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.

osirisx69 wrote:
Page reference please that states that rule is incorrect.

Shooting rules - you attack a unit, never (ever) a model.
You may be allowed to allocate wounds to individual models, but you are not, by definition, attacking a model. Ever.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Page reference please that states that rule is incorrect.

Shooting rules - you attack a unit, never (ever) a model.
You may be allowed to allocate wounds to individual models, but you are not, by definition, attacking a model. Ever.

Sigh again wrong. This is a permissive game. I am allowed to attack individual models under certain circumstances.

Focus fire allows us to attack an individual model if he is the only one in terrain or he is the only 1 not in terrain. I have proven your statment wrong. Please post where the rules Deny an allowed PE attack against a model.

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Page reference please that states that rule is incorrect.

Shooting rules - you attack a unit, never (ever) a model.
You may be allowed to allocate wounds to individual models, but you are not, by definition, attacking a model. Ever.

Sigh again wrong. This is a permissive game. I am allowed to attack individual models under certain circumstances.

Focus fire allows us to attack an individual model if he is the only one in terrain or he is the only 1 not in terrain. I have proven your stamen wrong. Please post where the rules Deny an allowed PE attack against a model.

You're incorrect about Focus Fire.

Sometimes, a target unit will only be partially in cover, with some of its models in cover and some not. In this case,you have a choice: your unit can either shoot at the squad as a whole, or you can declare that they will Focus Fire on the enemies who are less hidden. If you choose to Focus Fire, you must state your intention before making any rolls To Hit.

You state your intention before rolling to hit.
Page 12 shows Roll To Hit as step 3. Would you mind telling me what Step 2 is?

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Page reference please that states that rule is incorrect.

Shooting rules - you attack a unit, never (ever) a model.
You may be allowed to allocate wounds to individual models, but you are not, by definition, attacking a model. Ever.

Sigh again wrong. This is a permissive game. I am allowed to attack individual models under certain circumstances.

Focus fire allows us to attack an individual model if he is the only one in terrain or he is the only 1 not in terrain. I have proven your stamen wrong. Please post where the rules Deny an allowed PE attack against a model.

You're incorrect about Focus Fire.

Sometimes, a target unit will only be partially in cover, with some of its models in cover and some not. In this case,you have a choice: your unit can either shoot at the squad as a whole, or you can declare that they will Focus Fire on the enemies who are less hidden. If you choose to Focus Fire, you must state your intention before making any rolls To Hit.

You state your intention before rolling to hit.
Page 12 shows Roll To Hit as step 3. Would you mind telling me what Step 2 is?

Wow did you read any of my post? I clearly stated he was the only model in cover or out of cover. So I choose to shoot the marine. Is he my preferred enemy "yes" then I get to re-roll.

Step 2 Choose a target. The unit can shoot at one enemy unit that it can see.

Ok read it. Doesn't disprove what I just typed about focus fire. Again you keep moving the goal past back and back to prove your argument and its getting silly.

osirisx69 wrote:
Wow did you read any of my post? I clearly stated he was the only model in cover or out of cover. So I choose to shoot the marine. Is he my preferred enemy "yes" then I get to re-roll.

How are you attacking the marine?

Step 2 Choose a target. The unit can shoot at one enemy unit that it can see.

Ok read it. Doesn't disprove what I just typed about focus fire. Again you keep moving the goal past back and back to prove your argument and its getting silly.

So you choose a target unit. Is the unit the marine? If not, you cannot attack him. You're attacking the unit that includes the marine, but you're explicitly not attacking the marine.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.

ICs in the open are absolutely a unit.
Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct.

And it is a Codex: Tau unit - that's why I asked for the wording on markerlights.

you are incorrect. I posted the correct page number sentence and words that prove my point.

post your page numbers or sentence's to prove I am not correct.

anything is either RAI or just making stuff up.

Prove that lone ICs are units?
You posted it.

but a single powerful model, such as a lone character,

Further, if they were not a unit they could not ever move or shoot unless joined to a unit (since you nominate units, not models to do those things).
Further, if they were not a unit they could not ever be targeted (since you target units, not models).
Page 39 - Independent Characters can join other units - implying they are a unit themselves.
This continues when ICs are allowed to join other ICs - meaning they are joining another unit.

There's more, but hopefully you'll see that lone ICs are absolutely a unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.

ICs in the open are absolutely a unit.
Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct.

And it is a Codex: Tau unit - that's why I asked for the wording on markerlights.

you are incorrect. I posted the correct page number sentence and words that prove my point.

post your page numbers or sentence's to prove I am not correct.

anything is either RAI or just making stuff up.

Prove that lone ICs are units?
You posted it.

but a single powerful model, such as a lone character,

Further, if they were not a unit they could not ever move or shoot unless joined to a unit (since you nominate units, not models to do those things).
Further, if they were not a unit they could not ever be targeted (since you target units, not models).
Page 39 - Independent Characters can join other units - implying they are a unit themselves.
This continues when ICs are allowed to join other ICs - meaning they are joining another unit.

There's more, but hopefully you'll see that lone ICs are absolutely a unit.

"So you choose a target unit. Is the unit the marine? If not, you cannot attack him. You're attacking the unit that includes the marine, but you're explicitly not attacking the marine. "


That above statement proves you can use PE. PE clearly states it can be used against models and units and tanks and MC. All PE needs per RAW is the correct Codex\model. That's it! No where in the PE rules does it state the firer is shooting at a unit. You are just making that up.
I have already posted the sentence from preferred enemy that shows it is NOT a unit its attacking. Its attack its PE. I have been given permission RAW to attack this guy. I have permission. You have never posted a page, sentence or even a line to disprove this point.

you must have forgot the most basic of rules.

Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General

The rules are written so that a more specific rule supersedes a general rule. If your argument fails to take more specific rules into account, then your argument is flawed.

i.e. the general rule states that units cannot regroup if below 50%. But space marines follow And They Shall Know No Fear, which allows them to regroup even when below 50%. That rule is more specific because it applies to a smaller group or more specific situation.

Per this topic in the forums PE supersedes anything else.

osirisx69 wrote:
"So you choose a target unit. Is the unit the marine? If not, you cannot attack him. You're attacking the unit that includes the marine, but you're explicitly not attacking the marine. "


That above statement proves you can use PE. PE clearly states it can be used against models and units and tanks and MC. All PE needs per RAW is the correct Codex\model. That's it! No where in the PE rules does it state the firer is shooting at a unit. You are just making that up.

I am?
Please cite the rule that allows you to attack something other than a unit.

I have already posted the sentence from preferred enemy that shows it is NOT a unit its attacking. Its attack its PE. I have been given permission RAW to attack this guy. I have permission. You have never posted a page, sentence or even a line to disprove this point.

That quote does not give you permission to break targeting rules. It just says that *IF* you attack your PE, you get a bonus. Since you cannot attack individual models (but rather must attack a unit) you can never single out a model with PE.

you must have forgot the most basic of rules.

Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General

The rules are written so that a more specific rule supersedes a general rule. If your argument fails to take more specific rules into account, then your argument is flawed.

i.e. the general rule states that units cannot regroup if below 50%. But space marines follow And They Shall Know No Fear, which allows them to regroup even when below 50%. That rule is more specific because it applies to a smaller group or more specific situation.

Per this topic in the forums PE supersedes anything else.

Where in PE are you given permission to attack an individual model? You've failed to cite such permission (because it doesn't exist).

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
"So you choose a target unit. Is the unit the marine? If not, you cannot attack him. You're attacking the unit that includes the marine, but you're explicitly not attacking the marine. "


That above statement proves you can use PE. PE clearly states it can be used against models and units and tanks and MC. All PE needs per RAW is the correct Codex\model. That's it! No where in the PE rules does it state the firer is shooting at a unit. You are just making that up.

I am?
Please cite the rule that allows you to attack something other than a unit.

I have already posted the sentence from preferred enemy that shows it is NOT a unit its attacking. Its attack its PE. I have been given permission RAW to attack this guy. I have permission. You have never posted a page, sentence or even a line to disprove this point.

That quote does not give you permission to break targeting rules. It just says that *IF* you attack your PE, you get a bonus. Since you cannot attack individual models (but rather must attack a unit) you can never single out a model with PE.

you must have forgot the most basic of rules.

Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General

The rules are written so that a more specific rule supersedes a general rule. If your argument fails to take more specific rules into account, then your argument is flawed.

i.e. the general rule states that units cannot regroup if below 50%. But space marines follow And They Shall Know No Fear, which allows them to regroup even when below 50%. That rule is more specific because it applies to a smaller group or more specific situation.

Per this topic in the forums PE supersedes anything else.

Where in PE are you given permission to attack an individual model? You've failed to cite such permission (because it doesn't exist).

I cited all that in previous post. I understand it my be hard to read but if you look closely you will see it amongst the other posts.

Again you have never disproved the argument per the forum rules. You just state your opinion and that sir means squat as far as YMTC is concerned. Here is a PRIME example of your opinion and not the RAW.

"Since you cannot attack individual models (but rather must attack a unit) you can never single out a model with PE."

This is your opinion and its wrong. A lone character is a single model, a MC is a single model and a tank is a single model. Just because they call them units does not change the FACT that they are single models and can be treated as such Page 3 (see how I post a page reference) Notice it states Models and units but never states model are no longer models if they join a unit. As a mater of fact they point out single models can be units in there own right but it does not state they lose any bonuses for being models. In FACT they sometimes transfer some bonuses to the unit the join PROVING that models are in fact real targets in 40k.

So I have proven the permission with a page and sentence cite.

Please show a page or wording that says unit do NOT contain models.

Again you have no proof, just your opinion and in this instance its wrong.

So unless you post a real page reference (as opposed to your inaccurate opinions) that states a model is NEVER referred as a single model then you whole argument is flawed. I have posted pages and words that give REAL ( not flawed opinion) proof that my point is right.

osirisx69 wrote:
"Since you cannot attack individual models (but rather must attack a unit) you can never single out a model with PE."

This is your opinion and its wrong. A lone character is a single model, a MC is a single model and a tank is a single model. Just because they call them units does not change the FACT that they are single models and can be treated as such Page 3 (see how I post a page reference)

They are single model units. You can never attack individual models - I've shown that you must (as in, the rules require) you to target units. Find permission to target individual models. You've failed to cite anything that allows that.

Notice it states Models and units but never states model are no longer models if they join a unit. As a mater of fact they point out single models can be units in there own right but it does not state they lose any bonuses for being models. In FACT they sometimes transfer some bonuses to the unit the join PROVING that models are in fact real targets in 40k.

I never said a model stops being a model. That's ludicrous.

Please show a page or wording that says unit do NOT contain models.

That's absurd and not what I'm saying.

So unless you post a real page reference (as opposed to your inaccurate opinions) that states a model is NEVER referred as a single model then you whole argument is flawed. I have posted pages and words that give REAL ( not flawed opinion) proof that my point is right.

No, you've cited zero rules allowing you to attack a model. None. Ever.
I've shown you rules (on page 12) that require (as in, you have to do this) you to target a unit to make a shooting attack.
Please cite rules allowing the same for an individual model.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
"Since you cannot attack individual models (but rather must attack a unit) you can never single out a model with PE."

This is your opinion and its wrong. A lone character is a single model, a MC is a single model and a tank is a single model. Just because they call them units does not change the FACT that they are single models and can be treated as such Page 3 (see how I post a page reference)

They are single model units. You can never attack individual models - I've shown that you must (as in, the rules require) you to target units. Find permission to target individual models. You've failed to cite anything that allows that.

Notice it states Models and units but never states model are no longer models if they join a unit. As a mater of fact they point out single models can be units in there own right but it does not state they lose any bonuses for being models. In FACT they sometimes transfer some bonuses to the unit the join PROVING that models are in fact real targets in 40k.

I never said a model stops being a model. That's ludicrous.

Please show a page or wording that says unit do NOT contain models.

That's absurd and not what I'm saying.

So unless you post a real page reference (as opposed to your inaccurate opinions) that states a model is NEVER referred as a single model then you whole argument is flawed. I have posted pages and words that give REAL ( not flawed opinion) proof that my point is right.

No, you've cited zero rules allowing you to attack a model. None. Ever.
I've shown you rules (on page 12) that require (as in, you have to do this) you to target a unit to make a shooting attack.
Please cite rules allowing the same for an individual model.

again I posted, you can target individual models with focus fire if the right situation come up...what are you missing? You shoot, if that unit has your enemy in it you use PE (page number 40 paragraph 5 second to last sentence.) Its attacking its Preferred enemy. Why do you have such an issue with the RAW?

"I've shown you rules (on page 12) that require (as in, you have to do this) you to target a unit to make a shooting attack." Yes target the unit, does the unit have your PE? why yes, yes it does. Then he gets to use the PE skill. page 40 paragraph 5 second to last sentence! RAW on my part RAI on your part.

osirisx69 wrote:

again I posted, you can target individual models with focus fire if the right situation come up...

No, that's absolutely not what the rules say. You've literally invented that. Keep in mind that targeting has a specific meaning in 40k. If you're using it to mean something else that could be the reason for your misunderstanding.

what are you missing? You shoot, if that unit has your enemy in it you use PE (page number 40 paragraph 5 second to last sentence.) Its attacking its Preferred enemy. Why do you have such an issue with the RAW?

My PE is Tau. I shoot an Eldar unit. According to you I should get my PE bonus. Why? I'm demonstrably not attacking my PE.

"I've shown you rules (on page 12) that require (as in, you have to do this) you to target a unit to make a shooting attack. yes target the unit does the unit have your PE? why yes, yes it does. Then he gets to use the PE skill.

No, the target unit is Eldar. The fact that it has a Tau IC attached is irrelevant - there's only one unit you're targeting and it's an Eldar unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

again I posted, you can target individual models with focus fire if the right situation come up...

No, that's absolutely not what the rules say. You've literally invented that. Keep in mind that targeting has a specific meaning in 40k. If you're using it to mean something else that could be the reason for your misunderstanding.

what are you missing? You shoot, if that unit has your enemy in it you use PE (page number 40 paragraph 5 second to last sentence.) Its attacking its Preferred enemy. Why do you have such an issue with the RAW?

My PE is Tau. I shoot an Eldar unit. According to you I should get my PE bonus. Why? I'm demonstrably not attacking my PE.

"I've shown you rules (on page 12) that require (as in, you have to do this) you to target a unit to make a shooting attack. yes target the unit does the unit have your PE? why yes, yes it does. Then he gets to use the PE skill.

No, the target unit is Eldar. The fact that it has a Tau IC attached is irrelevant - there's only one unit you're targeting and it's an Eldar unit.

EVERYTHING you just posted has nothing to do with the rule on page 40. The rule on page 40 supersedes page 12. citation included right here page 40 paragraph 5 second to last sentence. He is shooting at a unit with his preferred enemy in it. he gets to use PE..... simple really.

Please post where that is NOT true because according to the rules of THIS forum it is true and I will quote it for you because you seem to forget this very important rule........


"Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General

The rules are written so that a more specific rule supercedes a general rule. If your argument fails to take more specific rules into account, then your argument is flawed.

i.e. the general rule states that units cannot regroup if below 50%. But space marines follow And They Shall Know No Fear, which allows them to regroup even when below 50%. That rule is more specific because it applies to a smaller group or more specific situation."

Your argument FAILS to take more specific rules into account. In fact all you keep sighting is page 12. That's it....you have no argument.

Anyways if you still refuse to post anything new to your argument I am just going to ignore it. I have never disputed that models are in a unit. I have never disputed you don't target models in a unit. I have never disputed models together are called units. I have never disputed you shoot at units.

+1

osirisx69 wrote:
EVERYTHING you just posted has nothing to do with the rule on page 40. The rule on page 40 supersedes page 12. citation included right here page 40 paragraph 5 second to last sentence. He is shooting at a unit with his preferred enemy in it. he gets to use PE..... simple really.

So you're past trying to say that you target models with focus fire - good.

A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy.

We know that to attack requires a target. (page 12) Agreed?
We know that to target something, it must be a unit. (page 12) Agreed?
We know that if an IC joins a unit, there's only one unit there - not two. (page 39) Agreed?
We know that if there's only one unit, you can not target an IC individually. (Page 39 and page 12) Agreed?

If you agree to the 4 points above, the only conclusion is that PE only works if the unit you're targeting is (not contains - is) your Preferred Enemy. If the unit you're targeting is not your Preferred Enemy, you cannot gain the bonus.
You may be misreading the "at least one model" to pertain to the targeted unit - it doesn't.

If you disagree with the 4 points above, please explain which one and why - preferably using page numbers.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
EVERYTHING you just posted has nothing to do with the rule on page 40. The rule on page 40 supersedes page 12. citation included right here page 40 paragraph 5 second to last sentence. He is shooting at a unit with his preferred enemy in it. he gets to use PE..... simple really.

So you're past trying to say that you target models with focus fire - good.

A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy.

We know that to attack requires a target. (page 12) Agreed?
We know that to target something, it must be a unit. (page 12) Agreed?
We know that if an IC joins a unit, there's only one unit there - not two. (page 39) Agreed?
We know that if there's only one unit, you can not target an IC individually. (Page 39 and page 12) Agreed?

If you agree to the 4 points above, the only conclusion is that PE only works if the unit you're targeting is (not contains - is) your Preferred Enemy. If the unit you're targeting is not your Preferred Enemy, you cannot gain the bonus.
You may be misreading the "at least one model" to pertain to the targeted unit - it doesn't.

If you disagree with the 4 points above, please explain which one and why - preferably using page numbers.

"We know that if there's only one unit, you can not target an IC individually." sigh incorrect again. its funny how wrong your argument has been. If I roll a 6 to hit then I can choose the IC. See how THAT supersedes page 12 !?!?!?!?!?!??!?!!!?!? Why would you let some rules supersedes targeting but not others? Focus fire allow me to target a single model if he is out in the open and the rest of his buddies are in cover. See another rule that supersedes Page 12.

"If you agree to the 4 points above, the only conclusion is that PE only works if the unit you're targeting is (not contains - is) your Preferred Enemy. If the unit you're targeting is not your Preferred Enemy, you cannot gain the bonus." again your drawing your conclusions on failed logic as I have pointed out in this post.

I do appreciate that you supplied more points to your argument though. Thanks.

osirisx69 wrote:
"We know that if there's only one unit, you can not target an IC individually." sigh incorrect again. its funny how wrong your argument has been. If I roll a 6 to hit then I can choose the IC. See how THAT supersedes page 12 !?!?!?!?!?!??!?!!!?!? Why would you let some rules supersedes targeting but not others?

No, that doesn't supersede page 12 at all. Rolling a 6 triggers Precision Shot - let's look at that rule.

page 63 wrote:Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit

So you get to choose allocation not the target. The sentence even repeats that the unit was targeted.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
"We know that if there's only one unit, you can not target an IC individually." sigh incorrect again. its funny how wrong your argument has been. If I roll a 6 to hit then I can choose the IC. See how THAT supersedes page 12 !?!?!?!?!?!??!?!!!?!? Why would you let some rules supersedes targeting but not others?

No, that doesn't supersede page 12 at all. Rolling a 6 triggers Precision Shot - let's look at that rule.

page 63 wrote:Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit

So you get to choose allocation not the target. The sentence even repeats that the unit was targeted.

being stuck on the word "target" doesn't change the fact I am right. You asked if I could target the IC. PS doesn't use the word TARGET in its ruling just like PE doesn't use the word TARGET so why are you so fixated on that word which does not apply to either rule?

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
"We know that if there's only one unit, you can not target an IC individually." sigh incorrect again. its funny how wrong your argument has been. If I roll a 6 to hit then I can choose the IC. See how THAT supersedes page 12 !?!?!?!?!?!??!?!!!?!? Why would you let some rules supersedes targeting but not others?

No, that doesn't supersede page 12 at all. Rolling a 6 triggers Precision Shot - let's look at that rule.

page 63 wrote:Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit

So you get to choose allocation not the target. The sentence even repeats that the unit was targeted.

being stuck on the word "target" doesn't change the fact I am right. You asked if I could target the IC. PS doesn't use the word TARGET in its ruling just like PE doesn't use the word TARGET so why are you so fixated on that word which does not apply to either rule?

No, you said that you were given permission to target the IC separate from targeting the unit.
PS does not allow you to target the IC - this is important.
I did ask if you could target the IC - and you can not. You were not correct when you said you could and have provided no (correct) rules arguments to back your statement up.

PE requires that you attack your PE to get the bonus.
How do you attack in 40k? Page 12 has 5 steps to accomplish that encompass a shooting attack (vs a CC attack which has similar restrictions).
The word absolutely applies and using it correctly is a good idea.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
"We know that if there's only one unit, you can not target an IC individually." sigh incorrect again. its funny how wrong your argument has been. If I roll a 6 to hit then I can choose the IC. See how THAT supersedes page 12 !?!?!?!?!?!??!?!!!?!? Why would you let some rules supersedes targeting but not others?

No, that doesn't supersede page 12 at all. Rolling a 6 triggers Precision Shot - let's look at that rule.

page 63 wrote:Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit

So you get to choose allocation not the target. The sentence even repeats that the unit was targeted.

being stuck on the word "target" doesn't change the fact I am right. You asked if I could target the IC. PS doesn't use the word TARGET in its ruling just like PE doesn't use the word TARGET so why are you so fixated on that word which does not apply to either rule?

No, you said that you were given permission to target the IC separate from targeting the unit.
PS does not allow you to target the IC - this is important.
I did ask if you could target the IC - and you can not. You were not correct when you said you could and have provided no (correct) rules arguments to back your statement up.

PE requires that you attack your PE to get the bonus.
How do you attack in 40k? Page 12 has 5 steps to accomplish that encompass a shooting attack (vs a CC attack which has similar restrictions).
The word absolutely applies and using it correctly is a good idea.

okay again for you because something in not connecting, here is how it goes per the rule I have cited 13 times now.


attack unit, does unit have PE in it. yes it does then I get my PE rule.

Page 40 paragraph 5 second to last sentence.

here is more proof I am right

"Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General

The rules are written so that a more specific rule supersedes a general rule. If your argument fails to take more specific rules into account, then your argument is flawed.

i.e. the general rule states that units cannot regroup if below 50%. But space marines follow And They Shall Know No Fear, which allows them to regroup even when below 50%. That rule is more specific because it applies to a smaller group or more specific situation."

PE does NOT ever care about page 12 PE only cares if there is a PE in the unit. PE per RAW does not care if there are 1, 2, or 100 PE's in the unit. As a mater of fact PE never mentions shooting at units at ALL. Since PE supersedes page 12 ruling then that's the rule.

That's pure RAW proof

osirisx69 wrote:
attack unit, does unit have PE in it. yes it does then I get my PE rule.

That's not what the rule on page 40 says. You've invented the bolded requirement.
The rule actually says that you must attack your Preferred Enemy. There is a difference between the two statements - I've corrected this misunderstanding of yours at least once already.

"Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General

PE does NOT ever care about page 12 PE only cares if there is a PE in the unit. PE never ever RAW says it cares who or what unit it is in. As a mater of fact PE never mentions shooting at units at ALL.

It does say that you must attack your PE.
Please, define attack using the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
attack unit, does unit have PE in it. yes it does then I get my PE rule.

That's not what the rule on page 40 says. You've invented the bolded requirement.
The rule actually says that you must attack your Preferred Enemy. There is a difference between the two statements - I've corrected this misunderstanding of yours at least once already.

"Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General

PE does NOT ever care about page 12 PE only cares if there is a PE in the unit. PE never ever RAW says it cares who or what unit it is in. As a mater of fact PE never mentions shooting at units at ALL.

It does say that you must attack your PE.
Please, define attack using the rules.

1st off I never stated it was a quote from the book. You made that up make your argument look better..... sad really

Second since you have not addressed my proven post ABOUT PE superseding page 12 (Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General) and keep going back to a flawed logic I can only see you are just trying to waste time.

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
attack unit, does unit have PE in it. yes it does then I get my PE rule.

That's not what the rule on page 40 says. You've invented the bolded requirement.
The rule actually says that you must attack your Preferred Enemy. There is a difference between the two statements - I've corrected this misunderstanding of yours at least once already.

"Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General

PE does NOT ever care about page 12 PE only cares if there is a PE in the unit. PE never ever RAW says it cares who or what unit it is in. As a mater of fact PE never mentions shooting at units at ALL.

It does say that you must attack your PE.
Please, define attack using the rules.

1st off I never stated it was a quote from the book. You made that up make your argument look better..... sad really

When you are asserting that it is RAW and it's demonstrably not, you deserve correction.

Second since you have not addressed my proven post ABOUT PE superseding page 12 (Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General) and keep going back to a flawed logic I can only see you are just trying to waste time.

I did address that point. I asked you to define attack using the rules - since that's what PE cares about you must have a definition ready.
I'm waiting.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
attack unit, does unit have PE in it. yes it does then I get my PE rule.

That's not what the rule on page 40 says. You've invented the bolded requirement.
The rule actually says that you must attack your Preferred Enemy. There is a difference between the two statements - I've corrected this misunderstanding of yours at least once already.

"Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General

PE does NOT ever care about page 12 PE only cares if there is a PE in the unit. PE never ever RAW says it cares who or what unit it is in. As a mater of fact PE never mentions shooting at units at ALL.

It does say that you must attack your PE.
Please, define attack using the rules.

1st off I never stated it was a quote from the book. You made that up make your argument look better..... sad really

When you are asserting that it is RAW and it's demonstrably not, you deserve correction.

Second since you have not addressed my proven post ABOUT PE superseding page 12 (Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General) and keep going back to a flawed logic I can only see you are just trying to waste time.

I did address that point. I asked you to define attack using the rules - since that's what PE cares about you must have a definition ready.
I'm waiting.

No you did not address that point. You posted your opinion yet had no real page or reference to back it up. I see where you stuck and you just wont let it go and that's fine. Move that goal post farther back. I enjoy a good debate but when the other side degrades to just silly word play its no longer a debate...

osirisx69 wrote:
No you did not address that point. You posted your opinion yet had no real page or reference to back it up.

No, I didn't post an opinion. I asked for a definition.
I've posted page references where required. Please don't pretend otherwise - that's impolite.

I see where you stuck and you just wont let it go and that's fine. Move that goal post farther back. I enjoy a good debate but the other side degrades to just silly word play its no longer a debate...

I've moved no goal posts. I've done literally nothing but answer honestly and politely. I'm not engaging in silly word play, I'm addressing the rules as they're written.
40k defines some terms specifically. Attacking is one of them. It seems like you're using a more general definition of attack (and target). It's incorrect to apply those more general definitions to 40k rules.
I've asked for the definition of attack that you're using because attacking is a prerequisite for Preferred Enemy to work.
Without common ground a debate is impossible. I'm attempting to reach common ground.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
No you did not address that point. You posted your opinion yet had no real page or reference to back it up.

No, I didn't post an opinion. I asked for a definition.
I've posted page references where required. Please don't pretend otherwise - that's impolite.

I see where you stuck and you just wont let it go and that's fine. Move that goal post farther back. I enjoy a good debate but the other side degrades to just silly word play its no longer a debate...

I've moved no goal posts. I've done literally nothing but answer honestly and politely. I'm not engaging in silly word play, I'm addressing the rules as they're written.
40k defines some terms specifically. Attacking is one of them. It seems like you're using a more general definition of attack (and target). It's incorrect to apply those more general definitions to 40k rules.
I've asked for the definition of attack that you're using because attacking is a prerequisite for Preferred Enemy to work.
Without common ground a debate is impossible. I'm attempting to reach common ground.

Okay lets try it a different way...

why do you have an issue with the ruling I made?

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
No you did not address that point. You posted your opinion yet had no real page or reference to back it up.

No, I didn't post an opinion. I asked for a definition.
I've posted page references where required. Please don't pretend otherwise - that's impolite.

I see where you stuck and you just wont let it go and that's fine. Move that goal post farther back. I enjoy a good debate but the other side degrades to just silly word play its no longer a debate...

I've moved no goal posts. I've done literally nothing but answer honestly and politely. I'm not engaging in silly word play, I'm addressing the rules as they're written.
40k defines some terms specifically. Attacking is one of them. It seems like you're using a more general definition of attack (and target). It's incorrect to apply those more general definitions to 40k rules.
I've asked for the definition of attack that you're using because attacking is a prerequisite for Preferred Enemy to work.
Without common ground a debate is impossible. I'm attempting to reach common ground.

Okay lets try it a different way...

why do you have an issue with the ruling I made?

Because you're attempting to attack an individual model (out of a unit of models) which is against the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
No you did not address that point. You posted your opinion yet had no real page or reference to back it up.

No, I didn't post an opinion. I asked for a definition.
I've posted page references where required. Please don't pretend otherwise - that's impolite.

I see where you stuck and you just wont let it go and that's fine. Move that goal post farther back. I enjoy a good debate but the other side degrades to just silly word play its no longer a debate...

I've moved no goal posts. I've done literally nothing but answer honestly and politely. I'm not engaging in silly word play, I'm addressing the rules as they're written.
40k defines some terms specifically. Attacking is one of them. It seems like you're using a more general definition of attack (and target). It's incorrect to apply those more general definitions to 40k rules.
I've asked for the definition of attack that you're using because attacking is a prerequisite for Preferred Enemy to work.
Without common ground a debate is impossible. I'm attempting to reach common ground.

Okay lets try it a different way...

why do you have an issue with the ruling I made?

Because you're attempting to attack an individual model (out of a unit of models) which is against the rules.

Ahh no, I am NOT attacking an individual model. All of the many references were where he could be harmed individually but I never said in the posts you are not targeting a unit. I understand the word attack has been flown around in different ways.

Like I said RAW never says with PE you are attacking a unit. it just states if you attack your PE use these rules. Is your PE in the unit yes or no if no then don't use the rule if yes then use the rule.

osirisx69 wrote:
Ahh no, I am NOT attacking an individual. I gave many references of how he could be harmed individually but I never said in the posts you are not attacking the unit.

You said you were able to target the individual. That's what I was addressing as incorrect (because it is).

Like I said RAW never says with PE you are attacking a unit. it just states if you attack your PE use these rules. Is your PE in the unit yes or no if no then don't use the rule if yes then use the rule.

PE does not say "is your PE in the unit".
It says if you're attacking your PE.

To attack something you must target it. Agreed?
If you target an Eldar unit and you have PE: Tau, are you allowed to re-roll?

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Ahh no, I am NOT attacking an individual. I gave many references of how he could be harmed individually but I never said in the posts you are not attacking the unit.

You said you were able to target the individual. That's what I was addressing as incorrect (because it is).

Like I said RAW never says with PE you are attacking a unit. it just states if you attack your PE use these rules. Is your PE in the unit yes or no if no then don't use the rule if yes then use the rule.

PE does not say "is your PE in the unit".
It says if you're attacking your PE.

To attack something you must target it. Agreed?
If you target an Eldar unit and you have PE: Tau, are you allowed to re-roll?

Is there a tau in the unit? is the tau taking the wound? If yes and yes then yes if not then no.

If you are in CC and are in base to base contact with said tau you would get a your PE if you are in contact with the elder you would not.

osirisx69 wrote:
Is there a tau in the unit? is the tau the closest model? If yes and yes then yes if not then no.

Why does it matter if he's the closest? Are you attacking the Tau?

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Is there a tau in the unit? is the tau the closest model? If yes and yes then yes if not then no.

Why does it matter if he's the closest? Are you attacking the Tau?

I edited my post and I was not fast enough before you posted a response.