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.

If a unit is in range of an ancient and a model dies.
It shoots on a 4+.

Does a model shooting as it dies cancel the action the unit is doing ?
The action is cancelled if the UNIT shoots... but in this case just one model shoots?

Is there a rule that clarifies this ? if not how would you play it ?

Hmmmmm. I reckon it needs an FAQ, as I don't see a 100% clear way to resolve it.

Strict RAW, I would say right now I'd probably fall on the side of the action being interrupted. When you fire with a single model, you still have to follow the "Select Targets" portion of the shooting rules, and that refers multiple times to the unit selecting its targets. You only take things down to the model level when checking range, and resolving the individual attacks after that point.

HIWPI, though, is that you can take the shot without the action being interrupted. That model's about to die, after all, it's not like they're going to be much use helping put that banner up, are they?!

It seems clear to me. If a unit shoots the action fails. The model shooting is part of a unit, therefore that unit is shooting.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It seems clear to me. If a unit shoots the action fails. The model shooting is part of a unit, therefore that unit is shooting.

By that logic, If a model is destroyed a unit is destroyed.

To mimic your syntax "the model destroyed is part of a unit, therefore the unit is destroyed"
Model and Unit are different concepts in 40k. All units have models. All models are part of units. But a rule that says it affects a model it doesn't affect its entire unit.

Are you sure its clear ? definitely not clear to me.

 Type40 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It seems clear to me. If a unit shoots the action fails. The model shooting is part of a unit, therefore that unit is shooting.

By that logic, If a model is destroyed a unit is destroyed.
Are you sure its clear ?

I wouldn't say it's 100% clear personally. However, the nearest analogue I can see is the shooting rules do imply a single model in a unit shooting counts as the unit shooting - you can't fire one model from a unit then return to it later to fire another model, for example. There's no such analogous situation for destroyed models vs destroyed units.

I don't think it's clear enough to say for certain and could probably do with an FAQ (unless I'm missing something somewhere) but having the action fail is HIWPI.

I do not understand your comparison. Induviadual parts are part og the whole. If any of the induvidual parts do something the whole does something. So it would be interupting the action.

A units is destroyed when a model is destroyed only if it is a one model unit. (Or one model is left of a unit.)

 Niiai wrote:
I do not understand your comparison. Induviadual parts are part og the whole. If any of the induvidual parts do something the whole does something. So it would be interupting the action.

A units is destroyed when a model is destroyed only if it is a one model unit. (Or one model is left of a unit.)

lol ...

"Individual parts are port of the whole. if any of the individual parts do something the whole does something"

RIGHT ,,, so if ONE model in a unit of 10 does something, lets say gets destroyed, then clearly the WHOLE unit does something thus the whole unit has just been destroyed.....
^ this is your logic .

You dont get it both ways,,, either your logic is always true or not lol...

 Type40 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It seems clear to me. If a unit shoots the action fails. The model shooting is part of a unit, therefore that unit is shooting.

By that logic, If a model is destroyed a unit is destroyed.

To mimic your syntax "the model destroyed is part of a unit, therefore the unit is destroyed"
Model and Unit are different concepts in 40k. All units have models. All models are part of units. But a rule that says it affects a model it doesn't affect its entire unit.

Are you sure its clear ? definitely not clear to me.

You are conflating with your phrase.

I am saying "The part is doing something, therefore the whole is considered doing something." We are talking about the model and its unit doing something.

That is different than saying "The part is destroyed, therefore the whole is considered destroyed." Here, you are talking about something being done to a model - a very different proposition.

By your logic, I could chose to shoot with one model in the shooting phase but somehow claim that the unit did not shoot for the purposes of an action. Doesn't work that way.

The unit is shooting, the action fails.

I would say that it interrupts the action.

The only real example I can think of would be if there is a unit of five marines and only one of them is in range to shoot. You elect to shoot with that model, but the entire unit still counts as having shot that phase. I know it really isn't the same thing, but that would be an example of a single model determining the actions of a whole unit even if the rest of the unit did not participate.

The model is shooting (not the unit), the action does not fail.

 Mud Turkey 13 wrote:
I would say that it interrupts the action.

The only real example I can think of would be if there is a unit of five marines and only one of them is in range to shoot. You elect to shoot with that model, but the entire unit still counts as having shot that phase. I know it really isn't the same thing, but that would be an example of a single model determining the actions of a whole unit even if the rest of the unit did not participate.

A simple one would be a target 5 different guns from a devastator squad

After killing my enemies first squad of marines they fire on a 4+ before being removed and kill two of my devastator squad the shooting action doesn't occur for the now removed marines but the action itself continues and the survivors fire

You have already selected targets but you resolve shooting sequential by weapon if you can no longer select that model its part of the sequence dissapears not the whole sequence.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The model is shooting (not the unit), the action does not fail.

A unit shoots in the shooting phase, when its models are shooting. Therefore, when a model shoots as if its the shooting phase, the unit shoots, the action fails.

The problem is, at no point are we told that the entire unit is considered to be shooting even if individual models haven't. This is because the entire shooting section begins with the assumption that you have chosen a unit to fire with, so under ordinary circumstances you have already chosen the unit, therefore that unit is firing - nice and simple.
But in the Ancient's banner's case, you don't choose a unit in the normal manner. The rule specifically refers to an individual model getting to fire, so it's already a change from the usual sequence. You skip that part about choosing a unit to fire with.

At no point are we told outright, "a unit is considered to have fired if any of its models have fired". Maybe GW thought it should be obvious, but I have my doubts about the intent because of that clarifying line's omission - especially when it still exists in other areas (for instance, units Advancing prevents its models from firing).

 p5freak wrote:
A unit shoots in the shooting phase, when its models are shooting. Therefore, when a model shoots as if its the shooting phase, the unit shoots, the action fails.

If we take this application to be true - then the Ancient can only ever affect one model from each unit. Any second model attempting to fire would be stopped by the rule that says a unit can't fire more than once "in its Shooting phase".
My take on this, mind, is that "as though it were the Shooting phase" is not the same as "is the Shooting phase".

When a unit is selected to shoot each model then gets to shoot.Attacks are then grouped or resolved one at a time, saves are taken one at time...

Again, it is not logical to say that because one part of a unit does something the ENTIRE unit does something.

for example ... i select my unit to move, i then move one model 4" and leave the rest still. my entire unit didnt move 4" even though one model did something. One model dying in the unit doesnt mean the entire unit has died. Just because one model does something doesnt mean the unit is doing something. That logic doesnt make sense.

In the shooting phase a UNIT must be selected to shoot and then we shoot each model. The ancient banner does not say a unit shoots, its says models do, one by one.

You can't justify your answer using a logic that can not be applied to other active rules. So saying one model doing something means the whole unit does it can not be the answer.

I am not saying the correct answer is that the unit isnt considered to have shot, what i am saying is this particular logic is not valid and we ll need to find some other way to answer this question.

I'm personally in favor of it not interrupting the action as its just the model firing as it is removed from the table.


However I can understand both sides

When I asked whether Eradicators get to fire twice because of the Ancient rule coming into play the consensus was no, because Total Obliteration is a rule for when the unit shoots. Under those terms, then, the action wouldn't be failed as it isn't the unit that is shooting.

You have to pick one and be consistent, and I know I'd prefer the marine player complete actions rather than double tap me with dying Eradicators.

 Type40 wrote:
When a unit is selected to shoot each model then gets to shoot.Attacks are then grouped or resolved one at a time, saves are taken one at time...

Again, it is not logical to say that because one part of a unit does something the ENTIRE unit does something.

for example ... i select my unit to move, i then move one model 4" and leave the rest still. my entire unit didnt move 4" even though one model did something. One model dying in the unit doesnt mean the entire unit has died. Just because one model does something doesnt mean the unit is doing something. That logic doesnt make sense.

That logic makes sense. It only takes one model to move, and the entire unit has moved. The model that moved doesnt have to be the model with the heavy weapon. Even it that model remained stationary it suffers -1 to hit.

Ranged Weapon Types p. 218

Subtract 1 from hit rolls if firing model is INFANTRY and its unit has moved this turn

If a model is destroyed is it still part of the unit? The rule triggers between destroying the model and removing it from play.

Just for clarity, I think the RAI would be that it would not interrupt the action, but I think a FAQ will be needed to actually sort it out.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
I'm personally in favor of it not interrupting the action as its just the model firing as it is removed from the table.


However I can understand both sides

By that logic, i can only shoot with one model in the shooting phase, and the action wouldnt fail, because its just one model firing If a models shoots, the unit shoots.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The model is shooting (not the unit), the action does not fail.

A unit shoots in the shooting phase, when its models are shooting. Therefore, when a model shoots as if its the shooting phase, the unit shoots, the action fails.

False, as you need to select a unit to shoot for it to have shot. You dont select the unit to shoot with the Ancient.

So the action does not fail as you have not selected the unit to shoot.

I don’t think there’s a clear RAW answer and this needs to be FAQ’d.

HIWPI: the model shooting interrupts the action. My reasoning is that in the movement phase when only one model moves the whole unit is considered to have moved, by extension, one model shooting can be taken as meaning the whole unit counts as shooting.

It’s not ironclad, but for now I think that’s how I’d play it.

Aash wrote:
My reasoning is that in the movement phase when only one model moves the whole unit is considered to have moved, by extension, one model shooting can be taken as meaning the whole unit counts as shooting.

I thought of this approach at first, too. However in this edition we aren't explicitly told that the entire unit counts as moving, as a result of one model moving. Instead the beginning of each move process starts with you choosing a unit to move with - that's how the unit is considered moving as a whole, and that's how the usual shooting process starts too, which the Ancient bypasses.

If we had an ability, strat or similar that didn't mention unit but allowed you to move a single model, we'd have exactly the same issue with determining whether it affected that unit's shooting.

 Super Ready wrote:

Aash wrote:
My reasoning is that in the movement phase when only one model moves the whole unit is considered to have moved, by extension, one model shooting can be taken as meaning the whole unit counts as shooting.

I thought of this approach at first, too. However in this edition we aren't explicitly told that the entire unit counts as moving, as a result of one model moving. Instead the beginning of each move process starts with you choosing a unit to move with - that's how the unit is considered moving as a whole, and that's how the usual shooting process starts too, which the Ancient bypasses.

If we had an ability, strat or similar that didn't mention unit but allowed you to move a single model, we'd have exactly the same issue with determining whether it affected that unit's shooting.

Oh, that’s true. It is selecting a unit in the movement phase too. Even so, I think I’d still play it as interrupting the action for now, but wouldn’t be surprised if an FAQ were to rule one way or the other. Hopefully this gets addressed sooner rather than later.

Ya, totally an FAQ situation after really looking into it... p.s. everyone bringing up the movement thing... sure it works that way with movement but it doesnt work that way with tons of other rules, we only do it that way with movement because it specifically tells us too.

Anyhow. I'll email the FAQ guys, we ll see if we get clarification XD.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
I'm personally in favor of it not interrupting the action as its just the model firing as it is removed from the table.


However I can understand both sides

By that logic, i can only shoot with one model in the shooting phase, and the action wouldnt fail, because its just one model firing If a models shoots, the unit shoots.

No because in the shooting phase the first thing you do is you select a unit to shoot with and that triggers the next steps where your models shoot . Unlike with the ancient where only the model shoots... not the entire unit. If the unit was shooting as a result of the ancient and not just a single model, we would have to follow the rules for what to do when a unit is selected to shoot from pg 216-217 in the BRB... and if that's the case we would have to shoot every single model in the unit every time the ancient ability popped on each individual model.

The fact that you don't see the difference and you don't see the flaw in your logic is starting to be bewildering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@p5freak can you stop posting short definitive statements with no explanation, logic, citations or reasoning. You are not an authority on 40k so its not really helpful when you make posts like that, you have done that about 4 times in threads I have been a part of this week. Its not helpful, when you are right no one knows why (and we post on these forums to find reasons why) and when your wrong you just force people to try and guess what flawed logic you are using.

"The unit is shooting, the action fails." < stuff like this.

I am not trying to be mean. its just frustrating and not helpful that you post such vagaries when you arn't even close to being an authority and are sometimes wrong with your assumptions.

Even with the Ancient you are still selecting a unit to shoot - it talks about "when a model from such a unit is destroyed..." in the rules text. You are given permission for a model from such a unit (within 6") to shoot as if it were the shooting phase. So you go to the Shooting Phase part of the rulebook where it talks about units and models. Models exist as part of units, and the Ancient rule while singling out a model still refers to it as part of a unit. Continuing in your Ancient-inspired Shooting Phase you select an eligible unit - the Ancient rule selects the unit for you with a roll a 4+ and now that unit is eligible. You then select the model as given permission by the Ancient rule. You have no choice to make, but you are still following the Shooting Phase and selecting a unit and then a model.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Even with the Ancient you are still selecting a unit to shoot ...

So only one model can make the shot then? since units cant be selected to shoot more than once...

The simpler answer is that the unit is not selected to shoot, and the unit does not shoot.

This debate has really left logic and defenitions behind.

All the models in the unit is part of the unit. If one part of the unit does something by defenition the unit has done something. Not all of the models in the unit, but some part of the unit. That id enough to qualify for the statement that the unit has done something.

 Niiai wrote:
This debate has really left logic and defenitions behind.

All the models in the unit is part of the unit. If one part of the unit does something by defenition the unit has done something. Not all of the models in the unit, but some part of the unit. That id enough to qualify for the statement that the unit has done something.

That is false of course.

Jut because a model in the unit did something does not mean the entire unit did that thing. It just means a model in that unit did a thing.

It needs an FAQ for clarification, but if I'm forced to parse this with the information available I have to fall on the side of if a model shoots the unit has shot.

If you order a unit not to shoot and one guy shoots, the unit has broken that order.

The destroyed argument doesn't work. Destroyed is a state, not an action. They aren't comparable in this context.