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.

Do not roll to hit, instead...

Do not perform step 3, which is "roll to hit", instead....

Do you see in there any permission NOT to perform steps 1 and 2? No? Then that menas you still do perform steps 1 and 2

Its blindlingly simple. Thats why i'm right. CGM - provide actual rules, as per the tenets.

Jidmah wrote:As you probably didn't ignore it on purpose, I'll quote myself.

"We usually go swimming, then to the movies, then to a bar. Today we are not going to the movies, instead we go shopping, then have lunch, and then we go to sleep".
Does not result in "We go swimming, shopping, have lunch, go to sleep and then to a bar".

Blast rules are not a replacement of the "Roll to hit" step.

I was a little busy these past few days, also spilled coffee on and killed my keyboard(well only the space bar, but for forum use that means the keyboard was useless).

I did see no one addressed this, which does appear to be the core of your argument. The Quoted situation does show a proper application of your argument, and is a great example. there is however one small problem and the reason why your argument is wrong for this situation: The initial statement is an example of a typical day or itinerary, this in no way is representative of a series of steps in rules or procedures.

The following can also be true via your formula, for a Flight Itinerary from Cleveland Ohio to Seattle Washington(A Flight I have taken a few times):

"We usually go from Cleveland-Hopkins airport, then to Chicago-O'Hare, then to Seattle. Today we are not going to Chicago-O'Hare, instead we go to Dallas-Fort Worth, then to San Diego International".
Does not result in "Just going from Dallas to San Diego, but rather going from Cleveland, to Dallas, to San Diego, to Seattle"; as evidenced from still needing to start in Cleveland(otherwise how did we get to Dallas), and End in Seattle(or destination).

The shooting Phase begins with Checking LOS and Picking a Target for your unit, it then goes to Checking range from your firing models to the nearest model(or point) in the target unit, then you either roll to hit or follow the blast rules.

Which is the exact argument I was making. You cannot ignore steps 1 and 2, as you have no permission to do so.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Jidmah wrote:As you probably didn't ignore it on purpose, I'll quote myself.

"We usually go swimming, then to the movies, then to a bar. Today we are not going to the movies, instead we go shopping, then have lunch, and then we go to sleep".
Does not result in "We go swimming, shopping, have lunch, go to sleep and then to a bar".

Blast rules are not a replacement of the "Roll to hit" step.

I was a little busy these past few days, also spilled coffee on and killed my keyboard(well only the space bar, but for forum use that means the keyboard was useless).

I did see no one addressed this, which does appear to be the core of your argument. The Quoted situation does show a proper application of your argument, and is a great example. there is however one small problem and the reason why your argument is wrong for this situation: The initial statement is an example of a typical day or itinerary, this in no way is representative of a series of steps in rules or procedures.

The following can also be true via your formula, for a Flight Itinerary from Cleveland Ohio to Seattle Washington(A Flight I have taken a few times):

"We usually go from Cleveland-Hopkins airport, then to Chicago-O'Hare, then to Seattle. Today we are not going to Chicago-O'Hare, instead we go to Dallas-Fort Worth, then to San Diego International".
Does not result in "Just going from Dallas to San Diego, but rather going from Cleveland, to Dallas, to San Diego, to Seattle"; as evidenced from still needing to start in Cleveland(otherwise how did we get to Dallas), and End in Seattle(or destination).

The shooting Phase begins with Checking LOS and Picking a Target for your unit, it then goes to Checking range from your firing models to the nearest model(or point) in the target unit, then you either roll to hit or follow the blast rules.

That's a good example, even though somewhat more restricting than rules, as you can't change the start. Because of that you rule out one of two interpretations by common sense, as there is no sense in starting a flight on another airport that far away. However, if you told all passengers "Today we are not going to Chicago-O'Hare, instead we go to Dallas-Fort Worth, then to San Diego International" I'd bet all my money that at least one of them would be concerned about being stranded at Sand Diego International rather than flying to Seattle.

By comparison if you heard (unsure of actual airport names)"We usually go from Düsseldorf airport, then to Atlanta, then to San Fransisco. Today we are not going to Atlanta, instead we go from Cologne airport to Amsterdam".
It rarely actually happens that a flight has to start from Cologne rather than Düsseldorf, and there are direct flights from Amsterdam to San Fransisco. So are you going by plane to Cologne or do you have to get there by bus/train?

The point is that blast rules go on and tell you to not to start with your plane at Cleveland as usual, but rather use a helicopter. You are still starting from Cleveland but with another aircraft(checking LoS, but to a model and placing a blast marker; checking range, but to the hole rather than to the closest model), then you don't go to your usual next target but do something else(don't roll to hit, scatter), and finally ending at Seattle as usual(rolling to wound).

nosferatu1001 wrote:Which is the exact argument I was making. You cannot ignore steps 1 and 2, as you have no permission to do so.

I'm sorry to say that, but you are not making any arguments. I'm not ignoring any steps. You failed to understand that from the beginning. What you do during Steps 1 and 2 is explicitly redefined by blast rules.

Again, you shoot by blast weapons by going through six steps, just like you do with regular weapons:
1) Pick target and check Los for regular weapons. Check LoS for blast marker placement and place it.
2) Next, check if blast marker is out of range. Check if regular weapons are out of range at the same time.
3) Roll to hit for regular weapons. Do not roll to hit for blast weapons. Scatter blast weapon to figure out hits.
4) Roll to wound
5) Take saving throws
6) Remove casualties

No, it is NOT explicitly redefined. That is what you are making up.

Instead of performnig step 3, perform the steps listed in the blast rules. You get to step 3 and then follow the blast rules, as it tells you to do. You cannot change steps 1 and 2 because it tells you "do not rroll to hit, instead...." - so until you "roll to hit" you MUST follow the shooting rules: if you do not follow the shooting rule you never get to roll to hit


That is where you argument is entirely flawed - you are ignoring the text and deciding that "do not roll ot hit" actually means "do not follow any shooting rules, follow these instead"

The fact you cannot see that is telling.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, it is NOT explicitly redefined. That is what you are making up.

Instead of performnig step 3, perform the steps listed in the blast rules.

You have yet to prove this statement and prove that my opposing statement is wrong.

As you obviously can't, judging by the amount of posts dodging this very issue, you're wrong. Sorry.

That is where you argument is entirely flawed - you are ignoring the text and deciding that "do not roll ot hit" actually means "do not follow any shooting rules, follow these instead"

This is not what I'm saying and has been disproven by the rapid fire precedence. Repeating invalid arguments is not going to change anything, just because you choose to ignore counter-proof.

No, I have proven that statment. Repeatedly. It also proves your statement to be factually incorrect, as Kel has proven to you repeatedly as well. Blind repetition of an incorrect statement is NOT an arguemnt.

"Do not roll to hit, instead..."

Roll to hit is a defined step. Step 3. So, once you get to step 3, do everything the rule flro Blasts says INSTEAD of rolling to hit.

Prove roll to hit is NOT a defined step. Or not - but if you DONT prove it is not a defined step, your argument remains bunk

There is no point in discussing with someone who is not reading the responses. This is just a repetition again, and doesn't even attack my argument, but misses it by a huge margin. Hint: Roll to hit is a step in my argument and is not performed for blast weapons.

I have no interest in talking to an answering machine. For the sake of this argument I will no longer answer to your posts unless they actually have any content that differs from the last fifteen ones.

No, your argument is that you redefine steps 1 and 2, and have no rules to back it up.

As you have yet to provide any actual rules in 2 pages, and not just the last few posts, refraining frmo responding is probably a good thing.

I don't have to requote rules you ignored in the first place. You'll just ignore them again, not worth the hassle. The instead-replacement remains unproven by you. The rapid fire rules remain uncommented and dodged by you. I have proven my point. You claim to be right because you say so or by capitalizing "INSTEAD".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and you haven't provided any rules to back up at all. That's six less than me.

What, apart from the RULE

"do not roll to hit, instead"

Thats a replcement, right there. Instead of performing step 3, you follow the blast rules from then on. You dont go back and change steps 1 and 2, because *you have no permission to do so* - and that is what you are making up, out of whole cloth.

Your argument perverts that utterly simple, straightforward and hard to misconstrue statement into saying "instead of performing step 3, go back and forget how to do step 1 and 2, and do this in their place"

You argument is entirely based on made up rules.

I don't see any rules backing you up. I don't see an argument considering "instead" like Kel did. I don't see any response to other rules I quote which work exactly like the rules I "made up". I don't see anything but someone angrily clutching the keyboard purposefully misphrasing my argument and claiming to be right.

"follow blast rules from then on" is made up. Nothing else is.

"do not roll to hit, instead" IS the rule. Its the only one needed. You have so far been utterly unable to disprove it.

You need to prove that the blast rules replace steps 1 and 2, even though they only tell you to alter step 3. Thats what youve made up - you have altered preceding steps when you are explicitly told to alter step 3.

"do not roll to hit" means just that - it does not mean "do not pick a target. do not check LOS and range" like you erroneously state.

There is apparently no point arguing with you, so perhaps we should both refrain? Agree to disagree?

What the rules say:
Blast weapons don't roll to hit, instead do <meh>.

What you say:
Blast weapons don't roll to hit, instead [when you would roll to hit] do <meh>.

What I say:
Blast weapons don't roll to hit, instead [to shoot them] do <meh>.

Now, for once, prove why yours is more right than mine. Especially considering that <meh> is a complete discription of shooting a weapon which works without any additional rules.

As per RAW both interpretations are viable rules, but considering the problems caused due to measuring twice without the blast target being "locked in", the second one would be the right one.

You have added uneccesary wording to mine to make it appear that I have added rules in. Mine is "blast weapons dont roll to it"

Thats it. You follow the shooting rules and, when you get to step 3 you DONT perform "roll to hit", INSTEAD you follow the blast rules. As it tells you to do!

My interpretation is correct because it does NOT require the addition of extra rules - unlike yours. You see those bits in the brackets? You made that up out of whole cloth.

There, proven. As it was on page 1, and as it was in the devildog arguments - which you also entirely ignored.

There are also no actual problems with the way the rules work - as I pointed out, and as you ignored, by measuring to the unit first you still can end up placying the blast 30+" away, and have therefore NOT premeasured.

My way the blast rules seemlessly integrate with the shooting rules, do not require changing the rules for steps 1 and 2 when you have no permission to do so, and allow mixed units to easily work.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You have added uneccesary wording to mine to make it appear that I have added rules in. Mine is "blast weapons dont roll to it"

Thats it. You follow the shooting rules and, when you get to step 3 you DONT perform "roll to hit", INSTEAD you follow the blast rules. As it tells you to do!

My interpretation is correct because it does NOT require the addition of extra rules - unlike yours. You see those bits in the brackets? You made that up out of whole cloth.

Both additions are for clarification. It works either way without the brackets. That's what you fail to see. If you don't understand that, refer to Kel's post and my response to it.

There, proven. As it was on page 1, and as it was in the devildog arguments - which you also entirely ignored.

There are also no actual problems with the way the rules work - as I pointed out, and as you ignored, by measuring to the unit first you still can end up placying the blast 30+" away, and have therefore NOT premeasured.

Just like you can cheat by measuring to a unit, find it out of range and still shoot at it. If you aren't a total idiot it is impossible to miss a blast if you can hit the unit, just as I described.

My way the blast rules seemlessly integrate with the shooting rules, do not require changing the rules for steps 1 and 2 when you have no permission to do so, and allow mixed units to easily work.

I wouldn't call measuring and checking LoS twice seamless. The other two arguments are void, as you are told to change the procedure of steps one and two. You don't go back in time, as you never were supposed to start at Step3 in the first place. I also have shown that mixed weapons work great with my interpretation, without bending the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also note that by your definition of the blast weapons rules barrage weapons will no longer be able to shoot at targets they can not see.

Barrage weapon rules replace parts of the blast weapon rules. By your definition all blast weapon rules are done during step3.

So to fire a barrage weapon at a target out of LoS you'd go through your regular step1 find yourself unable to shoot at that target.

No, i understand it just fine. You just dont see that you are altering the rules without permission.

Done here. Youre wrong and refuse to see it.

So you are no longer using barrage and rapid fire weapons in your game then?

What part of "done" did you fail to understand?

Agree to disagree, there is no point arguing with you. Ive given you sufficient proof, but you dont want to listen.
[your rapid fire "example" is fallacious, btw. 2 seconds of your own thought should show you why]