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.

As a tangent from http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/384244.page#3097575

Can a unit declare it is shooting at a target unit, turn to face them (p11) and then opt not to fire any weapons?

P15 gives the Shooting Sequence:
1. Check LOS and Pick target
2. Check range
3. Roll to hit
4. Roll wounds
5. Take saves
6. Remove casualties

p16 "Which models can fire?" States that a "player may choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers... This must be declared before checking range..."
-----------------------

Since turning to face is done as part of the LOS step (1), and declaring who is firing is done before the check range step (2), it seems a unit could "Shoot" at a target unit, turn to face them, and then opt not to fire any weapons.

Thoughts?

Possible. But i don't see the point...

I think i was going to post the exact same (declare shooting for a pivot) but decided it was too silly...

Howveer you can indeed do just that. You automatically miss when you check range, but thats it.

Walkers face the target they are firing at. So my guess is that you notice a threat after movement and want to face front armor against it before the enemy turn. I wouldn't do it as it seems a little cheesy but I like seeing my models get blown up and die so that may just be me.

Since it's tied in... If you declare a target and then don't fire any weapons do you still count as having shot at that target for the purpose of assaulting that turn?

Yes

Since you would have to have weapons to fire to do this, why not just carry on and fire the weapons?

Homer

No.

if you get to pivot to face a target you are firing at you obviously have to fire. Since the pivot is contingent on firing at a target.

Also if a unit is not shooting, then its not shooting.

if you are not shooting you are not firing.

If you are not firing, you cannot pivot to face what you are firing at.

Wrong. You can choose which guns in a unit will fgire, which is after you declare that you are shooting at a target unit.

This means you can choose to fire 0 weapons in the unit

The more important question:

You have a squadron of walkers. You declare a target for the unit, but then elect for only some of the walkers to fire.
Which models in the unit turn to face the target?

Note: "When firing a walker's weapons, pivot the walker on the spot ..."

If you've chosen not to fire any of the model's (or models') weapons...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wrong. You can choose which guns in a unit will fgire, which is after you declare that you are shooting at a target unit.

This means you can choose to fire 0 weapons in the unit

The rules for choosing to only have certain models fire implies that some models are still firing and others are not due to wanting to assault, or having 1 shot weapons.

RAW you can be TFG and fire 0 models weapons.

..I still contend if a unit fires 0 weapons it has not fired any weapons or shot any weapons.

Solkan has a good question there. One I would like to hear as well since I play IG and sometimes have squads of sentinels.

No it does not imply that blaktoof; it allows you to choose 0 - max to fire

regardless if 0 fire then 0 have fired, so for some model types they may not pivot RAW.

and saying "a player may choose not to fire with certain models if they prefer (as some models may have 1 shot weapons..)" kind of does imply that some of the models are still shooting.

But of course discussing what is implied or meant in a GW book is like discussing if religious texts are literal or figurative

According to the steps in the rules, you can shoot with a unit and have none of the models in that unit fire their weapons. That's pretty clear, even if it is an odd situation for the rules to allow (and the Changeling's Glamour rule even has text to address the ability to hold fire like this in the Chaos Daemons book). So you can have a single model unit that "shot" (or, most specifically, that has performed its shooting, as defined in the rules) but didn't fire any of its weapons.

But it still comes down to: When did the model fire its weapons?
Because the rule says that the walker pivots when it fires its weapons.

I would like to hear the wording which manages to avoid phrases like "I choose not to fire this model's weapons" or "This model will fire none of its weapons" that won't come into direct conflict with the phrasing "When firing a walker's weapons," for triggering the pivot.

If this is going to come down to whether "This model fired zero weapons" means the same thing as "This model did not fire" and "This model fired no weapons", then we may as well ask to have the thread locked now; and let the linguists sort it out in person.

I would like to ask what the benefit is to not firing?

Homer

Homer S wrote:I would like to ask what the benefit is to not firing?

Homer

Changing the facing of exposed armor of a walker in the shooting phase.

Pivoting a TMC or Dreadknight on an oval base for extra distance during the assault phase.

I would say as long as what you are shooting(or not shooting as the case may be) is what you are assaulting, you should be fine. No fake shooting to pivot then assaulting elsewhere.

Homer S wrote:I would like to ask what the benefit is to not firing?

Homer

To more specifically address your question: People may sometimes want to not fire in order to not kill off models that will allow the target to be outside charge range. Very often a unit maybe 5.5" inches away, you shoot them, they take away the closest model, and now they're 6.1 inches away.

in this case some models are supplied on non round or non square bases. Some people are trying to claim they fire 0 weapons so as not to cause any casaulties on an enemy unit. They then want to use the line under movement that says infantry may turn to fire at their shooting target.

This would in effect give a model with a non round base bonus distance for any assault move it made by lessening the distance to the target.

however infantry models do not pivot at their center point for movement considering their movement is from their front to their front in the BRB including facing and they are not allowed to affect the distance they are allowed to move by turning or facing as per the BRB p.11, and the line for walkers states "when firing a walkers weapons" and if you choose to fire no weapons you havent fired...

that said RAW its not really possible anyways to benefit from it the way some people are trying.

nkelsch wrote:

Homer S wrote:I would like to ask what the benefit is to not firing?

Homer

Changing the facing of exposed armor of a walker in the shooting phase.

Pivoting a TMC or Dreadknight on an oval base for extra distance during the assault phase.

I would say as long as what you are shooting(or not shooting as the case may be) is what you are assaulting, you should be fine. No fake shooting to pivot then assaulting elsewhere.

These are all benefits of firing the weapon as well. Why not fire too?

Homer

The movement rule on page 11 states Infantry models are free to turn and face their targets in the Shooting phase. The first step of the Shooting phase is to check LOS and select the target. This would be the time the models are turned to face the target.

Page 16 states the player must determine which models are firing prior to checking range. Those models that are firing continue with the rest of the Shooting Sequence, those that aren't firing are done.

This is how I understand the RAW. This is slightly different from the Movement issue discussed in an other thread. In general, it doesn't matter since most models are mounted on round bases. It's when Infantry models that are mounted on non-round bases this becomes an issue. Those Infantry models could gain a slight advantage by turning and facing a target.

A couple of things to note:
1) This is limited to those models designated as Infantry (page 11).
2) The target the models are turned to face is the only target available for assault since that's the target "shot at" by the models.

I don't get the point either. So far I have heard 2 arguments:

1) Shooting 0 weapons so you can pivot a walker with an exposed side.
You can just run instead, that makes it less confusing for your opponent and allows you to pivot the walker how you'd like instead of directly facing an enemy unit. Not to mention you can actually move them at least an inch!

2) Shooting 0 weapons so a Dreadknight or TMC pivots, making them "gain extra movement" to get the charge.
Assault moves are done like a normal move, so why don't you just pivot in the assault phase to do this.


So any other reasons why you want to fire 0 weapons?

The aforementioned one-shot weapons and weapons such as Plasma weapons that can hurt their own firer.

Tylarion wrote:I don't get the point either. So far I have heard 2 arguments:

1) Shooting 0 weapons so you can pivot a walker with an exposed side.
You can just run instead, that makes it less confusing for your opponent and allows you to pivot the walker how you'd like instead of directly facing an enemy unit. Not to mention you can actually move them at least an inch!

2) Shooting 0 weapons so a Dreadknight or TMC pivots, making them "gain extra movement" to get the charge.
Assault moves are done like a normal move, so why don't you just pivot in the assault phase to do this.


So any other reasons why you want to fire 0 weapons?

1) Running would preclude assaulting for most walkers

2) If you're a fraction of an inch off for the assault move, you don't move at all and therefore can't pivot. If you pivot during shooting, you already have the marginal distance gained that might allow a charge.

Related more to this thread and what can be done, a Wolf Lord can take say a Combi-Melta and a Thunder Wolf Mount (or bike for that matter) and be close enough to assault if turned during the shooting phase as described above but would not want to fire and use up the Combi-Melta at the intended assault target.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:A couple of things to note:
1) This is limited to those models designated as Infantry (page 11).
2) The target the models are turned to face is the only target available for assault since that's the target "shot at" by the models.

Point 1 is meaningless, since the rules for Infantry are the baseline rules for the game, and all other models follow them except where they have their own more specific rules to supplant them. I would thus be inclined to think that page 11 doesn't help Walkers or other vehicles, but could allow oval-based Dreadknights and Trygons and such to functionaly gain or lose movement relative to the shooting target, depending on their facing.

The pivot does not matter for regular units, as they have no side or rear armor.

Blaktoof - given you claim you dont turn about the centre when turning models (from the other thread) does this mean that, WHEN you turn your infantry to face during shooting they actually end up displacing closer to their target

After all, that is the consequence of your claim that you dont turn non-vehicle models about the centre.

solkan wrote:...When firing a walker's weapons...

I don't know if the rules mean "when you are choosing to shoot" or "when you actually fire", and that means I don't want to get too deep into this conversation.

nkelsch wrote:

Homer S wrote:I would like to ask what the benefit is to not firing?

Homer

...
Pivoting a TMC or Dreadknight on an oval base for extra distance during the assault phase...

I would say as long as what you are shooting(or not shooting as the case may be) is what you are assaulting, you should be fine. No fake shooting to pivot then assaulting elsewhere.

The company was dumb enough to make non-round bases for 40k outside of bike/cavalry? If it's a custom base this is exactly the type of crap why i'd not let someone field it (at least once I see them try to cheese the system). Really though, i'm not sure if it even matters to pivot. Other than vehicles and walkers, facing is irrelevant, and vehicles don't usually have bases anyways. So even on a non-round base normal models don't need to be faced at all, they can just ride sideways (or whatever) into combat.

Now facing for the units that matter it changes something. If they didn't actually shoot then i'm not sure if they turn, so if they don't reach in assault they might stay as they were.

Turning in such a way as to be gaining some sort of advantage is surely going against the spirit of the rules.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
People may sometimes want to not fire in order to not kill off models that will allow the target to be outside charge range. Very often a unit maybe 5.5" inches away, you shoot them, they take away the closest model, and now they're 6.1 inches away.

Well alot of times something that miniscule of a failed distance will just be allowed with a lax group, especially in WHFB (where most of the game is about getting in combat). This is alot less so with people who play to win, but my statement is pointless, so that's it.

Again is "firing" declaring to or actually doing it, idk, if a model didn't "fire" then it might not pivot. So if the walkers didn't shoot at anyone that phase, they are allowed to assault anything they feel like. Do you automatically pivot when you assault? If you do I'd guess it's after you reach combat, not before you'd move.

blaktoof wrote: however infantry models do not pivot at their center point for movement considering their movement is from their front to their front in the BRB including facing and they are not allowed to affect the distance they are allowed to move by turning or facing as per the BRB p.11, and the line for walkers states "when firing a walkers weapons" and if you choose to fire no weapons you havent fired...

Fail. I thought infantry don't have a facing, they are 360. Facing is merely aesthetic.

I'll also point out the line saying "As you move model models in a unit, they can turn to face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover.", which I believe indicates any change in distance effectiveness by turning means you can't turn them to face that direction." Then there's the spirit of the rules, and common sense.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:... LOS...

I don't think facing has anything to do with LOS for any model in the game.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Blaktoof - given you claim you dont turn about the centre when turning models (from the other thread) does this mean that, WHEN you turn your infantry to face during shooting they actually end up displacing closer to their target

After all, that is the consequence of your claim that you dont turn non-vehicle models about the centre.

This entire topic does sound like it's about being lame, and you know, i'm going to sleep.

I think any gamer outside the internet could be asked if the above method of moving/turning is obviously against the rules. Some things are so blatantly wrong that they are against the rules going by the obvious non-existing rulebook. The faq for the ON-EBRB stated that "Rules, actions, and strange circumstances that are just made up are not allowed by the rules, even when supported by implications in the rulebook wording that mean it might be true. This also applies to fantasies that are assumed to be true because the rulebooks did not have a reason to have, so did not include, a reality asserting defense."

Hope I didn't offend anyone, especially those who are not wrong by choice.

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:... but would not want to fire and use up the Combi-Melta at the intended assault target.

So just fire the bolter instead...?