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.

40k-noob wrote:
as for: "How can you check range to the unit if you only measure to one model?" Because the group operates as one. There is only need to measure to the closest.

Do you have any rules support for "the group operates as one"? Because that's just not true.

The same is true in the reverse, since the firer must also be in range not just the "unit," the guy with the Pistol, cannot shoot 14" away even the though the unit (i.e others with bolters) are in range.

Yes - because the shooting rules specify that range is determined by model.

You will also notice that in order to target anything first you need Model to Model LOS.

That's absolutely incorrect.

To do so, you must check the range and line of sight from your unit to the enemy unit you are targeting.

Where does it say model?

Oh, under the instructions on how to check Line of Sight. And your target is still the unit, not "a unit of models".

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
as for: "How can you check range to the unit if you only measure to one model?" Because the group operates as one. There is only need to measure to the closest.

Do you have any rules support for "the group operates as one"? Because that's just not true.

Can Tactical Space Marine decide to leave the unit or shoot at something other than the rest of the squad? No, because the fight as one team.

rigeld2 wrote:

You will also notice that in order to target anything first you need Model to Model LOS.

That's absolutely incorrect.

To do so, you must check the range and line of sight from your unit to the enemy unit you are targeting.

Where does it say model?

Oh, under the instructions on how to check Line of Sight. And your target is still the unit, not "a unit of models".

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
as for: "How can you check range to the unit if you only measure to one model?" Because the group operates as one. There is only need to measure to the closest.

Do you have any rules support for "the group operates as one"? Because that's just not true.

Can Tactical Space Marine decide to leave the unit or shoot at something other than the rest of the squad? No, because the fight as one team.

So... Fluff?

rigeld2 wrote:Oh, under the instructions on how to check Line of Sight. And your target is still the unit, not "a unit of models".

Says so right there in the rule book, page 12 under Line of Sight. In the Shooting Phase section of the BRB.

Which is not what you originally said, pre-edit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But that's all irrelevant.

Your target is absolutely a unit.
When rolling to wound, you are wounding your target (What's your target again?)
The rules make an absolute distinction between rolling to wound and allocating wounds.

Fluff? No, they are forced to act together since they are bound to stay in coherency (since there are no rules allowing them leave the unit) and basic shooting rules limit them to shooting at the same target (barring other rules that grant exemptions)



The edit was me asking Nos to define "conflict" in 40k terms which he has yet to do.
He is a good dodger that Nos, been dodging that question since way back in the DWA thread.
Must have studied with how to dodge by watching the Matrix movies.

Why does he need to define conflict? Dictionaries are the place to do that.

This has no bearing on the debate.

40k-noob wrote:
Fluff? No, they are forced to act together since they are bound to stay in coherency (since there are no rules allowing them leave the unit) and basic shooting rules limit them to shooting at the same target (barring other rules that grant exemptions)

So the group operates as one, except when they have to check range, or when they have to check LoS, or when they move (because a model with a Heavy weapon doesn't count as moving if his buddy does)... so ... yeah. Not really "always acting as a team".

The edit was me asking Nos to define "conflict" in 40k terms which he has yet to do.
He is a good dodger that Nos, been dodging that question since way back in the DWA thread.
Must have studied with how to dodge by watching the Matrix movies.

So you're trolling him by referring to another thread without any relevancy here? Bad form...

edit:

You will also notice that in order to target anything first you need Model to Model LOS.

And that's what I was referring to that changed in your edit. That sentence isn't what it said originally.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/513324.page#5381645
And that post doesn't have anything referring to Nos so...

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why does he need to define conflict? Dictionaries are the place to do that.

This has no bearing on the debate.

LOL he accused me of dodging questions, so I pointed out that he has been dodging my question since way back in the DWA thread. (it is a glass house and stones thing)

Also the dictionary definition was not acceptable to Nos. He said that I did not know what "conflict" means in 40k terms.
So I am asked him to define it and educate me.

Anyway you are right, it has no bearing on this debate.

I will withdraw from this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
edit:

You will also notice that in order to target anything first you need Model to Model LOS.

And that's what I was referring to that changed in your edit. That sentence isn't what it said originally.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/513324.page#5381645
And that post doesn't have anything referring to Nos so...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you cannot target *units* you cannot see. There is a big difference between unit and model.

The Template rules require you to maximise number of hits, and you are not allowed to break this rule unless told you can. Once you have targetted a unit in LOS, you are then forced to maximise the number of models from that unit that are hit. Nothing in this places a restriction on which models are in LOS

So you can target a model that you can't see with a plasma cannon as long as you can see one model in the unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

40k-noob wrote:
Fluff? No, they are forced to act together since they are bound to stay in coherency (since there are no rules allowing them leave the unit) and basic shooting rules limit them to shooting at the same target (barring other rules that grant exemptions)

You may find that when ever you make a point on RAW there are bound to be some folks that will dismiss it as "fluff" out of hand.

I once had a guy make an argument claiming that three words in a written rule were to be disallowed because they were fluff. Even while maintaining that the rest of the SAME sentence was 100% RAW.

Those three words were what folded his argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reaverX wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Which makes the sentence about wounding units out of LOS useless.

I'll disagree. It's useful because it allows you to add to the wound pool. If no one is in LOS then it sucks but if only one or a few guys, are they are allocated all the wounds from the pool. It can force a lot of saves against only a few models.

If you hit a unit that your shooting unit cannot see, according to you, no wounds from the pool can be allocated at all. You could add a thousand wounds to the pool.

If only a few guys from a unit can be seen, then the unit wouldn't be out of LoS, would it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Do you target a model or a unit with shooting?

Both

You target models in a unit when firing regular.
You target a specific model that can be seen in a unit when firing blast.
You target a specific model in a unit when firing blast as barrage.
You target models that can be seen in a unit when firing templates.
You target models that are not in cover when performing focus fire.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
You can't wound "Unit" because it is just a reference to a model or group of models.

When measuring distance between units, how many models to you measure between?

Just one. It's not always the closest model though.
AND, different models in a firing unit can target different models in the target unit.

Idolator - you are confusing Blast and Template. They have different rules. Stop comparing apples to oranges

With blasts you must place the hole over a model in LOS (for non-barrage) of the firing model. Note thsi is not a target but simply where in the targetted unit the marker is initially placed.

With templates you must place the template so it covers as many models as possible, with no requirement that this template is placed entirely in LOS.

This is where you are making your mistake - you have conflated two different objects rules and are trying to resolve all simultaneously. NOte taht even with Blasts only the *centre* of the marker has to be placed in LOS; it is entirely possible that it will cover models out of LOS, and this is 100% legally placed.

Lastly - rules quote on your "BOTH" answer. Yuo will find the Target is *always* the unit. The TARGET of a shooting attack does not alter, what is affected may do so. This is very clearly laid out.

For example the model you place the hole of the marker over is not the target of that shooting attack - the BRB never states that.

If you can't post without making personal attacks then don't post.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Idolator - you are confusing Blast and Template. They have different rules. Stop comparing apples to oranges

With blasts you must place the hole over a model in LOS (for non-barrage) of the firing model. Note thsi is not a target but simply where in the targetted unit the marker is initially placed.

With templates you must place the template so it covers as many models as possible, with no requirement that this template is placed entirely in LOS.

This is where you are making your mistake - you have conflated two different objects rules and are trying to resolve all simultaneously. NOte taht even with Blasts only the *centre* of the marker has to be placed in LOS; it is entirely possible that it will cover models out of LOS, and this is 100% legally placed.

Lastly - rules quote on your "BOTH" answer. Yuo will find the Target is *always* the unit. The TARGET of a shooting attack does not alter, what is affected may do so. This is very clearly laid out.

For example the model you place the hole of the marker over is not the target of that shooting attack - the BRB never states that.

A model cannot shoot at models that cannot be seen by the firing model.
Example: A five man unit armed with pistols is targeting a ten man unit that has nine models out of LoS.
All of the firing models can see the one enemy model that is in view.
Only the lead firing model is within 12" of the visible model in the firing unit. All are within 12" of the models that are not visible.
Only the lead model in the firing unit can fire.

example two. The five man unit is all armed with flamers.
only the lead firing model is within template range of the single visible model. All firing models are within range of the models that are out of LoS.
Only the lead firing model may fire.

Example three. a Dreadnought armed with a heavy flamer is firing at a unit of ten orks.
The orks are hidden in a clump just around the corner of a building, except the two that had made it around the corner.
The Dread, if the dread fires at the eight models that are out of LoS, he will not hit any models that are in LoS.
He must fire at the visible models.


You cannot fire at things that you cannot see.
I do understand that the template rules states that you place the template over the maximum amount of models in the target unit. However, at least one of the the targeted models must be in line of sight and those models that are in Line of Sight must be within range.

So here's the reasoning.
1. Models in a unit must be within Line of Sight and within range before a model can shoot at all.
2. Template weapons must be placed over the maximum amount of enemy models.
3. Firing models cannot target models in a unit that they cannot see.
4. Models that are out of sight from the firing models are not counted for determining the maximum enemy models placed under a template weapon.


That being said. It is quite possible that the maximium amount of visible models under the template may be the same no matter which way you place the template. In those cases it would be beneficial to place the template where models that are out of LoS would also be covered by the template.

Once again, I believe that template weapons, along with blast markers can wound models that are out of LoS and that those wounds can be allocated. As the nature of the weapon doesn't worry about direct line firing, it has an area of effect.

"A model cannot shoot at models that cannot be seen by the firing model."

No such rule actually exists. Or rather, it is a corruption of a few existing rules.

A model cannot shoot unless it has LOS to at least ONE model in the target unit.

You then cannot allocate wounds to models out of LOS of *any* model in the firing unit - not the model that actually fired the shot that caused the hit that caused the wound you are now allocating, but ANY model in the firing unit.

Your examples are not based in actual rules, as you have made a false initial premise and extrapolated from it.

The template rules CAN require you to place the template rules over models entirely out of LOS of the firing model. This is entirely, 100% supported in the rules, and does not cause any issues with causing hits and causing wounds. The issues comes in that both Blast and Template weapons do not have an exemption to the rules on page 16 which state you cannot allocate out of LOS of the firing unit, so are still bound by this requirement.

You have yet to provide a rules citation, please do so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"A model cannot shoot at models that cannot be seen by the firing model."

No such rule actually exists. Or rather, it is a corruption of a few existing rules.

A model cannot shoot unless it has LOS to at least ONE model in the target unit.

You have yet to provide a rules citation, please do so.

pg 12 final paragraph.

Any model that is found to be out of range from any visible enemy models in the target unit, doesn't shoot.

If the firing model can only see one model in the target unit. He must shoot at that model.

If line of sight rules apply to all other forms of shooting it statnds to reason that they apply in this case as well. Any other interpretation would fall under the heading (and I'm being gracious here) "Gamesmanship".

It may be an RAI reading of the rules. But I was pretty clear about that when I gave the 4 point reasoning.

"Any model that is found to be out of range from any visible enemy models in the target unit, doesn't shoot. "

True.

"If the firing model can only see one model in the target unit. He must shoot at that model. "

Complete and utter leap. No such rule forces that - the bolded bit is not part of the rules. The model is still part of the firing unit and is still shooting at the target UNIT as a whole.

Your "RAI" is no such thing, and goes again 4 editions of how the rules are written and actually played.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Any model that is found to be out of range from any visible enemy models in the target unit, doesn't shoot. "

True.

"If the firing model can only see one model in the target unit. He must shoot at that model. "

Complete and utter leap. No such rule forces that - the bolded bit is not part of the rules. The model is still part of the firing unit and is still shooting at the target UNIT as a whole.

Your "RAI" is no such thing, and goes again 4 editions of how the rules are written and actually played.

This latest edition of rules are quite different in regards to Line of Sight, than they have been in the past. It's a much more cinematic style. A model would not have line of sight to 3 models and randomly shoot through a wall in the hopes that he might hit more guys than can be seen by members of his unit. The targets simply aren't there.

Then to claim that models that are hit by an area effect weapon(that doesn't take terrain into consideration at all) cannot have wounds assigned to them because of Line of Sight rules is absurd.

Ignoring LoS, then requiring it to be applied is more than a bit of a contradiction.

Gamesmanship.

Fine.

You dont have any rules to back you p your position

You dont have any ambiguity you can point to

You dont have any argument, just some assertions

Play it your way, you are however wrong on both RAW and RAI.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fine.

You dont have any rules to back you p your position

You dont have any ambiguity you can point to

You dont have any argument, just some assertions

Play it your way, you are however wrong on both RAW and RAI.

I believe that personal attacks are not following the spirit of this forum, please refrain from them.

The rules for Line of Sight are clear, combining Line of Sight rules with the rules for template weapons isn't an assertion. It's how the game is intended to be played.

GW doesn't reiterate every rule when explaining the special rules for certain weapons, we, the readers are expected to know that, unless specificaly adressed, established rules are included.

Line of Sight still applies in the targeting and to wound allocation, unless it is specificaly changed in the wording of the rules. Such as "can hit and wound units that are out of line of sight".

Yes, the rules for LOS are clear. You have to be able to see at least one model in the target unit in order to fire

You then make an entirely unsupported LEAP to decide that means that THAT model you can see is the target of your shooting, when that is 100% untrue - the target is, and remains, the unit.

There was no personal attack, I was pointing out your entire lack of any rules support, implied or explicit, and that you have no counter argument to the points raised, as you have yet to even address them (such as: target == unit, placement of marker does not alter this, and the template rules are silent on this topic, to name just a few you have failed to address with any rules argument whatsoever) in this thread

Please follow the tenets of YMDC. Find RULES to support your assertions. If you do not do so I will accept that as admission that you cannot do so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, the rules for LOS are clear. You have to be able to see at least one model in the target unit in order to fire

You then make an entirely unsupported LEAP to decide that means that THAT model you can see is the target of your shooting, when that is 100% untrue - the target is, and remains, the unit.

There was no personal attack, I was pointing out your entire lack of any rules support, implied or explicit, and that you have no counter argument to the points raised, as you have yet to even address them (such as: target == unit, placement of marker does not alter this, and the template rules are silent on this topic, to name just a few you have failed to address with any rules argument whatsoever) in this thread

Please follow the tenets of YMDC. Find RULES to support your assertions. If you do not do so I will accept that as admission that you cannot do so.

Combining LoS rules with the template rule for hitting max models in a unit isn't citing rules???
Someone may not agree with my conclusions, but rules were cited.

It has been established that a model cannot target models that they cannot see, many times, unless specified that it may do so. There is no rule in the template section that specificaly provides an exception to this established rule.

I assert that the claim, a player no longer follows the LoS rules for targeting when using template weapons, is the leap. As there is nothing to back this up.

A person claiming that personal attacks are not personal attacks, doesn't make it so. A claim that tenets weren't followed does not show evidence of a lack of proper procedure.

"It has been established that a model cannot target models that they cannot see"

Again, this is not a rule. You have made this up

You cannot target the *unit* when you cannot draw LOS to at least *one model*

You are then claiming that the target of the attack by that model is now the model(s) they can see.

This has no basis in the rules

And no, you havent cited any rules, as you have made up a link between LOS and template that does not exist, because you have made up a rule in the first instance: to whit, there is no rule stating the target of a models shooting is the model(s) they can see in the target unit. It is, and remains, the unit they are targetting

You have no rules basis, absolutely none. I pointed this out, and said you are free to play it as you wish but that this is neither RAW nor RAI. That is not a personal attack. If you feel it is, report me.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"It has been established that a model cannot target models that they cannot see"

Again, this is not a rule. You have made this up

You cannot target the *unit* when you cannot draw LOS to at least *one model*

You are then claiming that the target of the attack by that model is now the model(s) they can see.

This has no basis in the rules

And no, you havent cited any rules, as you have made up a link between LOS and template that does not exist, because you have made up a rule in the first instance: to whit, there is no rule stating the target of a models shooting is the model(s) they can see in the target unit. It is, and remains, the unit they are targetting

You have no rules basis, absolutely none. I pointed this out, and said you are free to play it as you wish but that this is neither RAW nor RAI. That is not a personal attack. If you feel it is, report me.

Again, very personal. Please desist.

A unit is a target, a model (or models) are targets when firing certain weapons, such as blast markers, templates and certain other weapons.
Just one example: Blast Markers referer to the TARGET MODEL.

There are target units for determining which unit may be assaulted after the shooting phase. There are target models for determining who is being hit.
In the case of the template weapon, the reference is to maximum models in the target unit, to ensure that someone doesn't fire at the single model at the end of the line in order to hit the closely clumped unit behind the "target unit".

The argument of "no no no no No No No No NO NO NONONONONONO!!!!! I can't hear you!!!" ignores the points that I have made.
Someone may disagree. That's fine.
Claiming that points haven't been made and rules haven't been cited is not fine.

Here's a template example. If the only visible model in a target unit is ten inches away from a model with a flamer, he wouldn't be allowed to shoot at all even if the remaining models in the target unit were two inches away, but out of sight.

Claiming that the flamer model would be able to shoot out of sight and ignore the visible model, because the visible model was seven inches away makes no sense.

Disagreeing with an argument is not a personal attack. Spamming the forum with unfounded accusations of personal attacks is against our Rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fine.

You dont have any rules to back you p your position

You dont have any ambiguity you can point to

You dont have any argument, just some assertions

Play it your way, you are however wrong on both RAW and RAI.

Tenet rule #1

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

I don't believe that I was spamming after this diatribe. I've cited rules. LoS and Template. I've clearly pointed out my reasoning and how I came to the conclusion.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

And no, you havent cited any rules, as you have made up a link between LOS and template that does not exist, because you have made up a rule in the first instance: to whit, there is no rule stating the target of a models shooting is the model(s) they can see in the target unit. It is, and remains, the unit they are targetting

You have no rules basis, absolutely none. I pointed this out, and said you are free to play it as you wish but that this is neither RAW nor RAI. That is not a personal attack. If you feel it is, report me.

This is acceptable? I see no resoning except "you are wrong". He's ignored the rules citations that I have made and going after me personaly. Note the repeated use of the accusative tone. He even addressed me directly and and dared me to report him.

I've seen no counter to the LoS argument that I have made. There is no exception to LoS rules in the template rules. I can find none and none have been cited. I have been told that I'm wrong several time with no rules citations to back this up.

He's been explaining why you are wrong for a long time now, no violation here.

 Grey Templar wrote:
He's been explaining why you are wrong for a long time now, no violation here.

Why am I wrong? Honestly. Please tell me.

 Grey Templar wrote:
He's been explaining why you are wrong for a long time now, no violation here.

 Idolator wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
He's been explaining why you are wrong for a long time now, no violation here.

Why am I wrong? Honestly. Please tell me.

careful, you are going off topic. Someone might report you.

Back to the point of the thread.

I agree with Idol on the template + LOS rules.

Stop being obtuse and just debate the rules. Everyone!

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Stop being obtuse and just debate the rules. Everyone!

But that's no fun. Therefore you are wrong because..umm...tacos. Yeah. Tacos rule.

This thread should probably be locked, nothing more useful to be found here I think.

 Happyjew wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Stop being obtuse and just debate the rules. Everyone!

But that's no fun. Therefore you are wrong because..umm...tacos. Yeah. Tacos rule.

Reported for being off topic...



jk.... I dont report folks, feels too much like crying to mama.