific allowance, and Jaws has no such provision.

Regardless of your personal reading of the rules, reading this thread is nearly useless. Neither side will budge an inch; I believe that this is because my reading is correct and my opponents have invested their egos into being right and cannot now admit their error. Likely they have a similar, if opposite, opinion.

Edits to make it clear that I am of good humor about the whole thing.

Welcome to YMDC because this post makes it seem like this is your first foray into these forums.

Far from my first foray, and far from the first time people without rules support have stood firm against my perfect logic and flawless rules knowledge. I do think at a certain point one simply calls the game a stalemate, though.

Guess you missed this one considering that it addresses every RAI point you have tried to play off as RAW, with cited rules support.

Brother Ramses wrote:Been busy so not been able to check on the amusing path this thread has taken nor been able to fully sit down and get back into the mix.

As per the course of a RAW argument, this one has taken the predictable course of redefining the World of Warhammer 40k definitions to make an argument work to what is now the fluff versus rules debate. Addressing the page 40 nonsense first:

Page 40, BRB: SHOOTING INTO & OUT OF CLOSE COMBAT:

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.

Semantics aside over what is fluff and what is rules, you only need to look at the damn title as to see what you are talking about and where you need to look for reference in the BRB. Small hint, SHOOTING into & out of close combat. You can try and argue exactly what "fire indiscriminately" means, but the very title references the World of Warhammer 40k defined rule of shooting. Considering the reference of the above page 40 entry, the only conclusion that can be drawn from it is that it only reinforces that which is already present in the rules for shooting on page 15/16 of the BRB as well as clarifying specific situations that occur in regard to template and blast weapons. Therefore it is old news that,

You cannot shoot into close combat.

However, page 40 is referencing a defined process in the World of Warhammer 40k, shooting. If everyone would turn their books to page 15, "THE SHOOTING SEQUENCE" is a defined process. This is of course the default general rules for shooting of which PSA are to follow unless a codex exception to the general rules for shooting a psychic power exists. However, it is this shooting sequence that page 40 is reinforcing;

Page 15, BRB: DISALLOWED SHOOTING:

Certain situations prevent a unit from firing. The most common are;

Units that are locking in close combat with a foe.

......

And then you find on on the following page of the BRB;

Page 18, BRB: CHECK LINE OF SIGHT & PICK A TARGET:

A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in close combat as its target, and many not split its fire among different targets.....

You must note that in both instances above the word "fire" or "firing" have been used in describing actions taken during the shooting sequence which ties it intrinsically to the page 40 entry of, "to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combat." Therefore, "to fire indiscriminately" into close combat specifically means that you are prohibited as per the rules as described on page 15 and 16 of the BRB; being disallowed from shooting if locked in close combat and from choosing a single enemy unit locked in combat as its target.

Summary of page 40 nonsense;

Page 40 only reinforces that firing into close combat is prohibited as already defined by the shooting rules on page 16 of which it clearly states, "A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that it not locked in combat as its target...".

How this then applies to JotWW when the power targets a model outside of close combat and the line then runs through models in close combat is simple reading comprehension;

Did JotWW choose a single enemy unit that was not locked in combat as its target?

Yes, and therefore per the defined rules of page 16 and page 40 it did not "fire" into close combat.

The second issue that has come up in the last page or two now addresses where does JotWW get permission to hit models in close combat with the example given of other types of shooting attacks (scattering templates) as well as other psychic shooting attacks (Nurgle's Rot) that give explicit permission.

Now I originally quoted the SW FAQ wrong to which JWolf was happy to jump on however he then obviously decided that the actual wording was just as devastating to his argument as my mistake. The FAQ entry is as follows;

SW FAQ VERSION 1.2, JANUARY 2012:

Q. Does Jaws of the World Wolf require line of sight?
Does it ignore terrain that blocks line of sight (i.e.,
impassable terrain)? (p37)
A. As a psychic shooting attack, Jaws of the World Wolf
requires line of sight. 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 on its way through!

Embolden part by myself as this is specific in who else, OTHER then the target model can be affected by the power. If you missed it, it says,

EVERYBODY ELSE!

Now my initial post regarding this was using the word "any", however the word "everybody" is just as applicable to include every eligible unit type the line touches after the initial target model is affected, will be affected. So to those asking for the permissive rule that allows the power to affect units in close combat behind the initial unengaged target model; they would be included in, "the power just happens to hit everybody else on its way through!"

kirsanth wrote:To be clear, how then do you know you are not targeting a unit in combat when you deliberately and indiscriminately draw a line over a unit in combat while shooting with JotWW to determine who is the target? My assertion is that you do not, so you cannot.

So you can't draw the line because you can't figure out the target because you can't draw the line?

If you somehow know that the first model AFFECTED will be the same before looking at the results of the use of the power - which may include illegal models that are ignored - then you are probably running into other issues. Like assuming it worked on a potentially illegal target.

I'm not following this. Can you try and explain what you mean differently?

You are allowing for a potential illegal action to occur, this is where the problem starts.

No. I'm following the rules as written for Jaws of the World Wolf. Those rules tell me to draw a line. You're saying I'm unable to draw a line because it's possible that it will create an illegal act - but I can't determine that until I draw the line.

It could be the top of turn one with no CCs anywhere on the board, and your assertion would still prevent me from drawing the line. Because (according to you) you cannot know if the first model touched is in a combat before drawing the line, and you can't verify that until after you draw a line, and you can't draw the line if it has the potential to touch an illegal target, but you can't know if it's an illegal target until you've drawn the line... What rules are you actually following to draw the line? Unless you have a rules basis for premeasuring the 24" to see if there's a combat or friendly unit in the path.

@ jwolf - don't feed the trolls... for all we know it could be a twelve year old with too much time on their hands.

@ Brother Ramses - Like I said, if you pretend that page 40 is only a reference to page 16 (it doesn't reference it) instead of a blanket proscription in and of itself, and you ignore that every other instance of hitting models in combat gives explicit permission to do so (using some variation of "including models locked in assault" in the permission), you can justify your permission.

I think I'll read EVEYBODY ELSE to mean "everybody else who is a legal target of a shooting attack," as that is much more in keeping with the rules than reading it as literally the rules. "Everybody else" to me is as descriptive as "soulless commanders" and "fire indiscriminately" from page 40 - sometimes the guys at GW forget that we're looking for actual rules, not cute turns of phrase, and we can either pretend that the cute phrases are literally accurate (so a commander with a soul could fire into close combat, especially if he was doing so in a discriminate fashion) or we can not worry about it and read the parts that make sense as rules as rules, and let the colorful phrases just be wasted ink.

But your mileage may vary. And thanks for the insults; I was worried that you were too simple-minded to get some digs in before we walk away!

jwolf wrote:@ Brother Ramses - Like I said, if you pretend that page 40 is only a reference to page 16 (it doesn't reference it) instead of a blanket proscription in and of itself, and you ignore that every other instance of hitting models in combat gives explicit permission to do so (using some variation of "including models locked in assault" in the permission), you can justify your permission.

It absolutely references it.

Or are you trying to use the english definition for a word that has a 40k definition?
How are you defining the word "fire" in the sentence that keeps getting referred to here?

-666- wrote:@ jwolf - don't feed the trolls... for all we know it could be a twelve year old with too much time on their hands.

I hope you are not referring to rigeld. As Randall can verify rigeld is not a 12 year old kid but in fact nosferatu. The fact that nos only showed up briefly is a testament to this fact.

@Randall, just joking around. You've come quite a ways from your first few posts.

I actually don't need the book to understand what firing a weapon means, and there is no conflict between my definition and the basic usage on page 16. There is a targeting process for firing a weapon described on page 16, but this targeting process is for the general case, and specific types of firing ranged weapons deviate from this case. I think we can both agree that Jaws has a unique firing profile that is not addressed in the general case (which applies to discreet shots such as bolters). Alas, Jaws does not have a special section detailing how it is to be treated when fired - in form, Jaws most resembles a template, but in performance it has some aspects that resemble a Exitus Rifle (it targets a specific model, not a unit). Treating the weapon as if only the restriction on page 16 apply to it is wrongheaded; the weapon may target only one model, but if it hits other models then it (according to you many pages back and numerous times) shot at them, and shooting at things locked in combat is not allowed unless you have specific permission to do so.
I don't agree with your position that have to shoot at things to hit them with non-scattering weapons, but I also don't think that you can shoot, intentionally or otherwise into close combat without express permission.