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.

Fragile wrote:
That is exactly what you are doing. And your just repeating yourself. You have nothing to declare a legal shooting attack with. In essence your claiming that the TL model is shooting at both the primary and secondary target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
The rest of his unit (all zero models) do fire at the original target.

How are you not declaring a shooting attack with no models when this is exactly what you said you are doing.

Because when the target is declared there is a model that can fire.
The fact that, after targeting, there are no models that can fire doesn't matter in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chanceafs wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Then demonstrate them. You fail to show how you can declare a legal shooting attack with no models. The unit declares the target but range and LOS is check on a model by model basis. Without any legal models shooting at the primary target, you have no legal target.

I have demonstrated them.
Step 1 on page 12 is nominate. I nominate the unit. Agreed?
Step 2 is declare target - I declare the Riptide. I check range and LOS when I declare.
I now have the opportunity to activate Target Lock. I do so, targeting the Kroot. We know that Target Lock cannot be done simultaneous with the unit declaring because it must be at a different target.
And even if it was done simultaneously, I pick the order to so them.

I am not attempting to declare a shooting attack with no models. That's an incorrect summation. Please actually read before writing a knee jerk post.

Your reasoning above, assumes that the targeting is a sequential event... the unit targets A, THEN the model with TL targets B.


What the others are trying to point out, is that their view of the wording suggests that it all happens at the same time... the unit targets A, AND the model with TL targets B.

The wording of TL says that the model targets B INSTEAD of A, there for in the case of the single model unit, even if you do them sequentially, the instead means that the first choice is overridden by the second for that model, so if there is no 'rest of the unit' to maintain target A, then target A was not targeted.

Why is the first choice overridden? TL doesn't change the units target.

I would love to see you try to pull out this in an actual game.

A one model unit is just that, a unit with a single model. There is no 1 unit and 1 model, which are somehow separate.

Naw wrote:
I would love to see you try to pull out this in an actual game.

A one model unit is just that, a unit with a single model. There is no 1 unit and 1 model, which are somehow separate.

The rules disagree - model and unit are never interchangeable.

Naw wrote:
I would love to see you try to pull out this in an actual game.

A one model unit is just that, a unit with a single model. There is no 1 unit and 1 model, which are somehow separate.

Most of the debates we get into here are not how anyone plays.

There is 1 unit of 1 model. The failure is there is not "rest of unit" to make this work.

Fragile wrote:

Naw wrote:
I would love to see you try to pull out this in an actual game.

A one model unit is just that, a unit with a single model. There is no 1 unit and 1 model, which are somehow separate.

Most of the debates we get into here are not how anyone plays.

There is 1 unit of 1 model. The failure is there is not "rest of unit" to make this work.

You keep saying "the rest of the unit" has to be a non-zero number.
Please support that statement with rules.

Let us also take another view on this matter, rigeld2, by asking the other side this one question.

A unit of Bodyguards, all armed with Target Locks, fire at three different targets after nominating a fourth for the 'unit target:'
What target/targets can this unit charge?

Only the unit target.
Note that that scenario is identical to this one.

Hence why the question was for the other side, because your answer is constant no matter the situation which is something I look for in these debates. I want to see what they would say on that matter when the 'rest of the unit,' something they are saying is a restriction, is removed from the equation. Within the situation I put forth we see three models that might very well have target locks, and they are clearly firing at different targets then the rest of the unit so they meet the "requirements" there.

If they need a more complicated situation:
Throw in a buff based commander whom doesn't fire their weapons at any target, but hasn't used Target Lock to 'nominate' anyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and here is another scenario:
A commander and bodyguard team of 1 crisis suit is firing at two different targets. The commander is using an Ion Blaster for his attack against the unit nominated target while the crisis suit is using a missile pod and his target lock to take out a light vehicle. The commander's weapon fails the get hot rule, and even manages to knock off a wound, and the lone shot is not fired at the unit nominated target. The bodyguard does manage to pop the light vehicle, a transport, and the contents spill into charging distance.

Which unit can the commander and his bodyguard charge?

I have to say I'm with rigeld2 on this one for a couple of reasons.

1. RAW
We have already established that the Riptide can be targeted by the unit. The Suit then uses TL to target the Kroot. There is no rule that negates or removes the Riptide as the "rest of the unit's" target, and I cant find any rules requiring "the rest of the unit" to be a non-zero number.

2. RAI or HIWPI
If a model with TL in a unit 3 can shoot at target B and still charge target A with the rest of his unit, Why would he not be able to do the same on his own?

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Naw wrote:
I would love to see you try to pull out this in an actual game.

A one model unit is just that, a unit with a single model. There is no 1 unit and 1 model, which are somehow separate.

Most of the debates we get into here are not how anyone plays.

There is 1 unit of 1 model. The failure is there is not "rest of unit" to make this work.

You keep saying "the rest of the unit" has to be a non-zero number.
Please support that statement with rules.

I have. And your reply is "I didnt say that." You contradict is quoted above. Cite rules that state a unit can be made of zero models. Pg 3 says that units can be several models, or even a single model. Nothing about zero there. Can you show coherency with zero models? Can you show range and LOS with zero? The list of rules that a "zero model" unit breaks too numerous.

You have no "rest of unit"
You have no range to target
You have no LOS.

Until you address these, your done.

Fragile,
So you would allow them to charge the nominated unit, target A, as long as the firing unit contains two models with Target Locks that they use to fire at target B and C?
After all, the two models did fire at different targets then each other, the 'rest of the unit' as you have put it....

As a curve ball, if the unit of one crisis suit targets a Riptide, uses a TL to shoot a Kroot, it can then still assault a third unit entirely.

Since the 'unit' never actually fired then it is not covered by the prohibition on P20 to charge the unit it targeted.....

Cheers

Andrew

JinxDragon wrote:
Fragile,
So you would allow them to charge the nominated unit, target A, as long as the firing unit contains two models with Target Locks that they use to fire at target B and C?
After all, the two models did fire at different targets then each other, the 'rest of the unit' as you have put it....

Did more than zero models target A? It sounds like no. If the TL models all declared at different targets than A, no model would have been able to legally target A.

Then we are back to this:
Where in the Rules for a legal charge does it state a Model needs to shoot at the target the Unit Nominated?

My questions where raised because the argument present at the time was that a Unit of one Model would not be able to use Target Lock. This was based on the concept that the Target Lock mentions the Model fires at a target different to 'the rest of the unit.' It logically concluded if there was no rest of the unit, then there would be no ability for the model to meet these 'conditions' and therefore would have to fire at the Unit Nominated target. Only there are many situations where there could be a 'rest of the unit' which leads to zero Shots being directed towards the Nominated Target... not all involving Target Locks either.

So if you are changing your point to read that a Model must fire at the Unit Nominated Target for it to be a legal Target, then I would like a page quote to support it.

Fragile wrote:
Cite rules that state a unit can be made of zero models.

Do you actually understand the argument I'm putting forth? Because this statement has literally nothing to do with anything.

You have no "rest of unit"

Irrelevant.

You have no range to target
You have no LOS.

Incorrect. I've shown that I do, in fact, have those when required.

Until you address these, your done.

I have addressed them - in my first post about this in fact.
You're just either not comprehending or refusing to accept.

For what it's worth, there is no hole to rigelds argument. It feels wrong, but is correct raw.

I am so much looking forward to have my models of grav bikers shoot at a target and then my unit of said grav bikers to charge another target I may or may not have nominated previously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The very basic rule of one or more models are creating a unit is lost on many commentators.

You base your whole argument on a false premise.

A unit with one model is a unit that does not contain zero and one models.

Naw wrote:
I am so much looking forward to have my models of grav bikers shoot at a target and then my unit of said grav bikers to charge another target I may or may not have nominated previously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The very basic rule of one or more models are creating a unit is lost on many commentators.

You base your whole argument on a false premise.

A unit with one model is a unit that does not contain zero and one models.

1) What do grav bikers have to do with anything?
2) I think you misunderstand Rigeld's argument entirely.

Naw wrote:
I am so much looking forward to have my models of grav bikers shoot at a target and then my unit of said grav bikers to charge another target I may or may not have nominated previously.

That would be illegal as the Grav Bikers have no permission to do so.

The very basic rule of one or more models are creating a unit is lost on many commentators.

You base your whole argument on a false premise.

A unit with one model is a unit that does not contain zero and one models.

Congratulations on completely missing the point?

I suppose that is my cue to step out.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Naw wrote:
I would love to see you try to pull out this in an actual game.

A one model unit is just that, a unit with a single model. There is no 1 unit and 1 model, which are somehow separate.

Most of the debates we get into here are not how anyone plays.

There is 1 unit of 1 model. The failure is there is not "rest of unit" to make this work.

You keep saying "the rest of the unit" has to be a non-zero number.
Please support that statement with rules.

0 rest of the unit = no rest of the unit

that's what 0 means. If you have 0 of something, it is the same as not having that thing... I think you're the one who needs to cite a rule that allows a 'the rest of the unit' to exist when the number is zero.

chanceafs wrote:
0 rest of the unit = no rest of the unit

that's what 0 means. If you have 0 of something, it is the same as not having that thing... I think you're the one who needs to cite a rule that allows a 'the rest of the unit' to exist when the number is zero.

So you're failing to read and understand the argument as well?
That's cool.

The issue is that after the Target Lock requirement is met, it literally doesn't matter that there's no models completing a shooting attack.
The target is chosen, the TL target is chosen, they're different. Valid activation.
Cite the rule that requires the shooting attack to roll to hit for Target Lock to be valid.

rigeld2 wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
0 rest of the unit = no rest of the unit

that's what 0 means. If you have 0 of something, it is the same as not having that thing... I think you're the one who needs to cite a rule that allows a 'the rest of the unit' to exist when the number is zero.

So you're failing to read and understand the argument as well?
That's cool.

The issue is that after the Target Lock requirement is met, it literally doesn't matter that there's no models completing a shooting attack.
The target is chosen, the TL target is chosen, they're different. Valid activation.
Cite the rule that requires the shooting attack to roll to hit for Target Lock to be valid.

TL requires a different target than the rest of the unit. There is no rest of the unit... thus the activation of TL is not valid. Unless you can show with rules how you can have a 0 sum 'rest of the unit', and that said rest of the unit can still target something when the only model in the unit is clearly targeting something else.

Can you prove that "the rest of the unit" must be 1 or more models?

chanceafs wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
0 rest of the unit = no rest of the unit

that's what 0 means. If you have 0 of something, it is the same as not having that thing... I think you're the one who needs to cite a rule that allows a 'the rest of the unit' to exist when the number is zero.

So you're failing to read and understand the argument as well?
That's cool.

The issue is that after the Target Lock requirement is met, it literally doesn't matter that there's no models completing a shooting attack.
The target is chosen, the TL target is chosen, they're different. Valid activation.
Cite the rule that requires the shooting attack to roll to hit for Target Lock to be valid.

TL requires a different target than the rest of the unit. There is no rest of the unit... thus the activation of TL is not valid. Unless you can show with rules how you can have a 0 sum 'rest of the unit', and that said rest of the unit can still target something when the only model in the unit is clearly targeting something else.

Step 2 of the shooting sequence. I nominate a target.
I trigger TL and nominate a second target.

Find a rule that invalidates the first target. Find a rule that requires me to complete a shooting attack against the first target.
Find a rule that supports your argument. I've cited rules that support mine.

Can you trigger TL without there being a rest of the unit? A prerequisite of TL is there be a rest of the unit, and a prerequisite of there being a unit is 1 or group of model's in it.

Rest of the unit in this context refers to the rest of the models in the unit. Can something which are not models be refereed to as a, or rest of a unit?

 Nem wrote:
Can you trigger TL without there being a rest of the unit? A prerequisite of TL is there be a rest of the unit, and a prerequisite of there being a unit is 1 or group of model's in it.

No, that is not a prerequisite of Target Lock. You've invented that requirement.

I have also pointed out many situations exist where there will be a 'rest of the unit' but no shots are fired at the Unit Nominated Target....

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Can you prove that "the rest of the unit" must be 1 or more models?

We have.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
I have also pointed out many situations exist where there will be a 'rest of the unit' but no shots are fired at the Unit Nominated Target....

You haven't shown where there was a legal target yet.

But Rigeld2 has,
Step 2 involves nominating a target for the Unit.
Therefore a Target has been nominated and it is up to the opposition to provide a restriction alone the lines of 'a Target can only be nominated if Models in the shooting Unit choose to fire at it.'

My post is once more pointing out the flaw in the people who keep claiming that there needs to be a rest of the unit in order to evoke Target Lock and asking if they change their view in situations where this 'condition' can be met....