Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 11:28:27
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
|
Fragile wrote:The same rules that govern any number of special rules that deal damage. Many of those are listed above.
Which require the special rule to inform you what rules to use. Please quote a line in the special rule that tells you which rules to use.
|
ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.
You're not a Time Lord stick with linear time.
Specific Vs General |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 11:39:13
Subject: Re:Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Confessor Of Sins
|
Actually, thanks Nem for making me realise another point against:
"The dice roll needed To Hit will depend on how accurate the firers are, as shown by their Ballistic Skill (or BS)."
"When rolling To Hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll of a 1 always misses."
"If a model is forced to make Snap Shots rather than shoot normally, then its Ballistic Skill is counted as being 1 for the purpose of those shots."
"it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit"
by RaW, "automatically inflicts" would be impossible if it followed the rules of the To Hit phase. Therefore the 3 Lines of Rules quoted above cannot apply when you are using Wall of Death.
And it finally makes sense to me why Auto-Hits override Snap Shots! Lol Grandiose Revelation!
|
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage. Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 11:43:38
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Brainy Zoanthrope
|
say there was a piece of wargear that allowed a unit to use its full balistic skill during overwatch - what would it hit an invisible unit charging in on?
Presumably the debate is similar - are these "snapshots at a different balistic skill" (therefore using full balistic skill to hit the invisible unit) or are these now normal shots, so you need to snap fire aginst the invisible enemy.
Given the arguements I can see that the WoD attaks are valid for overwatch, but they are not snapfire shots, so cannot target the invisible creatures.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 11:49:12
Subject: Re:Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Been Around the Block
|
BlackTalos wrote:We know from novas and other sources that auto-hits circumvent Snap firing.
This is for when we have permission to perform an action that would lead to to-hit rolls, which. in their turn, should be skipped when we auto-hit, as you've said. The problem with this kind of examples is that when it comes to WoD we may or may not have permission to use weapon at all. Whether this is proven wrong or not, auto-hits are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If we can use flamers, we use them as WoD and we all know how WoD plays out. If we cannot, then we never even get to the part when we can try to hit anything and therefore make an appeal to the fact that we are auto-hitting.
extremefreak17 wrote:It would be the same for Jink, firing at fliers, firing at an invisible unit, etc. In fact ill write that example too.
1) Invisibility says snap shots only.
2) Aerial Assault specifically grants Ravagers the ability to fire at full Ballistic Skill.
3) Absent some other wording in Invisibility that overrides Aerial Assault, RAW is clear. You can fire a Ravager at an invisible unit using its full BS and hit it on a 3+.
We know this is false.
My problem with these examples is that they are all about actually shooting, even though we apply (or don't) special rules to override certain general rules that would otherwise change the way we resolve shooting attack. But other than that, it's just undoubtedly a shooting attack, we just make sure we account every relevant rule to make sure we resolve it correctly.
WoD is a bit different. Templates never fire snap shots, and I believe that WoD wording doesn't give us right to say it is equivalent of snap shots for templates. We only know that WoD is used in overwatch. As far as I can remember, overwatch is never stated to equal snap shots, it merely says that shots made during it are resolved as snap shots (for weapons that can fire snap shots).
WoD here is tied to overwatch, but claiming that it has something to do with snap shots seems wrong to me.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong on anything.
If what I believe is correct (or at least not wrong in a direct manner), I think I can argue the following:
- templates never shoot as snap shots;
- they have no special permission to use snap shots during overwatch either and they don't;
- they have permission to perform actions described in WoD rule though.
Now this is the part that makes us return back to first pages of this discussion as there are different options I see here:
1) Templates cannot shoot normally in overwatch due to inability to perform the only way to resolve normal shooting procedures during overwatch which is as snap shots. However, they have specific permission to perform shooting attack (WoD) which overrides general rules of overwatch (namely, that everything fires as snap shots provided it can do so). WoD rule states that said attack must be resolved as delivering 1d3 automatic hits (instead of being resolved using actual template), but otherwise behaves normally.
However, Invisibility bars you from targeting shooting attacks at units affected by this power unless they are snap shots (please let me know if you see subtle difference between what I've just said and what is implied by wording of Invisibility). WoD is not resolved as snap shots, so Invisibility objects to it.
My take is that WoD shooting attack have specific permission to be fired disregarding normal rules of the overwatch that only snap shots can be fired. It doesn't allow you to disregard other reasons that oblige you to fire snap shots or not fire at all, including invisibility.
I see you have an argument here that WoD rule doesn't tell you to disregard restrictions of Overwatch specifically, but instead just giving you permission to perform a shooting attack, in a way WoD rule describes, if unit in general is eligible to make use of overwatch regardless of anything else (this is a stretch IMO, but let's roll with it). You are allowed to do this attack by BRB, yet Invisibility restricts you from performing it (because it's not snap shot) by BRB rules as well. AFAIK, the consensus is that restriction takes precedence over allowance.
Conclusion: you don't use WoD against invisible assaulting units.
2) Same as above, except WoD rule provide a specific permission to inflict automatic hits with S and AP of weapon overwatching model wields which are then resolved as if they were made by shooting. Being neiter shooting attack nor close combat attack, it does not interact with Invisibility in any way.
Conclusion: you can WoD assaulting unit regardless of Invisibility power.
Warning, HYWPI below with no RAW backup.
We need to do a research before coming to a conclusion whether WoD is supposed to be a shooting attack, perhaps. My suggestion is to look up combi-weapon (namely, combi-flamers) rules. Do they count as shooting if used to WoD for the purpose of interacting with One shot rule? Is it specifically stated anywhere that one shot weapon is depleted when it is used as WoD?
I'm pretty sure that most people play it as if answers were yes to first, doesn't matter to second, but since I don't have rules right now, I cannot answer if there's any RAW backing tose decisions.
|
This message was edited 12 times. Last update was at 2014/09/11 12:04:48
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 12:21:20
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Tough Tyrant Guard
|
RFHolloway wrote:say there was a piece of wargear that allowed a unit to use its full balistic skill during overwatch - what would it hit an invisible unit charging in on?
Presumably the debate is similar - are these "snapshots at a different balistic skill" (therefore using full balistic skill to hit the invisible unit) or are these now normal shots, so you need to snap fire aginst the invisible enemy.
Given the arguements I can see that the WoD attaks are valid for overwatch, but they are not snapfire shots, so cannot target the invisible creatures.
See snap shot rules, only rules which effect the BS of Snap shots specifically can be used and still described as a snap shot, EI effecting the BS during overwatch means it would not be a 'snap shot' (Unless chosen to be snap fired, which would put it back at BS1).
Can't recall any rules like that, as far as I know one of the only rules which can change the BS of a snap shot (at any time) is one of the Tau Markerlights.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/09/11 12:25:18
It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.
Tactical objectives are fantastic |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 13:56:57
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Confessor Of Sins
|
Nem wrote: RFHolloway wrote:say there was a piece of wargear that allowed a unit to use its full balistic skill during overwatch - what would it hit an invisible unit charging in on?
Presumably the debate is similar - are these "snapshots at a different balistic skill" (therefore using full balistic skill to hit the invisible unit) or are these now normal shots, so you need to snap fire aginst the invisible enemy.
Given the arguements I can see that the WoD attaks are valid for overwatch, but they are not snapfire shots, so cannot target the invisible creatures.
See snap shot rules, only rules which effect the BS of Snap shots specifically can be used and still described as a snap shot, EI effecting the BS during overwatch means it would not be a 'snap shot' (Unless chosen to be snap fired, which would put it back at BS1).
Can't recall any rules like that, as far as I know one of the only rules which can change the BS of a snap shot (at any time) is one of the Tau Markerlights.
I was about to say Tau might have a special Rule allowing Overwatch at higher BS...
|
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage. Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 14:05:07
Subject: Re:Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Screaming Shining Spear
|
BlackTalos wrote:Sorry if i wind back your train of thought.
extremefreak17 wrote:Right but in order to inflict those D3 hits, you must fire the weapon. Invisibility tells us that you must snap shoot if you are shooting at the invisible unit. WoD is not a Snap Shot, and thus has no permission to shoot.
I would explain this differently.
The Template weapon is not fired. It is intended to fire, which "instead" gives the enemy D3 Auto-Hits.
If the Template was fired, as posted by many, you'd have to place the template, measure ranges, Snap shoot (per Overwatch). All of which we know are impossible.
So when you run through the sequence and "fire the weapon", you suddenly ignore that (no Rolls To Hit, no range measuring) and "instead" inflict D3 Hits.
Can invisibility block/deny D3 auto-hits? I don't think so...
extremefreak17 wrote:Collapse works because it is not shooting. Invisibility only places a restriction on shooting and CC.
I disagree with it not being shooting only on the basis of Ignoring Cover saves.
Same for Reaver Bladevanes or a Mawlocs terror from the Deep.
I will not push this further than "Auto-Hits ignore Snap Shots" because Shooting and CC being the only to exist is an unending Philosophical Debate ( http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/586270.page#6669764)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
extremefreak17 wrote:
Instead is refering to, instead of shooting snap shots. Instead of snap shots, not instead of a normal shooting attack. pretty clear what the subject matter of that quote is.
We agree, instead of Snap Shots, so why would invisibility (Snap Shots) do anything to the rule?
extremefreak17 wrote:D3 auto hits does not mean "not a shooting attack." there is no rules support for that.
You claimed earlier that Terror from the Deep Bladevanes and Collapse are not Shooting or CC, why can Wall of Death not exist like that?
1. Except you are firing the Flamer. I know people are wanting to say it is not a shooting attack because of the lack of template placement etc. but that doesn't change the fact that is uses the rules for shooting to resolve. (rolling to wound, armour saves, moral checks if 25% casualties). Nothing in the WoD rule details the attack as anything different and the over watch rule clearly tells us it is a shooting attack. It may not seem like a "normal" shooting attack to you, but it is at the very least, some type of shooting attack. As above, Overwatch does not care if you are firing a bolter, or using WoD; if you are firing Overwatch, you are making a shooting attack.
2. The reason WoD can be considered a shooting attack is because it is Overwatch, and Overwatch is listed as a shooting attack. Terror from the Deep, Bladevanes, etc are not shooting attacks because there are no rules which list them as such.
3. Because it is saying INSTEAD of snap shots. Not, "WoD counts as a snap shot. "Invisibility requires us to fire snap shots, and because WoD is doing something else (which is what "instead" means) it can't shoot the unit.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/11 14:09:21
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 14:35:31
Subject: Re:Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Deadly Dire Avenger
|
Because it is saying INSTEAD of snap shots. Not, "WoD counts as a snap shot. "Invisibility requires us to fire snap shots, and because WoD is doing something else (which is what "instead" means) it can't shoot the unit.
It doesn't say instead of snap shots, that's your interpretation. I read that "instead of following normal overwatch rules." Witch means, no need to follow normal shooting rules just deal d3 hits and be done with it.
|
I am not a bastard. I am the Bastard and its Mr. Bastard to you! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 14:40:56
Subject: Re:Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Confessor Of Sins
|
extremefreak17 wrote:
1. Except you are firing the Flamer. I know people are wanting to say it is not a shooting attack because of the lack of template placement etc. but that doesn't change the fact that is uses the rules for shooting to resolve. (rolling to wound, armour saves, moral checks if 25% casualties). Nothing in the WoD rule details the attack as anything different and the over watch rule clearly tells us it is a shooting attack. It may not seem like a "normal" shooting attack to you, but it is at the very least, some type of shooting attack. As above, Overwatch does not care if you are firing a bolter, or using WoD; if you are firing Overwatch, you are making a shooting attack.
2. The reason WoD can be considered a shooting attack is because it is Overwatch, and Overwatch is listed as a shooting attack. Terror from the Deep, Bladevanes, etc are not shooting attacks because there are no rules which list them as such.
3. Because it is saying INSTEAD of snap shots. Not, "WoD counts as a snap shot. "Invisibility requires us to fire snap shots, and because WoD is doing something else (which is what "instead" means) it can't shoot the unit.
As humanas says, we are not simply replacing Snap Shots with the WoD. We are replacing an entire part of the shooting phase: (Select target+range+To Hit roll) and move on to To Wound Phase.
You have correctly stated this:
(rolling to wound, armour saves, moral checks if 25% casualties)
Your list does not contain a To Hit roll (or phase). How can you snap shot (a change of BS value) if you have no To Hit roll (which needs to be a 6 and cannot be a 1)?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 16:39:42
Subject: Re:Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Screaming Shining Spear
|
humanas wrote:Because it is saying INSTEAD of snap shots. Not, "WoD counts as a snap shot. "Invisibility requires us to fire snap shots, and because WoD is doing something else (which is what "instead" means) it can't shoot the unit.
It doesn't say instead of snap shots, that's your interpretation. I read that "instead of following normal overwatch rules." Witch means, no need to follow normal shooting rules just deal d3 hits and be done with it.
Basic grammar says otherwise:
"Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits..."
Please explain to me how you are concluding that the "Instead" applies to a subject (shooting attack) which does not even exist in the WoD rule? In fact, the bold portion doesnt even make sense if you view it that way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BlackTalos wrote: extremefreak17 wrote:
1. Except you are firing the Flamer. I know people are wanting to say it is not a shooting attack because of the lack of template placement etc. but that doesn't change the fact that is uses the rules for shooting to resolve. (rolling to wound, armour saves, moral checks if 25% casualties). Nothing in the WoD rule details the attack as anything different and the over watch rule clearly tells us it is a shooting attack. It may not seem like a "normal" shooting attack to you, but it is at the very least, some type of shooting attack. As above, Overwatch does not care if you are firing a bolter, or using WoD; if you are firing Overwatch, you are making a shooting attack.
2. The reason WoD can be considered a shooting attack is because it is Overwatch, and Overwatch is listed as a shooting attack. Terror from the Deep, Bladevanes, etc are not shooting attacks because there are no rules which list them as such.
3. Because it is saying INSTEAD of snap shots. Not, "WoD counts as a snap shot. "Invisibility requires us to fire snap shots, and because WoD is doing something else (which is what "instead" means) it can't shoot the unit.
As humanas says, we are not simply replacing Snap Shots with the WoD. We are replacing an entire part of the shooting phase: (Select target+range+To Hit roll) and move on to To Wound Phase.
You have correctly stated this:
(rolling to wound, armour saves, moral checks if 25% casualties)
Your list does not contain a To Hit roll (or phase). How can you snap shot (a change of BS value) if you have no To Hit roll (which needs to be a 6 and cannot be a 1)?
As above, basic grammar disproves the first portion of your post.
The second part is even easier.
How can you snap shot (a change of BS value) if you have no To Hit roll
You can't. Which is why flamers can never shoot at invisible units.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/11 16:46:31
4000 points: Craftworld Mymeara |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 19:39:15
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
"Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits..."
Is the unit firing overwatch at the invisible unit?
If so, instead of firing snap shots a flamer template will "automatically inflicts D3 hits..." when firing overwatch "even though [Template weapons] cannot fire Snap Shots"
How has this debate gone on so long?
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 20:15:35
Subject: Re:Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus
|
If you're going to start using 'basic grammar' (which you have conveniently not mentioned other parts of the rule) as a defense instead of actual rules.
Then how does Invsibility prevent "Automatic hits" grammatically or by definition?
As for the Instead portion:
Templates can not fire snap shots, Templates can fire overwatch using the LOD rule
Instead of snap shooting (which it can not do) it inflicts D3 automatic hits.
Nothing in the rules of Invisbility prevents this, as a "normal shooting attack" (weapon skill, to hit rolls, placement of template) is being made nor even a normal Overwatch (snap shots) being made.
Wall of Death therefore, can hit Invisbile units if they're being assaulted, and therefore being Overwatched.
"Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits..."
Again you have failed to prove Invsibility disallows Wall of Death, through rules or even 'grammar'
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/11 20:16:23
3000
4000 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 20:20:58
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Screaming Shining Spear
|
DeathReaper wrote:"Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits..."
Is the unit firing overwatch at the invisible unit?
If so, instead of firing snap shots a flamer template will "automatically inflicts D3 hits..." when firing overwatch "even though [Template weapons] cannot fire Snap Shots"
How has this debate gone on so long?
Because there are two separate restrictions. WoD is a specific exception to restriction given by Overwatch, and only Overwatch. It is not an exception to the restriction set in place by Invisibility. I have debunked this line of thought with a few examples now. I will post them again.
So by this logic
1) Crew Shaken says snap shots only.
2) Aerial Assault specifically grants Ravagers the ability to fire at full Ballistic Skill.
3) Absent some other wording in Crew Shaken that overrides Aerial Assault, RAW is clear. You can fire a shaken ravager at full BS and thus all 3 weapons will hit on a 3+.
It would be the same for Jink, firing at fliers, firing at an invisible unit, etc. In fact ill write that example too.
1) Invisibility says snap shots only.
2) Aerial Assault specifically grants Ravagers the ability to fire at full Ballistic Skill.
3) Absent some other wording in Invisibility that overrides Aerial Assault, RAW is clear. You can fire a Ravager at an invisible unit using its full BS and hit it on a 3+.
We know this is false.
I'll even go further and re-structure the second example to match your post.
Is the Ravager firing at the invisible unit?
If so, as long as the Ravager has moved Cruising Speed, it fires all of its weapons at full BS "A Ravager that moved at cruising speed may fire all of its weapons using its crew's full Ballistic Skill."
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/11 20:21:29
4000 points: Craftworld Mymeara |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 20:23:37
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus
|
Posting irrelevant Ravager rules does not an argument make.
Please post actual rules regarding Invisbility and Wall of Death, in which Invsibility negates Wall of Death, as written, in the rulebook.
You havent debunked anything
|
3000
4000 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 20:26:08
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Does invisibility restrict auto hits from hitting it? No. So WOD works.
|
In a dog eat dog be a cat. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 20:37:14
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
|
Per invisibility you cannot fire any weapon at an invisible unit unless you fire it as a Snap Shot. You can never fire a template weapon as a Snap Shot therefor you cannot WoD. Auto hits are irrelevant.
|
ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.
You're not a Time Lord stick with linear time.
Specific Vs General |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 20:42:22
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
extremefreak17 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:"Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits..."
Is the unit firing overwatch at the invisible unit?
If so, instead of firing snap shots a flamer template will "automatically inflicts D3 hits..." when firing overwatch "even though [Template weapons] cannot fire Snap Shots"
How has this debate gone on so long?
Because there are two separate restrictions. WoD is a specific exception to restriction given by Overwatch, and only Overwatch. It is not an exception to the restriction set in place by Invisibility. I have debunked this line of thought with a few examples now. I will post them again.
Which of course do not matter with overwatch shots because overwatch can only be fired as snap shots. and we know template weapons can not fire snap shots, instead they do WoD. so when overwatching against an invisible unit you use WoD as WoD is more specific than invis.
WoD gets around all snap shot restrictions on overwatch becayse WoD is the more specific rule.
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 20:42:54
Subject: Re:Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Screaming Shining Spear
|
WrentheFaceless wrote:If you're going to start using 'basic grammar' (which you have conveniently not mentioned other parts of the rule) as a defense instead of actual rules.
Then how does Invsibility prevent "Automatic hits" grammatically or by definition?
As for the Instead portion:
Templates can not fire snap shots, Templates can fire overwatch using the LOD rule
Instead of snap shooting (which it can not do) it inflicts D3 automatic hits.
Nothing in the rules of Invisbility prevents this, as a "normal shooting attack" (weapon skill, to hit rolls, placement of template) is being made nor even a normal Overwatch (snap shots) being made.
Wall of Death therefore, can hit Invisbile units if they're being assaulted, and therefore being Overwatched.
"Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits..."
Again you have failed to prove Invsibility disallows Wall of Death, through rules or even 'grammar'
I have proven that many times. Read the rule for invisibility. It Disallows ANYTHING that is not a snap shot.
"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..."
Invisibility does not care if it is a "normal" shooting attack. Invisibility does not care if it is a "normal" Overwatch. I just asks you one question. Are you firing at the Invisible unit? The answer is yes. You fire Overwatch.
Overwatch: "Overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attack.."
We FIRE weapons in shooting attacks.
WoD: "Template weapons can FIRE overwatch..."
Again, we FIRE the weapon as per WoD
Invisibility: "...enemy units can only FIRE Snap Shots at the target unit..."
Pretty clear.
If you fire at an Invisible unit, you are restricted to snap shots. Period. Without a SPECIFIC exception, there is no way around this. WoD has no such exception.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/11 20:44:18
4000 points: Craftworld Mymeara |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 20:43:44
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus
|
Gravmyr wrote:Per invisibility you cannot fire any weapon at an invisible unit unless you fire it as a Snap Shot. You can never fire a template weapon as a Snap Shot therefor you cannot WoD. Auto hits are irrelevant.
They're completely relevant, if WoD required placing the template then you might have an argument that you cant WoD an Invsibile unit, but you dont. The rule generates D3 automatic hits, Invisbility does not prevent this, unless you can provide a rule that Invisbile units can not be hit by special rules that generate automatic hits.
extremefreak17 wrote:
I have proven that many times. Read the rule for invisibility. It Disallows ANYTHING that is not a snap shot.
"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..."
Invisibility does not care if it is a "normal" shooting attack. Invisibility does not care if it is a "normal" Overwatch. I just asks you one question. Are you firing at the Invisible unit? The answer is yes. You fire Overwatch.
Overwatch: "Overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attack.."
We FIRE weapons in shooting attacks.
WoD: "Template weapons can FIRE overwatch..."
Again, we FIRE the weapon as per WoD
Invisibility: "...enemy units can only FIRE Snap Shots at the target unit..."
Pretty clear.
Again, you have proven nothing except failure to read the rules as written.
Page/paragraph that Invisbility Disallows ANYTHING that is not a snap shot. , otherwise it would not only be able to not be hit by Psychic powers, it couldnt even be hit by blasts drifting on to it, which we know isnt true
extremefreak17 wrote:
If you fire at an Invisible unit, you are restricted to snap shots. Period. Without a SPECIFIC exception, there is no way around this. WoD has no such exception.
WoD has a specific exception, you just refuse to read the rules as is. The WoD rule itself is the exception, key words "Instead" key words, "Automatic hits"
Other abilities have proven that Automatic Hits can bypass invisbility, unless you're now going to argue that Nova powers cant hit invisbile units either, which we know is false.
Again you have proven nothing except for an ability to not read the rules as written. WoD has specific permission to overwatch, the fact the unit is Invisbile is irrelevant, per the rules of overwatch you have to snapshot, per the rules of invisbility you have to snap shot, Invisbility is superfluous to the rules of Overwatch.
You have failed to prove that Invisbile units being overwatched get stacking Snap Shot requirements.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/11 20:50:58
3000
4000 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 20:45:33
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
|
This is exactly like a drop pod dropping SM's and them not being able to charge. There are two restrictions and you only have permission to charge for one. They still cannot charge. Automatically Appended Next Post: WrentheFaceless wrote:
They're completely relevant, if WoD required placing the template then you might have an argument that you cant WoD an Invsibile unit, but you dont. The rule generates D3 automatic hits, Invisbility does not prevent this, unless you can provide a rule that Invisbile units can not be hit by special rules that generate automatic hits.
The rules you have quoted even say you are firing. Therefor you are firing the weapon. You can't even choose to fire a weapon that cannot be snap shot.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/11 20:47:05
ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.
You're not a Time Lord stick with linear time.
Specific Vs General |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 20:49:16
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Screaming Shining Spear
|
WrentheFaceless wrote:Gravmyr wrote:Per invisibility you cannot fire any weapon at an invisible unit unless you fire it as a Snap Shot. You can never fire a template weapon as a Snap Shot therefor you cannot WoD. Auto hits are irrelevant.
They're completely relevant, if WoD required placing the template then you might have an argument that you cant WoD an Invsibile unit, but you dont. The rule generates D3 automatic hits, Invisbility does not prevent this, unless you can provide a rule that Invisbile units can not be hit by special rules that generate automatic hits.
As we have told you many times, you don't even have permission to generate those hits in the first place. Generating those D3 hits is how a temple weapon fires Overwatch. its not the auto hits Invisibility denies, its the firing of non-snapshots that it denies. D3 auto hits are NOT Snap shots.
Edit: Read my last post before this one. It goes into greater detail.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/11 20:50:49
4000 points: Craftworld Mymeara |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 20:52:46
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus
|
extremefreak17 wrote: WrentheFaceless wrote:Gravmyr wrote:Per invisibility you cannot fire any weapon at an invisible unit unless you fire it as a Snap Shot. You can never fire a template weapon as a Snap Shot therefor you cannot WoD. Auto hits are irrelevant.
They're completely relevant, if WoD required placing the template then you might have an argument that you cant WoD an Invsibile unit, but you dont. The rule generates D3 automatic hits, Invisbility does not prevent this, unless you can provide a rule that Invisbile units can not be hit by special rules that generate automatic hits.
As we have told you many times, you don't even have permission to generate those hits in the first place. Generating those D3 hits is how a temple weapon fires Overwatch. its not the auto hits Invisibility denies, its the firing of non-snapshots that it denies. D3 auto hits are NOT Snap shots.
Edit: Read my last post before this one. It goes into greater detail.
Yes, you do Wall of Death gives you permission.
Repeating an incorrect statement doesnt make it true, you have failed to prove Invisbility prevents Wall of Death. If it were 'clear", this thread wouldnt exist now would it?
|
3000
4000 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 21:06:00
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Screaming Shining Spear
|
WrentheFaceless wrote: extremefreak17 wrote: WrentheFaceless wrote:Gravmyr wrote:Per invisibility you cannot fire any weapon at an invisible unit unless you fire it as a Snap Shot. You can never fire a template weapon as a Snap Shot therefor you cannot WoD. Auto hits are irrelevant.
They're completely relevant, if WoD required placing the template then you might have an argument that you cant WoD an Invsibile unit, but you dont. The rule generates D3 automatic hits, Invisbility does not prevent this, unless you can provide a rule that Invisbile units can not be hit by special rules that generate automatic hits.
As we have told you many times, you don't even have permission to generate those hits in the first place. Generating those D3 hits is how a temple weapon fires Overwatch. its not the auto hits Invisibility denies, its the firing of non-snapshots that it denies. D3 auto hits are NOT Snap shots.
Edit: Read my last post before this one. It goes into greater detail.
Yes, you do Wall of Death gives you permission.
Repeating an incorrect statement doesnt make it true, you have failed to prove Invisbility prevents Wall of Death. If it were 'clear", this thread wouldnt exist now would it?
Please give me the page number where WoD SPECIFICALLY says it can fire at invisible units without having to snap shoot. Again it needs to be a specific.
|
4000 points: Craftworld Mymeara |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 21:09:06
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus
|
extremefreak17 wrote: WrentheFaceless wrote: extremefreak17 wrote: WrentheFaceless wrote:Gravmyr wrote:Per invisibility you cannot fire any weapon at an invisible unit unless you fire it as a Snap Shot. You can never fire a template weapon as a Snap Shot therefor you cannot WoD. Auto hits are irrelevant.
They're completely relevant, if WoD required placing the template then you might have an argument that you cant WoD an Invsibile unit, but you dont. The rule generates D3 automatic hits, Invisbility does not prevent this, unless you can provide a rule that Invisbile units can not be hit by special rules that generate automatic hits.
As we have told you many times, you don't even have permission to generate those hits in the first place. Generating those D3 hits is how a temple weapon fires Overwatch. its not the auto hits Invisibility denies, its the firing of non-snapshots that it denies. D3 auto hits are NOT Snap shots.
Edit: Read my last post before this one. It goes into greater detail.
Yes, you do Wall of Death gives you permission.
Repeating an incorrect statement doesnt make it true, you have failed to prove Invisbility prevents Wall of Death. If it were 'clear", this thread wouldnt exist now would it?
Please give me the page number where WoD SPECIFICALLY says it can fire at invisible units without having to snap shoot. Again it needs to be a specific.
Wall of Death rule, automatic hits can hit Invisbile units. Wall of death is not firing a template 'normally' its firing it per the wall of death rule and generating automatic hits
Read the rule.
|
3000
4000 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 21:12:45
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
|
What in the Invisibility power says you need to fire normally?
|
ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.
You're not a Time Lord stick with linear time.
Specific Vs General |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 21:15:44
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus
|
Gravmyr wrote:What in the Invisibility power says you need to fire normally?
Please post a rule/page paragraph, that states WoD is a Template weapon 'firing normally"
|
3000
4000 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 21:17:51
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
|
You are the one using normally.
|
ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.
You're not a Time Lord stick with linear time.
Specific Vs General |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 21:21:23
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Screaming Shining Spear
|
extremefreak17 wrote: WrentheFaceless wrote: extremefreak17 wrote: WrentheFaceless wrote:Gravmyr wrote:Per invisibility you cannot fire any weapon at an invisible unit unless you fire it as a Snap Shot. You can never fire a template weapon as a Snap Shot therefor you cannot WoD. Auto hits are irrelevant.
They're completely relevant, if WoD required placing the template then you might have an argument that you cant WoD an Invsibile unit, but you dont. The rule generates D3 automatic hits, Invisbility does not prevent this, unless you can provide a rule that Invisbile units can not be hit by special rules that generate automatic hits.
As we have told you many times, you don't even have permission to generate those hits in the first place. Generating those D3 hits is how a temple weapon fires Overwatch. its not the auto hits Invisibility denies, its the firing of non-snapshots that it denies. D3 auto hits are NOT Snap shots.
Edit: Read my last post before this one. It goes into greater detail.
Yes, you do Wall of Death gives you permission.
Repeating an incorrect statement doesnt make it true, you have failed to prove Invisbility prevents Wall of Death. If it were 'clear", this thread wouldnt exist now would it?
It is not incorrect. It is the rules. Look I didn't write the rules, and I can understand your want for Invisibility to not be as OP as it is. But, seriously your arguments are nonsensical at this point.
Please give me the page number where WoD SPECIFICALLY says it can fire at invisible units without having to snap shoot. Again it needs to be a specific.
Barring this, you would have to prove that WoD is either not attacking the invisible unit, or not firing.
Overwatch: "As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units, that unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker..."
This proves that the target is the charging (and in this case Invisible) unit.
WoD: "Template weapons can FIRE overwatch..."
This proves that WoD is FIRING.
I have proven, using relevant rules quotes, that WoD is indeed FIRING a weapon, and that the target is the invisible unit.
Invisibility: "...enemy units can only FIRE Snap Shots at the target unit..."
This shows that our flamer weapon, which we now know is FIRING at an Invisible unit, is restricted to snap shots. WoD is not a snap shot, and thus has no permission to fire.
There is no requirement to fire "normally." Only to fire. Give it up.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/11 21:23:31
4000 points: Craftworld Mymeara |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 21:32:29
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus
|
WoD grants permission for a template weapon to fire overwatch.
WoD generates D3 automatic hits
Nothing in Invsibility disallows generation of automatic hits.
Nothing in Invisbility allows a template weapon to invoke the rules of Wall of Death when being assaulted and Overwatch is declared.
Again WoD is a special rule which allows this, by the mere fact that the unit is assaulting and Overwatch is being declared
WoD gives the weapon permission to inflict D3 hits, as its rule states.
Nothing in Invsibility prevents this.
Invisbility does not provide snap shot protection as snap shots are already required for Overwatch to even happen in the first place, the unit has to snapshot regardless of invsibility or not, and WoD allows templates to Overwatch.
And I'm done with this thread, you have failed to prove Invisbility disallows Wall of Death. And the OP got their answer that they're going to use long ago.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/09/11 21:37:25
3000
4000 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/11 21:44:36
Subject: Invisibility and wall of death
|
 |
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
|
You are missing the point. WoD only gets around a single limitation, that of requiring snap shots in Overwatch. It does not say you can WoD to get around firing snap shots just gives you permission to fire the template in Overwatch. I assume then that you allow Sm's to charge out of Drop pods as assault vehicles give you permission to charge even though coming in from reserve limits it.....
|
ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.
You're not a Time Lord stick with linear time.
Specific Vs General |
|
 |
 |
|