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.

jwolf wrote:I actually don't need the book to understand what firing a weapon means

But you do to understand what firing a weapon in the game of 40k means.

and there is no conflict between my definition and the basic usage on page 16.

15 actually, but that's nitpicking

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.

No - I haven't agreed (or didn't intend to) that hit and shot are synonymous in the 40k rules. I've asked for a rule showing they are, I was assured that they are used interchangeably throughout the shooting section, but not once has anyone shown me where. Hit is a defined term in 40k. If you're trying to say a 40k defined term is synonymous with something else, there needs to be rules support - using the words interchangeably (as they do with to fire and to shoot) is rules support. A dictionary is not.
And the prohibition for firing into CC on page 40 is referencing the shooting rules - which say you can't target them.
Also - it doesn't most resemble a template. It most resembles a line weapon like the VibroCannon. Something that was in existence before the 5th ed rulebook. This means that if they wanted to assign the same restriction to it that was assigned to templates and blasts, they could've said so. I'm not attempting to say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence - but you can't just say "Well, it's not defined so lets apply the template rules."

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.

I've given up the shoot == shoot at because a) it's irrelevant, b) it's probably just a cultural difference. No biggie.

I have gone back and forth on this numerous times over last couple days. The Problem is the sentence on pg. 40 reads alot like fluff and for the most part is. But if you notice alot of rules in the book have sentences that read as fluff to begin with. But at the end of these sentences there is a comma. After the comma always comes the actual rule. The comma divides the fluff part of the sentence from the rule part of the sentence. So after noticing that if you read pg 40 it would prevent you from using Jaws into a combat. Even though it is not targeting the combat it is technically shooting into the combat.

BigDogg82 wrote:Even though it is not targeting the combat it is technically shooting into the combat.

What definition of "shooting" are you using? The 40k one or the plain English one?

Because if it's not targeting, checking line of sight, hitting, wounding, saving, removing casualties... I don't see how it's doing anything in the 40k rules for shooting.
And it doesn't do any of that for any model after the first one.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

So do not draw the line where it can potentially cause you to make it illegally drawn. Since you know the order of operations, why are you making a potentially illegal move?

Akin to placing blast markers over models in CC.

Yes, there are rules about how this can and cannot happen, but without them it simply cannot.
Thus the issue I am stating.

Also, the bold is your assumption that these are the only rules that matter. This is not true.
You cannot perform actions that are otherwise disallowed without explicit permission.

"All models" is more literally read as "All legal models" as it is generally assumed that you cannot have broken a rule to get to this point. If you can break a rule to get to this point, the error is prior to the discussion.

This is still silly though.

(Also, I think other have said it better. I am simply nitpicking to the degree that has been shown to be relevant - or at least brought up.)

rigeld2 wrote:

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

Oh, I agree, I just happen to think that the best way to handle this particular issue is through rules by interpretation instead of rules as written.

rigeld2 wrote:

BigDogg82 wrote:Even though it is not targeting the combat it is technically shooting into the combat.

What definition of "shooting" are you using? The 40k one or the plain English one?

Because if it's not targeting, checking line of sight, hitting, wounding, saving, removing casualties... I don't see how it's doing anything in the 40k rules for shooting.
And it doesn't do any of that for any model after the first one.

I am using the fact that in the rules for Jaws it says as a psychic SHOOTING attack. And while it only targets the first model it attacks all of the models under the line otherwise it would not effect them. All of the rules for Jaws are a psychic shooting attack. It does not say Jaws is a psychic shooting attack only against the first model. It just says in the FAQ to treat that model as the target.

kirsanth wrote:So do not draw the line where it can potentially cause you to make it illegally drawn.

Except, according to you, I can't tell if the line is legal to draw without drawing it.
Similar to pre-measuring, I can't draw a 24" inch line, make sure it's legal, then say I'm casting Jaws.
And if your response is "It's possible for it to be obvious" I'll respond with "It's also possible for it to be obvious that I'll have a legal target in front of the CC."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BigDogg82 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

BigDogg82 wrote:Even though it is not targeting the combat it is technically shooting into the combat.

What definition of "shooting" are you using? The 40k one or the plain English one?

Because if it's not targeting, checking line of sight, hitting, wounding, saving, removing casualties... I don't see how it's doing anything in the 40k rules for shooting.
And it doesn't do any of that for any model after the first one.

I am using the fact that in the rules for Jaws it says as a psychic SHOOTING attack. And while it only targets the first model it attacks all of the models under the line otherwise it would not effect them. All of the rules for Jaws are a psychic shooting attack. It does not say Jaws is a psychic shooting attack only against the first model. It just says in the FAQ to treat that model as the target.

So you're trying to use plain english to equate the two?
Yes, Jaws uses the PSA rules. The line on page 40 refers to the shooting rules. The shooting rules prevent you from targeting a model in CC. Jaws does not target models after the first.

So according to you any shooting attack that does not follow all of the shooting steps on pg. 15 and is not specifically stated as not being able to shoot into combat can shoot into combat since it is not technically a shooting attack if its special rules allow it to skip or change any of the steps on pg. 15

BigDogg82 wrote:So according to you any shooting attack that does not follow all of the shooting steps on pg. 15 and is not specifically stated as not being able to shoot into combat can shoot into combat since it is not technically a shooting attack if its special rules allow it to skip or change any of the steps on pg. 15

No. That's not what I'm saying.
A shooting attack that doesn't have a target doesn't need an exception to shoot into CC. That's what I'm asserting.

rigeld2 wrote:

BigDogg82 wrote:So according to you any shooting attack that does not follow all of the shooting steps on pg. 15 and is not specifically stated as not being able to shoot into combat can shoot into combat since it is not technically a shooting attack if its special rules allow it to skip or change any of the steps on pg. 15

No. That's not what I'm saying.
A shooting attack that doesn't have a target doesn't need an exception to shoot into CC. That's what I'm asserting.

Show me the rule that says only shooting attacks with a target may not shoot into close combat

We know that Nurgle's Rot is explicitly given permission to target enemy models locked in melee which is not the case for JotWW.

Happyjew wrote:

-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.

That explains a lot... and nos could be a twelve year old for all we know. I dont mean that in a critical way either - just as a general observation. He comes across as always wanting the last word.

: )

BigDogg82 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

BigDogg82 wrote:So according to you any shooting attack that does not follow all of the shooting steps on pg. 15 and is not specifically stated as not being able to shoot into combat can shoot into combat since it is not technically a shooting attack if its special rules allow it to skip or change any of the steps on pg. 15

No. That's not what I'm saying.
A shooting attack that doesn't have a target doesn't need an exception to shoot into CC. That's what I'm asserting.

Show me the rule that says only shooting attacks with a target may not shoot into close combat

Page 16 says that you cannot target units in a close combat.
Page 40 references page 16.
I have permission to place the line.
You now need to find a way to deny that permission. I'm not targeting a unit in CC, so that can't be what denies the permission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

-666- wrote:We know that Nurgle's Rot is explicitly given permission to target enemy models locked in melee which is not the case for JotWW.

Because GW never prints redundant words. And Nurgle's Rot targets, JotWW doesn't (after the first model).

That explains a lot... and nos could be a twelve year old for all we know. I dont mean that in a critical way either - just as a general observation. He comes across as always wanting the last word.

Yeah, I'm totally the only one keeping this thread going.

pg 40 prevents shooting into CC it says nothing about targeting. I already answered your question about the beginning of the sentence being fluff. It says shooting into combat is not permitted not just targeting. So Jaws is a psychic shooting attack as defined in its rules so no need to bring up the process or the definition as defined by 40k or the English language. So Jaws is a Psychic Shooting attack. Pg 40 clearly states shooting into a combat is not permitted. So unless it gets permission from somewhere else shooting into not just targeting a combat is not permitted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also pg 40 does not reference pg 16. No where does it refer you to pg. 16, mention pg.16, or allude to even the existence of a pg. 16. If you did not read pg. 16 and refer yourself there pg. 40 would give you no indication to look for a pg. 16.

ref·er·ence   [ref-er-uhns, ref-ruhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ref·er·enced, ref·er·enc·ing.
noun
1.
an act or instance of referring.
2.
a mention; allusion.
3.
something for which a name or designation stands; denotation.
4.
a direction in a book or writing to some other book, passage, etc.
5.
a book, passage, etc., to which one is directed.

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.

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!

Ok so now you have made it crystal clear that what the RAW of the rules say does not matter, or the rulebook, because you will interpret the rules based on your bias, not based on the actual defined process. In addition you will arbitrarily add words to existing rules as is the case in adding a qualifier to"everybody else" to make your flawed argument appear valid.

Why didn't you just tell us from the beginning that you interpret rules based on personal opinion, not the RAW and that you will add qualifiers to rules based on your own opinion and not the RAW? Would have saved us probably 10 pages by just putting you on ignore. Remember the tenets of YMDC are what is the RAW of the rule. You have shown that you actually have no intention of arguing the RAW of the rule, but instead the RAI accodring to Jwolf.

Its getting rather flamey in here all of a sudden.

BigDogg82 wrote:pg 40 prevents shooting into CC it says nothing about targeting.

Actually, it says that "Likewise ... to fire ... into ... close combats ... is not permitted." so nothing about shooting. I've picked out the only words that can be used as rules - the other ~75% of the sentence is useless (but the word shooting never appears in that sentence)
"to fire" in 40k rules must refer to the shooting rules. There's no other way to define it.
So, "Likewise to follow the shooting process into close combats is not permitted."
Why is it not permitted? Oh, page 16 says you can't target a unit in close combat.
Well, Jaws doesn't target any model after the first.

So Jaws is a Psychic Shooting attack. Pg 40 clearly states shooting into a combat is not permitted.

Please quote the rule on page 40 that "clearly states shooting into a combat is not permitted."

rigeld2 wrote:

BigDogg82 wrote:pg 40 prevents shooting into CC it says nothing about targeting.

Actually, it says that "Likewise ... to fire ... into ... close combats ... is not permitted." so nothing about shooting. I've picked out the only words that can be used as rules - the other ~75% of the sentence is useless (but the word shooting never appears in that sentence)
"to fire" in 40k rules must refer to the shooting rules. There's no other way to define it.
So, "Likewise to follow the shooting process into close combats is not permitted."
Why is it not permitted? Oh, page 16 says you can't target a unit in close combat.
Well, Jaws doesn't target any model after the first.

So Jaws is a Psychic Shooting attack. Pg 40 clearly states shooting into a combat is not permitted.

Please quote the rule on page 40 that "clearly states shooting into a combat is not permitted."

Fire is the same as shoot in the BRB look in the weapon section almost all of the weapons talk about firing shots or when fired upon. Otherwise none of them would be considered shooting but firing so could ignore the shooting process

So if fire and shoot are the same based on the BRB then "Likewise ... to fire ... into ... close combats ... is not permitted." means the same as if it said "Likewise ... to shoot ... into ... close combats ... is not permitted."

BigDogg82 wrote:Also pg 40 does not reference pg 16. No where does it refer you to pg. 16, mention pg.16, or allude to even the existence of a pg. 16. If you did not read pg. 16 and refer yourself there pg. 40 would give you no indication to look for a pg. 16.

The dictionary definition was cute, I'll give you that.
Page 40 absolutely references page 16. (well, 15 really but the relevant rule is on 16)
It does so by using the word "fire" which, in 40k rules, is synonymous with "shooting".
When you see a word that's defined in 40k, you have to use the 40k definition of that word. Guess where the definition of "shooting" is in the BRB?

You are over-simplying the matter now.

BigDogg82 wrote:Fire is the same as shoot in the BRB look in the weapon section almost all of the weapons talk about firing shots or when fired upon. Otherwise none of them would be considered shooting but firing so could ignore the shooting process

Correct.
Now, define the word "shooting" as required by the 40k rules. Are you thinking of anything other than page 15+ where the shooting rules are? Then you're wrong.

There are numerous shooting attacks in the game that let you skip certain steps in the process of shooting. Or changes the way they use the process all together. This does not make them exempt from the other aspects of the shooting rules unless specifically stated. The reason Jaws needs a defined target for part of the attack is for instances where things that happen after it happens are affected by it. As in you may only assault unit you shot at. This way you can not shoot something and then assault something else. Or if he is with a unit they must fire on same unit as the first model he hits since they may not target other units.

BigDogg82 wrote:There are numerous shooting attacks in the game that let you skip certain steps in the process of shooting. Or changes the way they use the process all together. This does not make them exempt from the other aspects of the shooting rules unless specifically stated. The reason Jaws needs a defined target for part of the attack is for instances where things that happen after it happens are affected by it. As in you may only assault unit you shot at. This way you can not shoot something and then assault something else. Or if he is with a unit they must fire on same unit as the first model he hits since they may not target other units.

Correct.
I haven't said otherwise.
I've said that you're forbidden from targeting a unit that is locked in CC.
Jaws explicitly does not target any model/unit after the first one the line touches.
Therefore, if the Jaws line touches a legal target before touching the CC, it is not targeting a unit/model in CC.
Therefore there's no rule stopping the line from being placed there. At least, not one that's been put forth yet.

rigeld2 wrote:

BigDogg82 wrote:There are numerous shooting attacks in the game that let you skip certain steps in the process of shooting. Or changes the way they use the process all together. This does not make them exempt from the other aspects of the shooting rules unless specifically stated. The reason Jaws needs a defined target for part of the attack is for instances where things that happen after it happens are affected by it. As in you may only assault unit you shot at. This way you can not shoot something and then assault something else. Or if he is with a unit they must fire on same unit as the first model he hits since they may not target other units.

Correct.
I haven't said otherwise.
I've said that you're forbidden from targeting a unit that is locked in CC.
Jaws explicitly does not target any model/unit after the first one the line touches.
Therefore, if the Jaws line touches a legal target before touching the CC, it is not targeting a unit/model in CC.
Therefore there's no rule stopping the line from being placed there. At least, not one that's been put forth yet.

Actually they have numerous times. You just continue to ignore it. pg. 40 says you can't fire into CC. It is more clearly defining the mention of it on pg. 16.

Pg. 16 are the generic base shooting rules which are explained in multiple other sections with changes and clarification for the type of shooting and what is being shot at. And in all those cases anything that specifically states an exception or slight difference takes precedence over the generic. This is the same with all the generic rules in the game.

-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.

If you can't discuss the rules without reaching for derogatory terms for other posters, you're not going to be allowed to discuss the rules.

Regardless, this thread can die now.