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.

RAW does not in fact support that as I've proven numerous times, Spirit of the Rules would allow it to happen as since it doesn't have to snapfire to deal it's wounds in this situation, and Common Sense says you should be able to shot a flasher better at anything you can shoot at that it's in range.

FratHammer wrote:
...Overwatch is resolved LIKE a normal shooting attack...shots fired as Overwatch can only be fired as snap shots. Therefore, weapons and models that cannot fire snap shots cannot fire Overwatch...pg45

Wall of Death: Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire snap shots. Instead, if a template weapon fires Overwatch, it Automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved at its normal Strength and AP value...pg173 as a portion of the Template Special Rule.

Overwatch is "RESOLVED LIKE A SHOOTING ATTACK"

Which means it's a shooting attack.
The rest of the rule that you opted not to quote:

(albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.

Uses all the normal rules for range, LoS, cover saves, and so on. The other differences are also listed:

Unlike a normal shooting attack, Overwatch cannot cause Morale checks or Pinning tests. Any shots fired as Overwatch can only be fired as Snap Shots. Therefore, weapons and models that cannot fire Snap Shots cannot fire Overwatch.

See anywhere it says it's not a normal shooting attack?

Now lets look at a rule that is during a non shooting phase that "IS a shooting attack"

Witchfire pg27. "Witchfire powers ARE SHOOTING ATTACKS."

Please tell me you understand the difference between a single thing and something that includes multiple things?
A witchfire is a shooting attack.
Firing a bolter is a shooting attack.
An Overwatch Attack contains shooting attacks.

You can claim you can read RAW. You can claim you are basing your argument on RAW,

Because I am.

but when I refute it, when I give evidence several times to the contrary, you can claim what you want. RULES DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT. And other guy, your BRB conclusion is incorrect, RAW.

You haven't quoted a single thing saying it's not a shooting attack. You have quoted at least one rule that says it is (and I quoted the rest of that rule saying that it is in multiple places).

You're inventing rules here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FratHammer wrote:
RAW does not in fact support that as I've proven numerous times

Incorrect. You've incorrectly paraphrased and misquoted the actual rules multiple times, or made claims contrary to the rule you quote.

Why would they not use the word "is" as they obviously do it for witchfire?

Why would they use "like" instead?

Because if it's a mistake, all RAW ruleslawyering is inherently talked and we can come to the conclusions on our own and me correct. But if we choose to believe the rulebook was made to account for this, then " LIKE " is not the same as " IS " and overwatch, is not a shooting attack. Not to mention, as I've previously proven several times, we are talking about a special ability which is in no way obstructed by invisibility our shall I quote invisibility also?

And I left out the rest of the book paragraphs for Overwatch for brevity and because it wasn't pertinent to the argument, not for devious intent. You're quotes have less than one sentence often and I don't force you to rewrite it... There is a word for that...

FratHammer wrote:
Why would they not use the word "is" as they obviously do it for witchfire?

Why would they use "like" instead?

GW consistently uses "like", "counts as" and some similar phrases to mean "is". Rather - they must be interpreted that way or the rules literally fail to function.

Because if it's a mistake, all RAW ruleslawyering is inherently talked and we can come to the conclusions on our own and me correct. But if we choose to believe the rulebook was made to account for this, then " LIKE " is not the same as " IS " and overwatch, is not a shooting attack. Not to mention, as I've previously proven several times, we are talking about a special ability which is in no way obstructed by invisibility our shall I quote invisibility also?

I've shown - multiple times - that your "special ability" argument is flawed. Overwatch is undeniably a shooting attack. Wall of Death is a fancy name for how to handle a Template weapon that fires in an Overwatch Attack.
Meaning Wall of Death is a shooting attack.

And I left out the rest of the book paragraphs for Overwatch for brevity and because it wasn't pertinent to the argument, not for devious intent. You're quotes have less than one sentence often and I don't force you to rewrite it... There is a word for that...

Please, if you think the rest of a rule is relevant call me out on it. I'll address it if you do.
The rest of the rule you opted to not quote is absolutely relevant - "Unlike a normal shooting attack" which means that it's a normal shooting attack with the following modifications. If it wasn't, they couldn't use the word "unlike".
"(albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on." And so on. Which means what? It has to mean that we use the shooting attack rules unless shown otherwise.

Actually my special rules argument is fact see pg 175 rules pp2 "Template weapons have the Ignores Cover, Wall of Death, and No Escape Special Rules.

Done. It's a special rules enacted by template weapons in overwatch. It is not a shooting attack.

Drops mic...

 jreilly89 wrote:
Has this been FAQ'ed yet? Either way, I would argue yes, whether it was to my benefit in game or not.

Not yet but I emailed it in. I don't know of or when we can expect to see new FAQs but I like to keep submitting them anyways.

FratHammer wrote:
Actually my special rules argument is fact see pg 175 rules pp2 "Template weapons have the Ignores Cover, Wall of Death, and No Escape Special Rules.

Done. It's a special rules enacted by template weapons in overwatch. It is not a shooting attack.

Drops mic...

Please elaborate on how "Wall of Death" allocates wounds. Since it's not a shooting attack, you're forbidden from referencing those rules.
Drop the mic all you want, while Wall of Death is a special rule (I haven't really asserted it's not) the special rule itself is not causing wounds.
The Template weapon is, when it fires Overwatch. Per the special rule. As I've quoted.

To elaborate:

Wall of Death being a special rule doesn't matter in the slightest.
The fact that Wall of Death specifically says "Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit..." means that it allows Template weapons to fire Overwatch.
Overwatch is a shooting attack. Therefore anything firing Overwatch is making a shooting attack. Where Wall of Death is in the rulebook has as much relevance as the price of tea in China does to this discussion - zero.

If it's not a shooting attack how are you resolving it? It would need it's own set of rule or to be treated as a certain type of attack.

It says in the rule... It's been quoted at least 4 times... Read...

FratHammer wrote:
It says in the rule... It's been quoted at least 4 times... Read...

No, it doesn't. You've asserted hits from Wall of Death are not generated by a shooting attack. That means you can't reference the Shooting Attack rules for guidance.

Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved at its normal Strength and AP value.

Which part of that rule dictates how to allocate the wounds that get generated?

And still - the rule literally says the Template weapon is firing Overwatch.
Overwatch is a shooting attack - or, to fit your poor understanding better, it uses all the rules for a shooting attack (as far as is relevant here).

Template weapons cannot fire Snap Shots. Ever.
Template weapons may fire Overwatch (Wall of Death permission).
Template weapons that fire Overwatch do not use Ballistic Skill.
Invisibility requires that all weapons fired at the target unit be fired as Snap Shots.
Template weapons cannot fire and meet the requirement Invisibility has put on them. ("In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot.")
Template weapons cannot fire at Invisible units, even in Overwatch.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Has this been FAQ'ed yet? Either way, I would argue yes, whether it was to my benefit in game or not.

Not yet but I emailed it in. I don't know of or when we can expect to see new FAQs but I like to keep submitting them anyways.

I appreciate that I know it may never get answered, but I feel like doing that helps remind them "Hey, uh, there's some gak that don't make sense"

Yeah - I have a list of questions I send every other week or so. And have since 7th dropped.

Loads of good it's done.

FratHammer wrote:
Spirit of the Rules would allow it to happen as since it doesn't have to snapfire to deal it's wounds in this situation,...

How is allowing something that can't fire Snap Shots to shoot something that can only be hit by Snap Shots in any way within the 'spirit of the rules'...?

Do beam psychic powers affect invisible units? Do nova powers affect invisible units? Does 'no escape' affect invisible units? Do things that "auto-hit" affect invisible units?

If the answer to any of those questions is yes, then wall of death and all of the above affect invisible units.

If the answer to any of those questions is no, then wall of death and all of the above do not affect invisible units.

My personal opinion is that if it auto-hits, then it hits invisible units. The rules for invisibility say that you must roll snap-shots, normal shooting attacks say you must roll your ballistic skill, but things that auto-hit don't roll at all - they skip that part and just deal a number of hits. Nova powers auto-hit and their rules say that they even hit flyers (which we know can only be hit by snap-fire as well) so there's a precedence. Until an FAQ comes out we won't know for sure.

Novas hit flyers only because their rules specifically say that they do. That doesn't set any sort of precedent for other rules that don't contain a similar statement.

 insaniak wrote:
Novas hit flyers only because their rules specifically say that they do. That doesn't set any sort of precedent for other rules that don't contain a similar statement.

The main point isn't that it says it hits flyers. The main point of my comment is that if things that auto-hit affect invisible units, they all do. If they do not affect invisible units then they all don't.

I don't think this will settle anything, clearly there are two camps who are both convinced that there side is correct. I'm just trying to work it out for myself.

 NightHowler wrote:
The main point isn't that it says it hits flyers.

No, that's exactly the point.

Things that autohit that say that they hit flyers will hit flyers. That has no bearing on anything else, because in general things that autohit don't hit flyers.

So are you saying that an invisible unit inside an open topped transport hit with a flamer is immune to 'no escape' because the rule doesn't enumerate every possible type of unit inside that could be affected?

Nope, No Escape would appear to work fine, because it doesn't rely on the transported unit being targeted by an attack.

Invisibility restricts what sort of shooting attacks can target the Invisible unit. No Escape kicks in when the transport is targeted... you never target the embarked unit.

 NightHowler wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Novas hit flyers only because their rules specifically say that they do. That doesn't set any sort of precedent for other rules that don't contain a similar statement.

The main point isn't that it says it hits flyers. The main point of my comment is that if things that auto-hit affect invisible units, they all do. If they do not affect invisible units then they all don't.

I don't think this will settle anything, clearly there are two camps who are both convinced that there side is correct. I'm just trying to work it out for myself.

Your statement isn't true. Not all "auto hit" things are the same. Invisibility forbids things that fire at the unit from firing unless they're fired as Snap Shots.
Things like Novas, Beams, and some others don't ever fire at the invisible unit. It's almost like that's based on actual rules quoted in this thread or something.

The No Escape red herring has been brought up before.

 insaniak wrote:
Nope, No Escape would appear to work fine, because it doesn't rely on the transported unit being targeted by an attack.

Invisibility restricts what sort of shooting attacks can target the Invisible unit. No Escape kicks in when the transport is targeted... you never target the embarked unit.

So Nova and Beam powers also affect invisible units as long as they don't target it?

Correct.

So as long as I don't go through the targeting part of the shooting phase my wall of death will affect an invisible unit?

I think I'm starting to see why almost 90% of Dakka posters agree that wall of death should affect invisible units.

NightHowler wrote:So Nova and Beam powers also affect invisible units as long as they don't target it?

Novas target every unit in their AOE.

Beams would arguably work, though.

NightHowler wrote:So as long as I don't go through the targeting part of the shooting phase my wall of death will affect an invisible unit?

It's not quite that simple.

Invisibility doesn't rely on targeting. It only allows units to 'fire Snap Shots' at the Invisible unit. Exactly what consitutes 'firing at' a unit and what affects them otherwise is left undefined.

To my mind, 'firing at' the unit requires attacking them specifically. That would include selecting them as a target in the shooting phase, but also includes Overwatch attacks where the target is selected for you. You are making a shooting attack, directed at the unit, and so it has to be a Snap Shot.

(That's why I say Beams are 'arguable' rather than a strict yes or now... I can see them going either way, as the unit under the line isn't targeted by it, but you are still sort of attacking them directly by running the line over them.

I think I'm starting to see why almost 90% of Dakka posters agree that wall of death should affect invisible units.

I'm not. I can see why people think that they should work (and as I said in my first post, I think the same) but the RAW doesn't seem to allow it, as it currently stands.

 NightHowler wrote:
So as long as I don't go through the targeting part of the shooting phase my wall of death will affect an invisible unit?

I think I'm starting to see why almost 90% of Dakka posters agree that wall of death should affect invisible units.

Since Overwatch targets the would be attacker (it must or the shooting attack process breaks) almost 90% of Dakka posters are incorrect about what the rules actually say.

When two rules "seemingly" conflicts, always follow the old adage Break No Rules™.

RAW = Must snap fire at invisible unit. WoD isn't ever a "snap shooting" ability. So, you cannot, ever WoD an invisible unit.
HIWPI = I'd discuss it with my opponent and adjust my tactics accordingly, as I can see why folks would play to allow WoD'ing an invisible unit.

 insaniak wrote:

FratHammer wrote:
Spirit of the Rules would allow it to happen as since it doesn't have to snapfire to deal it's wounds in this situation,...

How is allowing something that can't fire Snap Shots to shoot something that can only be hit by Snap Shots in any way within the 'spirit of the rules'...?

Because Spirit of the Game has to do with enjoyable, friendly, common sense use of the rules, which is more or less the exact opposite than the incredibly rude, ad hominem, RAWier-than-thou, rules lawyerish bickering going on in this thread?

I would have to agree, that SotG, absolutely you can WoD an invisible unit. Why? Well, aside from the fact that I don't feel the need to further OP amd already broken power by nitpicking single words and phrases into new rules and subrules, and insult everybody who doesn't agree with me, the simple fact is that IT MAKES SENSE. The entire point of wall of death is that when you see (or in this case, more likely hear) a unit charging at yu, you lay down a carpet of flames in front of you.

 NightHowler wrote:
So as long as I don't go through the targeting part of the shooting phase my wall of death will affect an invisible unit?

I think I'm starting to see why almost 90% of Dakka posters agree that wall of death should affect invisible units.

I would definitely agree with this conclusion (from previous posts).
Wall of Death provides any charging Unit with D3 Auto-Hits. Step 1,2,3 and 4 have been completed, and Wall of Death requires you continue with Step 5 of the Shooting process. Snap shooting is not involved at this point.

"if a Template weapon fires Overwatch" (WoD) is the same as "If you shoot a weapon during the shooting phase".

The weapon is definitely fired at the target. But the Auto-Wound are not "fired at" the charging Unit. They just suffer those Wounds like they would for Soulblaze, Vector Strike, or Total Collapse.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Overwatch requires that everything fired be a Snap Shot. Is Wall of Death firing? Is it firing Snap Shots?

Please read the rules for Wall of Death. It explicitly allows Templates to fire Overwatch (in contradiction to the normal rules).

There is no rule allowing Template weapons to make Snap Shots. Ever.

Exactly. So how does WoD provide the enemy Units with Hits if the Weapon cannot fire (because it does not snap shoot) ?

rigeld2 wrote:

The same conclusions apply: No, it is not Snap shooting, but the automatic hits are still resolved.

weapons and models that cannot fire Snap Shots cannot fire Overwatch

Please stop applying conclusions from different situations to this one. They aren't similar because Wall of Death explicitly allows something that isn't a Snap Shot to happen during Overwatch.

Template weapons cannot Snap Shot.
Template weapons can fire Overwatch (Wall of Death allows this).
Weapons fired at an invisible unit must be fired as Snap Shots.
Template weapons cannot fire Snap Shots - even with Wall of Death.
Template weapons cannot be fired at Invisible units.

Please quote the assertion you disagree with and why.

You've answered yourself: WoD is "something that isn't a Snap Shot". I cannot be a Snap Shot because it is impossible for Template weapons to snap shoot.
What is Wall of Death then? D3 Auto-Hits.
Auto-Hits are never "fired at" a Unit, they are just D3 Hits that you have to resolve:

Template weapons cannot Snap Shot.
Template weapons can fire Overwatch (Wall of Death allows this). The charging Unit suffers D3 Auto-Hits.
Weapons fired at an invisible unit must be fired as Snap Shots.
Template weapons cannot fire Snap Shots - even with Wall of Death.
Template weapons cannot be fired at Invisible units.
Charging Unit suffers D3 Auto-Hits.

The template weapon is fired:

if a Template weapon fires Overwatch

But the D3 Auto-Hits are not "fired at". They are simply allocated to the charging Unit as result of the Wall of Death Special rule that is in effect.

When you say:
"Template weapons can fire Overwatch (Wall of Death allows this)"

I think you have a very big misunderstanding:
The Template weapon never runs through the shooting sequence "normally" because WoD allows it to. WoD does not "allow template weapons to fire"
In the very same way as "No Escape", it provide a Unit, normally Un-targetable, un-reachable, with Hits that have to be resolved. At the Weapon S and AP value.
WoD creates Hits, when the weapon is selected and "fires Overwatch"

Wall of Death provides D3 Auto-Hits.

It does not just "allow you to fire template weapons normally"

Exct the rules, oft quoted, state that you are firing the template weapon.

You're firing at a unit which must be fired at using snapshots. This is unarguable.

In order to fire the flamer in over watch, you must use WOD. This is unarguable.

WoD is NOT a snapshot. This is unarguable.

So, in order tO break no rule, you cannot use WoD. If you use walk of death, you are firing without using snapshots, when you just use snapshots. Breaking a rule. You don't get to break rules unless explicitly allowed.

QED.

 BlackTalos wrote:
"if a Template weapon fires Overwatch" (WoD) is the same as "If you shoot a weapon during the shooting phase".

The weapon is definitely fired at the target. But the Auto-Wound are not "fired at" the charging Unit. They just suffer those Wounds like they would for Soulblaze, Vector Strike, or Total Collapse.

No, that's incorrect. Again, you compare apples and oranges.

Exactly. So how does WoD provide the enemy Units with Hits if the Weapon cannot fire (because it does not snap shoot) ?

Because WoD allows it to fire in the specific situation of Overwatch.

You've answered yourself: WoD is "something that isn't a Snap Shot". I cannot be a Snap Shot because it is impossible for Template weapons to snap shoot.
What is Wall of Death then? D3 Auto-Hits.
Auto-Hits are never "fired at" a Unit, they are just D3 Hits that you have to resolve:

It's fired as part of an Overwatch attack. Agreed?
Overwatch is fired at the would be attacker. Agreed?

If you disagree, cite an actual rule please.

But the D3 Auto-Hits are not "fired at". They are simply allocated to the charging Unit as result of the Wall of Death Special rule that is in effect.

When you say:
"Template weapons can fire Overwatch (Wall of Death allows this)"

I think you have a very big misunderstanding:

Despite the fact that's literally what WoD says? I have the misunderstanding?

The Template weapon never runs through the shooting sequence "normally" because WoD allows it to. WoD does not "allow template weapons to fire"

It literally says that in the WoD rule. I've quoted it multiple times. I'm sure you've read it. You even quoted it. Please don't make things up.
If it doesn't allow Template weapons to fire, why does the actual rule (that you quoted so I know you've read it) say, "If a Template weapon fires Overwatch"? It's your assertion that the Template weapon isn't firing at the would be attacker, but the Template weapon is demonstrably firing.

In the very same way as "No Escape", it provide a Unit, normally Un-targetable, un-reachable, with Hits that have to be resolved. At the Weapon S and AP value.

Simply incorrect.

"allow you to fire template weapons normally"

What are you quoting here? It makes it seem like you're quoting me or a rule, but you're doing neither.