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.

 SHUPPET wrote:
The part where the rules state this is a template attack, and the part where all that is irrelevant because weapons that don't roll to hit cannot be resolved against Invisible units would have to be another.

No, it says it can't TARGET invisible units.
The flyer rule cited says templates can't HIT flyers.
If the invisible rule said invisible units could not be HIT by weapons that don't roll to hit, then you'd have a case.
As is, you don't.

Regardless, do as you like.
But as long as this is the only RAW legal way to adequately handle invisible units, it's gonna be used that way.
So long as GW refuses to correct their bad rule writing, the competitive scene is going to be a breeding ground for broken cheese combos, as well as the counter cheese combos that will have to be employed to stop them.

And if we want to play the "why does if matter game", the same could be said about the tactic - you might be able to use insistence and poor logic to convince your group, good luck pushing this past ANY T.O. - as such it will never be a consistent competitive strategy for dealing with invis.

This belongs in YMDC however.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
RAW says it doesn't work, so that's not an issue here.

RAW says it does work. That's the point, here.

Also using it to kill invis units is the last thing I'd call cheesy if it worked - it's to counter one of the cheesiest things in the game lol

The only thing that makes it cheesy is that you know if someone is trying to push this forward, that they know well and truly themselves that it doesn't work and are just trying to interpret the rules as stupidly as possible - aka the guy everyone hates

Like I've said, this is a combo one does not play in a friendly game, just like other broken combos (2++ rerollable, daemon factory, invisible shenanigans, etc.).

 SHUPPET wrote:
Well the part where we aren't talking about Beams is a good start.

The part where the rules state this is a template attack, and the part where all that is irrelevant because weapons that don't roll to hit cannot be resolved against Invisible units would have to be another.

The rule you quoted is "clearly stating". Hence why it's a clarification/reminder of how these weapons play out in relation to units that must be snapfired at. It's already stated throughout the book - just because it isn't clearly stated next to each mention of snapfiring doesn't make it suddenly stop existing for the ones that don't clearly restate it.

Again: can you point out the same as above with any actual rules quote or are you just stating your opinion?

Actually RAW as posted in different parts of this thread states it doesn't work.

Your interpretation is relying on the fact that it isn't once again restated next to the Invisibility rules as it is for Flyers. If you will, a "Rules-As-NOT-Written" technicality.

What you fail to take into account is that the rest of the rules already cover this, and although the copypaste of the 6th ed to 7th ed Flyer rules restate this fact, it's aa moot point - you still wouldnt be able to hit Flyers with templates regardless if that second sentence wasn't there, due to the rules in the rest of the book, and not due to the reinstated clarification.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Well the part where we aren't talking about Beams is a good start.

The part where the rules state this is a template attack, and the part where all that is irrelevant because weapons that don't roll to hit cannot be resolved against Invisible units would have to be another.

The rule you quoted is "clearly stating". Hence why it's a clarification/reminder of how these weapons play out in relation to units that must be snapfired at. It's already stated throughout the book - just because it isn't clearly stated next to each mention of snapfiring doesn't make it suddenly stop existing for the ones that don't clearly restate it.

Again: can you point out the same as above with any actual rules quote or are you just stating your opinion?

Can you read this thread from page 1?

Which is easier, or do I actually have to quote a bunch of posts from the previous page?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or does your local actually allow templates to wound Invis units not the direct target of it? Because I've never seen that allowed.

So, you don't have one. Glad to hear that we got that settled.

Don't go falsely claiming RAW then if all you do is constantly re-stating your rules-lacking HYWPI.

 Sigvatr wrote:
So, you don't have one. Glad to hear that we got that settled.

Don't go falsely claiming RAW then if all you do is constantly re-stating your rules-lacking HYWPI.

So because I'm typing on a mobile and have no way to copy paste from the PDF, there must be no rule in the BrB about templates not being able to be shot at snap fire units.

This is really good logic. Try this with your T.O., I bet he'll love you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So I'm going to bring this up, for the 4th time, since you guys keep conveniently ignoring it:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Or does your local actually allow templates to wound Invis units not the direct target of it? Because I've never seen that allowed.

Again,

 skoffs wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
The part where the rules state this is a template attack, and the part where all that is irrelevant because weapons that don't roll to hit cannot be resolved against Invisible units would have to be another.

No, it says it can't TARGET invisible units. (clarification: can't fire snap shots AT TARGET, because template-esque weapon)
The flyer rule cited says templates can't HIT flyers.
If the invisible rule said invisible units could not be HIT by weapons that don't roll to hit, then you'd have a case.
As is, you don't.

And I will back my claim up by citing the rule (bold is my own emphasis):

Whilst the power [invisibility] is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit

So once more,
1- Deathray targets any enemy unit in range apart from the invisible one
2- ignoring chosen target, draws line over invisible unit
3- did the Deathray TARGET the invisible unit? No. Did the Deathray HIT the invisible unit? Yes. Is there anything in the Invisibility rule that says they can not be HIT by shots that did not target them? No. Is there any other rule that would prevent it from being hit by the line? Possibly (flyers and templates). Is the invisible unit a flyer? If yes, the invisible unit is safe. If no, the invisible unit takes the hit.
4- invisible unit rolls for invulnerable saves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TL;DR- "I'm not firing AT the invisible guys, I'm firing AT those other guys, but it's HITTING the invisible guys. Show me the rule that says they can not be HIT by anything except for what targeted them."

I'd check that with your TO before just deciding you can play it that way. Don't think most UK tournaments would allow this. But US ones tend to play the Doom Scythe different too so... maybe?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On a Tacitcs point of view, Twin Linked Tesla Destructors must be one of the best value point to wound weapons against invisible stuff. All those extra hits on sixes.

So is the target of a weapon the initial unit chosen, or the ones it hits? Because wound allocation wording doesn't allow you to even assign wounds to anything not part of "the target unit".

 SHUPPET wrote:
So is the target of a weapon the initial unit chosen, or the ones it hits? Because wound allocation wording doesn't allow you to even assign wounds to anything not part of "the target unit".

That's not true.

Say there are 2 enemy units right next to each other - Unit 1 and Unit 2. You then target Unit 1 with a flamer template. That template also happens to hit a few models from Unit 2. You can kill models in Unit 2 even though you didn't target them.

The wording could use a FAQ, but I would play it how skoffs described. Target Unit 1 (non-invisible unit) and then try to draw the line such that it hits Unit 1 and Unit 2 (the invisible unit). I look at it like the Jaws of the World Wolf of previous edition with regards to how it should work.

I would not mind them errata'ing it that way in the slightest.
... too bad it'll never happen (does FW even release FAQs for their IA books?)

Roll to Wound specifies you do it to the target, as does Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties, as does Multiple Toughness Values, as does Allocate Wounds (about 8 times), etc etc

Sorry, but if you are scoring hits on a unit with a weapon, it is one of the weapons targets. And weapons that don't roll to hit can't target invisible units. If you choose to argue that they aren't targets, then that means you can't allocate wounds to them.

It's that easy.

By that logic you can not hit/wound your own models with scattered blast templates because you can not target and fire at them.
Do you think a TO would side with you if you tried to claim your own guys were immune to friendly fire from your own large blast that went awry?
(if your "only units that are targeted can be hit and wounded" way of looking at this was legit, those apocalyptic mega blasts would be pretty useless, in that they would ONLY be able to hurt the unit that was targeted, with ALL OF THE OTHER ENEMY UNITS UNDERNEATH THE GIGANTIC TEMPLATE BEING COMPLETELY SAFE)

 SHUPPET wrote:
Roll to Wound specifies you do it to the target, as does Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties, as does Multiple Toughness Values, as does Allocate Wounds (about 8 times), etc etc

Sorry, but if you are scoring hits on a unit with a weapon, it is one of the weapons targets. And weapons that don't roll to hit can't target invisible units. If you choose to argue that they aren't targets, then that means you can't allocate wounds to them.

It's that easy.

As usual, you're talking opinion / your interpretation with zero rules backing you up. Where is the distinction in the BRB? Where does it state that you can only resolve hits against a unit that has been targetted?

So what you are saying is that Invisible units don't count as being targeted by a blast when it comes to determining whether or not it can score hits because this is in your benefit, but it DOES count as being targeted by the blast when it comes to determining whether or not it can wound, because this is also in your benefit?

Any T.O. I know would coolstorybro the feth out of that crap lol. This is probably the most WAAC word hurdle I think I've ever seen attempted.

You were the one arguing RAW. RAW, it doesn't work. Accept it. .

For the last time,
The invisible unit is NOT BEING TARGETED,
It is being hit.
Just because you are not the target of something does not mean you can avoid being hit and taking wounds.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Roll to Wound specifies you do it to the target, as does Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties, as does Multiple Toughness Values, as does Allocate Wounds (about 8 times), etc etc

Sorry, but if you are scoring hits on a unit with a weapon, it is one of the weapons targets. And weapons that don't roll to hit can't target invisible units. If you choose to argue that they aren't targets, then that means you can't allocate wounds to them.

It's that easy.

As usual, you're talking opinion / your interpretation with zero rules backing you up. Where is the distinction in the BRB? Where does it state that you can only resolve hits against a unit that has been targetted?

So I literally have to type out the entire contents of each rule for it to count? I listed every single relevant rule by name, look it up and see where it describes all actions involved with wounding as done to the target, or target unit.

You know your argument is weak when you are relying on the opposition not to be willing to type out a page of explicit wording as the straw you are clutching at lol.

I'll paste it all off the PDF when I get the opportunity tomorrow if you insist, but no-one has to take my word for it, I did literally name all the rules that I made mention to lol.

Or you could just stop crying about the fact that RAW this doesn't work against invis, nor does it even get close to RAI

 SHUPPET wrote:
So what you are saying is that Invisible units don't count as being targeted by a blast when it comes to determining whether or not it can score hits because this is in your benefit, but it DOES count as being targeted by the blast when it comes to determining whether or not it can wound, because this is also in your benefit?

Any T.O. I know would coolstorybro the feth out of that crap lol. This is probably the most WAAC word hurdle I think I've ever seen attempted.

You were the one arguing RAW. RAW, it doesn't work. Accept it. .

Are you actually saying that you can't hit multiple units with a template weapon? If there are two units right next to each other, it is possible to hit them both with the same template. It wouldn't matter at all if one of the units was invisible as long as I hit the other unit as well because it was my target.

Are you also saying that if a blast weapon scatters onto a unit that wasn't targetted, it won't do damage to the unit that the blast template hits because it didn't target that unit to begin with? If I scatter a large blast template onto an adjacent unit, are you saying it won't get any hits on the adjacent unit because it wasn't the target of the original blast template?

That's what I am reading from what you are typing here and unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying, you are wrong about allocating hits using a template weapon.

 skoffs wrote:
For the last time,
The invisible unit is NOT BEING TARGETED,
It is being hit.
Just because you are not the target of something does not mean you can avoid being hit and taking wounds.

Cool so when it says you roll to wound against target unit, who exactly are you doing it to?

Using a deliberately restrictive interpretation of target unit doesn't work for you on this poor attempt at rules bending my friend.

Feel free to show me where it specifies that targeting a unit is specifically shooting at it, and not just hitting it with any sort of scatter or template, and you'll have a leg to stand on. Until then, RAW, T.O. laughs in your face.

... seriously?
• we've cited the relevant rules and given multiple clear examples of how they do and don't apply in this situation.
• several experienced players have chimed in on this, explaining how RAW favors the way this works.
• as far as I can see you are the only one arguing against it (and in the face off all the evidence, we can't even tell why anymore).
• when challenged to defend your position with relevant rules citation, all you come back with is "nope, I'm right, accept it."

Ok, you know what? At this point I'm pretty certain you're just a troll.

Warmonger2757 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
So what you are saying is that Invisible units don't count as being targeted by a blast when it comes to determining whether or not it can score hits because this is in your benefit, but it DOES count as being targeted by the blast when it comes to determining whether or not it can wound, because this is also in your benefit?

Any T.O. I know would coolstorybro the feth out of that crap lol. This is probably the most WAAC word hurdle I think I've ever seen attempted.

You were the one arguing RAW. RAW, it doesn't work. Accept it. .

Are you actually saying that you can't hit multiple units with a template weapon? If there are two units right next to each other, it is possible to hit them both with the same template. It wouldn't matter at all if one of the units was invisible as long as I hit the other unit as well because it was my target.

Are you also saying that if a blast weapon scatters onto a unit that wasn't targetted, it won't do damage to the unit that the blast template hits because it didn't target that unit to begin with? If I scatter a large blast template onto an adjacent unit, are you saying it won't get any hits on the adjacent unit because it wasn't the target of the original blast template?

That's what I am reading from what you are typing here and unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying, you are wrong about allocating hits using a template weapon.

No, I'm saying that you can, and the fact that you are hitting any of them make them a final target of the weapon, after deciding through decisions or luck exactly where that weapon is pointing.

I am pointing out how silly the counter argument is that multiple units caught in an AoE are not targets, as that would mean they couldn't have wounds allocated to them.

Let's try a test:

There are three units on the table, two enemy units and one friendly, all next to each other. One of the enemy units is invisible.
An apocalyptic mega blast targets the middle non-invisible enemy unit.
The blasts ends up covering all three units.
... what happens?
A) only the targeted unit is hit and wounded.
B) only the enemy units are hit and wounded.
C) only the targeted unit and the friendly unit are hit and wounded.
D) all of the units under the template are hit and wounded.

 skoffs wrote:
... seriously?
• we've cited the relevant rules and given multiple clear examples of how they do and don't apply in this situation.
• several experienced players have chimed in on this, explaining how RAW favors the way this works.
• as far as I can see you are the only one arguing against it (and in the face off all the evidence, we can't even tell why anymore).
• when challenged to defend your position with relevant rules citation, all you come back with is "nope, I'm right, accept it."

Ok, you know what? At this point I'm pretty certain you're just a troll.

Wait relevant rules don't apply in this situation? Exactly why is that, I must have missed this bit.

I have literally CITED every rule by name. How is that not enough lol, it says word for word under the rules for Wound Allocation that wounds are allocated to the target units

Bro, I get that you want this to work. I feel you, I want it to work too. You and a couple of other people wanting this to work when it doesn't, does not mean almost every T.O isn't gonna throw this straight out.

You not being able to come up with a response to how come a unit is a target when it's bring wounded but not when it's being shot, or not being able to name the rule that says units caught under a blast are not treated as targets, does not make me a troll. You can keep skirting these questions and pretending you can't find Wound Allocation in your BRB because you know I'm unable to copy paste it ATM. Does not mean the T.O won't find it as soon as this comes up. Which it will. Every. Single. Time.

Not a valid competitive strategy, at the VERY best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skoffs wrote:
Let's try a test:

There are three units on the table, two enemy units and one friendly, all next to each other. One of the enemy units is invisible.
An apocalyptic mega blast targets the middle non-invisible enemy unit.
The blasts ends up covering all three units.
... what happens?
A) only the targeted unit is hit and wounded.
B) only the enemy units are hit and wounded.
C) only the targeted unit and the friendly unit are hit and wounded.
D) all of the units under the template are hit and wounded.

Nice so you have either serious trouble with comprehension, or you deliberately left out how I'm saying the rules work, just so you can try to drive your failing point home with a multiple choice of "skoffs option or a bunch of outlandish gak". Anyway, moving past the immature bs:

E) everything under the blast is hit and wounded, except for Invisible unit who cannot (at any stage) be a target of template or blast weapons.



Has anyone actually played this differently before this thread? Lol.

Wound allocation, you say?
Well, let's just look that up, shall we?
ALLOCATE WOUNDS & REMOVE CASUALTIES
Hmm, which part disallows the Deathray to hit an invisible unit?

A) I specified multiple rules under wound allocation, please quote them all or your point is null

B) just to get started, in the very first sentence it refers to the invisible unit (or any unit you are Allocating Wounds to) as "the target".

 SHUPPET wrote:

 skoffs wrote:
Let's try a test:
There are three units on the table, two enemy units and one friendly, all next to each other. One of the enemy units is invisible.
An apocalyptic mega blast targets the middle non-invisible enemy unit.
The blasts ends up covering all three units.
... what happens?
A) only the targeted unit is hit and wounded.
B) only the enemy units are hit and wounded.
C) only the targeted unit and the friendly unit are hit and wounded.
D) all of the units under the template are hit and wounded.

D) everything under the blast is hit and wounded, except for Invisible unit who cannot (at any stage) be a target of template or blast weapons.

Has anyone actually played this differently before this thread? Lol.

...
Do you really think that's how it works, or has my troll detecting test just come back positive?

(no, that is most definitely NOT how it works. I challenge you to find a TO who would rule it otherwise. Your Logic failure seems to stem from the fact that you think "target" is both "what I'm firing at" and "what I hit". They are not the same thing.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:
A) I specified multiple rules under wound allocation, please quote them all or your point is null

Okay, next one on your list? (If you were so keen on pointing them out before, surely you won't mind outlining them again.)

B) just to get started, in the very first sentence it refers to the invisible unit (or any unit you are Allocating Wounds to) as "the target".

Just because it has the word "target" in the paragraph does not mean you are automatically correct. Defend your position on how targets hit and dealt wounds and targets fired at are mutually exclusive (because your logic on how invisible units are somehow invulnerable to blasts that did not initially target, and yet, hit them is fundamentally wrong. That disconnect is the crux of your entire problem.)

 SHUPPET wrote:
Roll to Wound specifies you do it to the target, as does Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties, as does Multiple Toughness Values, as does Allocate Wounds (about 8 times), etc etc

Sorry, but if you are scoring hits on a unit with a weapon, it is one of the weapons targets. And weapons that don't roll to hit can't target invisible units. If you choose to argue that they aren't targets, then that means you can't allocate wounds to them.

It's that easy.

I candidly await your quotation of the rules so that I can point out where it describes "targeted unit" under wound allocation rules multiple times and not just "target", even though that's one hell of a bendy excuse already