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.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Well the last four words in out of sight are a clue the don't apply when it's not a shooting attack.
I think that is guidance enough.
Since vector strike is not a shooting attack there is no cause for it to apply.

again,

BRB pg 8 middle left

a model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy, weather with power sword, gun, or psychic power.

los is standard for all attacks unless noted against this normal rule.


where is the specific rule that says vector strike ignores the LOS rules for wounds?


rigeld2 is right, his point stands, you need to prove its the exception to the rule

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Page 15, emptied wound pool. According to you this also does not apply and therefore the attack never ends. Congratulations on breaking the game.

I was hoping to get a good response from you on this but if you want to play that game then fine.
The wound pool of shooting is emptied and you can shoot something else just because you use the random method doesn't make it a shooting attack.

"Play that game"? The shooting attack ends when the wound pool is emptied. If its not a shooting attack and no rules that reference shooting attacks can be followed, the attack never ends. It's never completely resolved. This cannot be correct and therefore your assertion that a rule referencing a shooting attack should be ignored cannot be correct.

The rule references a restriction on shooting attacks. There are other wound pools beyond the shooting one. Just because an attack is allocated by the random rules doesn't make it a shooting attack.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Page 15, emptied wound pool. According to you this also does not apply and therefore the attack never ends. Congratulations on breaking the game.

I was hoping to get an adult response from you on this but if you want to play that game then fine.
Where does the random method dictate the attack as a shooting attack?

Re-quoting to answer your edit.

It mentions "firing unit". It's in the Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties section of the Shooting Attack rules. The next step references shooting attack specifically (Emptied Wound Pool).

How is it not an adult response to show you the consequences of your assertion?

It's an absurd abstraction of applying limits of shooting attacks to shooting attacks but not non shooting attacks.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
The rule references a restriction on shooting attacks. There are other wound pools beyond the shooting one. Just because an attack is allocated by the random rules doesn't make it a shooting attack.

Since the Random Allocation rules exist in the Shooting Attack rules, and reference the "firing unit" directly (and shooting attack indirectly) they must be referencing shooting attacks.
There's no reason to ignore Out of Sight (because it references shooting attacks) and not ignore Emptied Wound Pool (which references shooting attacks).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
It's an absurd abstraction of applying limits of shooting attacks to shooting attacks but not non shooting attacks.

Please rephrase this - I'm not trying to insult you but I don't understand what you're referencing where. Maybe I'm too tired.

No since they stipulate the random allocation method, they do not mandate a shooting attack. They mandate a method of allocating the wounds from a wound pool.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
No since they stipulate the random allocation method, they do not mandate a shooting attack. They mandate a method of allocating the wounds from a wound pool.

And when that wound pool is emptied? Since we evidently cannot use anything that references a firing unit (except for Random Allocation) or shooting attack, when is the attack completely resolved?

I'm rather tired too.

The idea that you cannot empty a wound pool because the attack is not a shooting attack is based on the assumption that it is a wound pool of shooting attacks. A fair assumption, I'll grand but not a valid one.

The vector strike is not a shooting attack. Yes or no?
Does the random allocation refer to non shooting attacks in it's text? Yes or no?

again,

BRB pg 8 middle left

a model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy, weather with power sword, gun, or psychic power.

los is standard for all attacks unless noted against this normal rule.

easysauce wrote:

again,

BRB pg 8 middle left

a model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy, weather with power sword, gun, or psychic power.

I fixed the emphasis. Even if the unit needed los to make the attack, that doesn't mean it is subject to out of sight.

Quick question - according to the FAQ 'That unit takes D3+1 hits, resolved at the model’s unmodified Strength and AP3, using Random Allocation. Against vehicles, these hits
are resolved against the target’s side armour.'

Does this mean against vehicles it would NOT count as a shooting attack as Random Allocation doesn't apply, but if against an enemy non vehicle unit it WOULD count as a shooting attack as Random Allocation applies?

This is starting to get a bit "yes it is - no it isn't".

Coming at this from another angle, the line of sight rule is a mechanism for controlling how hits and wounds are assigned from a firing unit to a target unit. The CC rules about initiative step and being engaged in combat are a similar mechanism. These are the "normal" methods of creating hits and wounds, and hence p8 is entirely correct that LOS is "normally" required.

The Vector Strike rule and the supporting errata give precise rules as to how hits and wounds are assigned, so the "normal" methods are not required. The Out Of Sight rule is a specific part of the firing rules, but is not specifically part of the wound allocation rules and Vector Strike is not a shooting attack.

Its a fair point that a model in reserves can't do anything, but the Vector Strike rule is more about where a model was, rather than where it is. As Liturgies indicates there are other mechanisms that can take a flying model out of play before the end of the movement phase, but they are irrelevant because to use the rule the model merely needs to have moved.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I'm rather tired too.

The idea that you cannot empty a wound pool because the attack is not a shooting attack is based on the assumption that it is a wound pool of shooting attacks. A fair assumption, I'll grand but not a valid one.

The vector strike is not a shooting attack. Yes or no?
Does the random allocation refer to non shooting attacks in it's text? Yes or no?

Already discussed this in a different thread so will just pop in to say I agree with Lit, the angle which some people look at the shooting phase, and shooting rules is not the same direction I look at it. I believe a bad structuring in the BRB is to blame.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I'm rather tired too.

The idea that you cannot empty a wound pool because the attack is not a shooting attack is based on the assumption that it is a wound pool of shooting attacks. A fair assumption, I'll grand but not a valid one.

No, that's not correct at all.
We have a wound pool of non-shooting attacks.
What happens when it's emptied using Random Allocation?

The vector strike is not a shooting attack. Yes or no?

Undetermined. It's not classified anywhere to my knowledge - it certainly counts as firing a weapon.

Does the random allocation refer to non shooting attacks in it's text? Yes or no?

In the rules part? No.

Firstly it is perfectly true, I was very tired. :p

The wound pool is emptied when it is emptied using random allocation. There are wound pools of other attacks and wounds emptied just fine without the "game breaking" need to move onto the next shooting attack.

So the polymorphine is a shooting attack now? The Mawlock's attack is shooting? Everything after "but can also occur" in that paragraph means that it doesn't solely apply to shooting. There is nothing in random allocation that ties that method of allocation solely to shooting and the last two sentences make that clear.

If you are using shooting this line applies " If two or more models are equidistant from a firing unit,randomise only between those equidistant models."

For everything else this line applies. "Otherwise,
randomise between all of the models in the target unit."



Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact vector strike is just as clear as the other examples of wound pools. It gives you the strength, ap and method of allocation. What more do you need?