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.

Gravmyr wrote:
@rigeld2 Transports and reserves have the same restriction. Which they clarified to state that even though you are given permission to charge if you disembark from an open topped vehicle reserves still prevents you from charging. How about the eldar Fire avatar that is immune to fire based weapons. Is that bypassed by those wounds if they wound automatically?

Depends on the wording of his ability.
And the transports/Reserves issue is absolutely nothing like this one - red herring.

I'm required to roll a 6 to hit. I hit automatically.

Cite the rule saying that you're allowed to ignore the second sentence.

You first, and by which, before you go off on any tangent, I have kindly linked Yakface's post on restrictions and permissions in my signature. As far as i knkow that is the basis for the game as well as the forums. If you are arguing that a permission overrides a restriction please start a thread to talk that over and invite Yakface to take part. Until you can do so you have a permission and a restriction, restrictions always trump permissions.

Gravmyr wrote:
You first, and by which, before you go off on any tangent, I have kindly linked Yakface's post on restrictions and permissions in my signature. As far as i knkow that is the basis for the game as well as the forums. If you are arguing that a permission overrides a restriction please start a thread to talk that over and invite Yakface to take part. Until you can do so you have a permission and a restriction, restrictions always trump permissions.

a) I have signatures disabled, so that's irrelevant.
b) I have shown permission - I hit automatically. You've asserted that's ignored. Cite the rule allowing you to ignore it. I'm not ignoring the "needs a 6" rule at all. I'm bypassing it by virtue of hitting already.
Just like a blast that scatters over an invisible unit is allowed to generate hits and wounds even though it wasn't a snapshot.

It's not irrelevant any more than anything you say is. Whether you see it or not is your issue for not knowing how he has set up these forums. It falls on you to prove that permission overrides a specific restriction, which would be at odds with how these forums work. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/520554.page#5505107

You have not shown that it overrides that restriction though any more then stating that the chart from earlier in the book states you hit an an X not just a 6. The difference between the shooting and CC language is vast. In CC the invisible unit can "only be hit by a 6" while when firing at them the weapon needs to fired as a snap shot. A scatter onto then isn't even fired at them and is therefor not covered by the rule. As you are fond of stating, red herring.

Gravmyr wrote:
You first, and by which, before you go off on any tangent, I have kindly linked Yakface's post on restrictions and permissions in my signature. As far as i knkow that is the basis for the game as well as the forums. If you are arguing that a permission overrides a restriction please start a thread to talk that over and invite Yakface to take part. Until you can do so you have a permission and a restriction, restrictions always trump permissions.

I still do not understand how you apply a restriction on a To Hit roll when there is no To Hit roll?

There are many examples.
Vector Dancer - Restriction: "cannot move Flat Out" - Am i not allowed to shoot? Flat out is instead of Shooting, so surely the restriction applies.
Ignores Cover - Restriction: "Cover saves cannot be taken" - Am i not allowed to take an armor save? Cover saves are instead of Armour saves, so surely the restriction applies.

Invisibility - Restriction: "only hit () on To Hit rolls of a 6" - Am i not allowed to auto-Hit? Auto-Hits are instead of To Hit rolls, so surely the restriction applies.

It's a restriction on hitting not just to hit rolls. They can only be hit by rolls of 6.

There is no restriction stating (and i quote verbatum) "the only way to hit an invisible unit is by rolling a 6".

This is how you are trying to interpret it, and it is wrong.

The restriction is only when you do roll to hit, you need a 6.


Not that you only ever hit by rolling a 6.

"enemy units {short} in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6." It doesn't limit it to if you roll To Hit. You don't roll To Hit you can't hit.

your still taking that out of context.

Its saying they "will only hit on to hit rolls of a 6"

this means WHEN THEY ROLL TO HIT (if they roll to hit), they need 6's.

your are incorrectly thinking that they cannot hit unless they roll. If there is an automatic hit, there is no roll and thus there is no need to roll a 6.

That would be RAI not RAW.

How is Invi saying you need to hit on a 6 different from BS1 needing to hit on a 6? Are you saying blasts and templates can't hit either?

Gravmyr wrote:
It's a restriction on hitting not just to hit rolls. They can only be hit by rolls of 6.

The rule clearly states that to hit rolls need to be a 6. If there is no to hit roll then there is no requirement for a 6.

Gravmyr wrote:
"enemy units {short} in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6." It doesn't limit it to if you roll To Hit. You don't roll To Hit you can't hit.

Actually, that's exactly what it does by virtue of saying "To Hit rolls".
There isn't a permission overriding a restriction. It's a rule stating that a hit happens and nothing saying that I must make To Hit rolls to have any effect (note how the 6th FAQ for HtH was worded for how that has to work).

"enemy units {short} in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6." If you didn't roll a 6 you are ignoring the will only hit part.

Gravmyr wrote:
"enemy units {short} in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6." If you didn't roll a 6 you are ignoring the will only hit part.

No. If I didn't roll a 6 To Hit I'd be ignoring that.
I'm not rolling To Hit at all so it doesn't apply.

Gravmyr wrote:
"enemy units {short} in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6." If you didn't roll a 6 you are ignoring the will only hit part.

we arent ignoring it, but you are ignoring my underlined.

That is what is telling you what you need to do to hit the model. The restriction is that is the only way to hit the models.

no its not, but were obviously not getting anywhere.

Gravmyr wrote:
That is what is telling you what you need to do to hit the model. The restriction is that is the only way to hit the models.

No, that is telling you that to hit using a To Hit roll you need a 6. It mentions nothing about other methods of hitting.

So a blast from an exploding tank (that the invis unit killed) won't damage them?

Is it CC? Is it targeting them? Another red herring is the answer.

Edit: It tells you the only way to hit is to roll a 6. it does not state that when rolling to hit they hit on a 6 ignoring the chart. So it does in fact state all hits not just the ones from rolling to hit.

Gravmyr wrote:
Is it CC? Is it targeting them? Another red herring is the answer.

"enemy units {short} in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6." (your quote, not mine)
The enemy unit still in close combat (the vehicle isn't removed until the explosion is resolved).
There's no requirement to target.

It's not a red herring. Please answer the question.

In this case the exploding vehicle is not making a CC attack, unlike Stomp. Therefor it would not fall under the the rule similar to a scattered blast weapon.

Gravmyr wrote:
In this case the exploding vehicle is not making a CC attack, unlike Stomp. Therefor it would not fall under the the rule similar to a scattered blast weapon.

Please show me in the rules quote where it must be a CC attack. The rules quote you provided does not show that. The word attack has been inserted by you.
In addition, Stomp is not a CC attack. It's "a special type of attack called a Stomp attack." So going by the "attack" theory your argument still doesn't hold.

In addition, the units are not hit, but stomped.
"Each unit that has at least one model even partially under the marker is stomped. For each unit that is stomped, roll on the Stomp table (see right) to determine what happens to it."
While being stomped can result in hits being assigned to the unit, that's not the same as the blast marker generating hits - because it demonstrably doesn't.

Incorrect, the requirement is that they are "in" close combat, not making close combat attacks

If you assert a Stomp is affected due to the rule, then so is an explosion.

Enemy models cannot hit them in cc... Is the explosion the vehicle hitting the unit?

Gravmyr wrote:
Enemy models cannot hit them in cc... Is the explosion the vehicle hitting the unit?

Yes. Also, keep moving those goalposts - do you agree that you invented the word attack?

edit: and no response to the fact that Stomps attacks don't generate hits?

What does roll 2-5 generate on Stomp? I guess I should have been more specific the hits on the 2-5 can't affect them. That was an edit after I began my post BTW.

Unless you spell everything out exactly how you see things can we try to keep this civil?

Other than an attack in cc how does a unit affect another unit with damage?

Gravmyr wrote:
What does roll 2-5 generate on Stomp? I guess I should have been more specific the hits on the 2-5 can't affect them.

Hits.
So now a special attack that doesn't roll To Hit and doesn't actually hit at all (it generates hits sometimes) is restricted by something that apples to To Hit rolls?

Unless you spell everything out exactly how you see things can we try to keep this civil?

What have I not spelled out? You asserted the rule affected CC attacks. This was demonstrably false.
Keeping it civil means not making up words in rules.

Other than an attack in cc how does a unit affect another unit with damage?

Note that attacks in CC are different from CC attacks. Stomp is demonstrably not a CC attack.

rigeld2 wrote:

Hits.
So now a special attack that doesn't roll To Hit and doesn't actually hit at all (it generates hits sometimes) is restricted by something that apples to To Hit rolls?

In your opinion it only applies to To Hits rolls as opposed to limiting how they can be hit by enemy units.

Note that attacks in CC are different from CC attacks. Stomp is demonstrably not a CC attack.

I disagree that it's not a CC attack. Although you are correct that it's not CC attacks it is attacks. That being said I do not see a vehicle explosion as an attack nor being done by the vehicle.

I'd like to point out that Stomps can be placed over models the SHW is not in CC with. Also, I fully concur with rigeld2 on this.

SJ