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.

The second line of Invisibility states, "enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..." It doesn't have to address Overwatch separately as the above says all shots from the enemy have to be snap shots.

Gravmyr wrote:
I also notice you avoided answering if you allowed SM's to charge out of a drop pod.

I didn't even see that posed as a question.

Not that assaulting out of a drop pod has any bearing on Overwatch and Wall of Death so it is irrelevant.

You have two restrictions in both cases and permission to bypass one of those restrictions in each. You couldn't charge because the restriction from coming in from reserve still existed. You can't fire WoD because the restriction on firing only Snap Shots still exists from Invisibility.

Gravmyr wrote:
The second line of Invisibility states, "enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..." It doesn't have to address Overwatch separately as the above says all shots from the enemy have to be snap shots.

Can anyone point out where Wall of Death is a shooting attack or any kind of "shot" at all? If you can't find that explicit rule I think you need to just go with what Wall of Death says, which is: "Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved at its normal Strength and AP value. "

Fires is not shoots, RAW, and if you want to play RAW va RAI, I don't think you get to play both sides in the same argument... Fluffwise, I don't have to see you to see your footsteps in the dirt or the grass parting before you, hear the flap of wings or whatever.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
I also notice you avoided answering if you allowed SM's to charge out of a drop pod.

I didn't even see that posed as a question.

Not that assaulting out of a drop pod has any bearing on Overwatch and Wall of Death so it is irrelevant.

It does have bearing. in this case the way in which you come to your conclusion has nearly as much value as the conclusion itself. Consistency is the easiest measure of a good ruling. So are you consistent in your rulings?

Either way yno one is taking this into account.

A) WoD is a permission.
B) Invisibility is a restriction.
C)Restrictions trump permissions unless there is a very specific exception.

This thread is now 9 pages long. I could probably fill this thread with another 9 pages of broken rule interactions if the above were not true. Permissive rule set people.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
The second line of Invisibility states, "enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..." It doesn't have to address Overwatch separately as the above says all shots from the enemy have to be snap shots.

Can anyone point out where Wall of Death is a shooting attack or any kind of "shot" at all? If you can't find that explicit rule I think you need to just go with what Wall of Death says, which is: "Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved at its normal Strength and AP value. "

Fires is not shoots, RAW, and if you want to play RAW va RAI, I don't think you get to play both sides in the same argument... Fluffwise, I don't have to see you to see your footsteps in the dirt or the grass parting before you, hear the flap of wings or whatever.

Invisibility does not require "shooting", just firing...its right above your post, you just re-quoted it...
"...enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..."
I have posted this point maybe 5 times now.

I have posted this point maybe 5 times now.

Which means this thread should be locked as it is going nowhere.

 extremefreak17 wrote:
Invisibility does not require "shooting", just firing...its right above your post, you just re-quoted it...
"...enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..."
I have posted this point maybe 5 times now.

1) Where does in the book does it say Wall of Death is a shooting attack or a close combat attack vs a non-specific thing that happens under certain conditions?

2) Blasts can't be fired as snap shots, but they can scatter. Are invisible units immune to hits from blast template that scatters onto them in your opinion?

3) Since an invisible unit cannot be hit except by a snap shot or a 6 to hit, do you think they are immune to titan stomps too?

Points 2 and 3 are game breaking enough, but if you are perversely invested in it enough to exhaust the pool of people who willingly play you, possible by RAW.

For point #1 I think you need to quote or concede.

Either way, 40k 7th has its purple sun.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

1) Where does in the book does it say Wall of Death is a shooting attack or a close combat attack vs a non-specific thing that happens under certain conditions?

2) Blasts can't be fired as snap shots, but they can scatter. Are invisible units immune to hits from blast template that scatters onto them in your opinion?

3) Since an invisible unit cannot be hit except by a snap shot or a 6 to hit, do you think they are immune to titan stomps too?

1 If it is not a shooting attack or CC attack what rules are you using to move wounds from the wound pool to the models? Since there are no rules in the WoD for how you do it then it has to be one or the other or you have no RAW way of doing so and have to come up with houserules to do so.

2 If they are hit by a blast that scatters were they fired at?

3 Invisibility does not say units cannot be hit except by snap shots it says you cannot fire at them except for snap shots. Raw they are immune to results 2-5 of the superheavy walker rules as the to hit roll is not a 6. Silly, yes. Houseruled with my group, yes. Raw, how it works.

Gravmyr wrote:

1 If it is not a shooting attack or CC attack what rules are you using to move wounds from the wound pool to the models? Since there are no rules in the WoD for how you do it then it has to be one or the other or you have no RAW way of doing so and have to come up with houserules to do so.

The WoD rule that says it suffers d3 hits wound pool, which is a cousin of the failed dangerous terrain tests wound pool per model I imagine.

Gravmyr wrote:

2 If they are hit by a blast that scatters were they fired at?

If you hit me, did you target me? There's a whole thread on can you jink if a scatter hits you which I don't think we need to weave in here. HIWPI is the scatter onto them counts as a six, but there's no clear cut RAW on that.

Gravmyr wrote:

3 Invisibility does not say units cannot be hit except by snap shots it says you cannot fire at them except for snap shots. Raw they are immune to results 2-5 of the superheavy walker rules as the to hit roll is not a 6. Silly, yes. Houseruled with my group, yes. Raw, how it works.

Invisibility says no such thing. This is contentious enough without making up rules. It says "enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit", nothing about hits. Wall of Death doesn't say it is or is not a snap shot, it just says d3 hits, similar to vector strike or DE bladevanes I imagine - or do you think invisible units are immune to those too?


For everyone who is tired of invisibility and RAW arguments (why are still you reading this thread?) , I've got a bone to toss you. Read the last clause of Invisibility - it says "in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6." Not that "the targetted unit will only hit on models in it on a 6."

If you want broken level immunity to shooting and such, no where in that, RAW, does it say that the non-invisible unit is the one who only hits on a 6 in CC. It is "obvious" that the writers wanted the invisible unit to be able to hide, and balanced it by making them unable to hit their targets too, by RAW. "in it" can refer to the combat, not just the targetted unit. I think these are both tortured positions and equally valid.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:

1 If it is not a shooting attack or CC attack what rules are you using to move wounds from the wound pool to the models? Since there are no rules in the WoD for how you do it then it has to be one or the other or you have no RAW way of doing so and have to come up with houserules to do so.

The WoD rule that says it suffers d3 hits wound pool, which is a cousin of the failed dangerous terrain tests wound pool per model I imagine.

Gravmyr wrote:

2 If they are hit by a blast that scatters were they fired at?

If you hit me, did you target me? There's a whole thread on can you jink if a scatter hits you which I don't think we need to weave in here. HIWPI is the scatter onto them counts as a six, but there's no clear cut RAW on that.

Gravmyr wrote:

3 Invisibility does not say units cannot be hit except by snap shots it says you cannot fire at them except for snap shots. Raw they are immune to results 2-5 of the superheavy walker rules as the to hit roll is not a 6. Silly, yes. Houseruled with my group, yes. Raw, how it works.

Invisibility says no such thing. This is contentious enough without making up rules. It says "enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit", nothing about hits. Wall of Death doesn't say it is or is not a snap shot, it just says d3 hits, similar to vector strike or DE bladevanes I imagine - or do you think invisible units are immune to those too?


For everyone who is tired of invisibility and RAW arguments (why are still you reading this thread?) , I've got a bone to toss you. Read the last clause of Invisibility - it says "in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6." Not that "the targetted unit will only hit on models in it on a 6."

If you want broken level immunity to shooting and such, no where in that, RAW, does it say that the non-invisible unit is the one who only hits on a 6 in CC. It is "obvious" that the writers wanted the invisible unit to be able to hide, and balanced it by making them unable to hit their targets too, by RAW. "in it" can refer to the combat, not just the targetted unit. I think these are both tortured positions and equally valid.

Stop. Just stop. Read the thread before you post things that have been long debunked.

similar to vector strike or DE bladevanes I imagine - or do you think invisible units are immune to those too?

These only work on invisible units because they are not FIRING anything at the unit.

From the WoD rule.
"Template weapons can FIRE Overwatch..."

WoD is clearly FIRING at the unit.

From the Invis rule:
"...enemy units can only FIRE snap shots..."

"Normal" shooting is not required here. FIRING at the invisible unit is all that is required for the restriction to take place.

Don't even get me started on your "targeting" nonsense. Read the rule more carefully, and in its full. The "targeted unit" is not referring to the target of the shooting, it is referring to the target of the power. Pretty much every other blessing that can target a separate unit has the same wording.


Again, please read the thread, and all relevant rules before posting bad information.

 extremefreak17 wrote:

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:

1 If it is not a shooting attack or CC attack what rules are you using to move wounds from the wound pool to the models? Since there are no rules in the WoD for how you do it then it has to be one or the other or you have no RAW way of doing so and have to come up with houserules to do so.

The WoD rule that says it suffers d3 hits wound pool, which is a cousin of the failed dangerous terrain tests wound pool per model I imagine.

Gravmyr wrote:

2 If they are hit by a blast that scatters were they fired at?

If you hit me, did you target me? There's a whole thread on can you jink if a scatter hits you which I don't think we need to weave in here. HIWPI is the scatter onto them counts as a six, but there's no clear cut RAW on that.

Gravmyr wrote:

3 Invisibility does not say units cannot be hit except by snap shots it says you cannot fire at them except for snap shots. Raw they are immune to results 2-5 of the superheavy walker rules as the to hit roll is not a 6. Silly, yes. Houseruled with my group, yes. Raw, how it works.

Invisibility says no such thing. This is contentious enough without making up rules. It says "enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit", nothing about hits. Wall of Death doesn't say it is or is not a snap shot, it just says d3 hits, similar to vector strike or DE bladevanes I imagine - or do you think invisible units are immune to those too?


For everyone who is tired of invisibility and RAW arguments (why are still you reading this thread?) , I've got a bone to toss you. Read the last clause of Invisibility - it says "in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6." Not that "the targetted unit will only hit on models in it on a 6."

If you want broken level immunity to shooting and such, no where in that, RAW, does it say that the non-invisible unit is the one who only hits on a 6 in CC. It is "obvious" that the writers wanted the invisible unit to be able to hide, and balanced it by making them unable to hit their targets too, by RAW. "in it" can refer to the combat, not just the targetted unit. I think these are both tortured positions and equally valid.

Stop. Just stop. Read the thread before you post things that have been long debunked.

similar to vector strike or DE bladevanes I imagine - or do you think invisible units are immune to those too?

These only work on invisible units because they are not FIRING anything at the unit.

From the WoD rule.
"Template weapons can FIRE Overwatch..."

WoD is clearly FIRING at the unit.

From the Invis rule:
"...enemy units can only FIRE snap shots..."

"Normal" shooting is not required here. FIRING at the invisible unit is all that is required for the restriction to take place.

Don't even get me started on your "targeting" nonsense. Read the rule more carefully, and in its full. The "targeted unit" is not referring to the target of the shooting, it is referring to the target of the power. Pretty much every other blessing that can target a separate unit has the same wording.


Again, please read the thread, and all relevant rules before posting bad information.

What makes it bad? I've seen convincing arguments on both sides of this thread. While I personally think WoD does hit Invisible units, I don't think it's fair to offhandly waive away another person's claims just because they disagree.

I just pointed out how your "views" have no basis in the rules. Look at the quotes, they spell it out pretty clearly.

First, they're not just my views, pretty sure half of this thread disagrees with you. Second, if it's SO CLEAR, why is the thread still going and no one can come to an agreement?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Then how does Invsibility prevent "Automatic hits" grammatically or by definition?

By not allowing weapon to be used at all. As you've said yourself, WoD allows you to shoot auto-hitting shots instead of firing snap shots, thus preventing you from opening fire at Invisible attackers since they can only be targeted by snap shots. Unless WoD is strictly not a shooting attack, it won't work.

Lungpickle wrote:
Does invisibility restrict auto hits from hitting it? No. So WOD works.

Please, read entire thread. Invisibility doesn't prevent auto-hits from being applied, argument is that shots are never fired.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
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.

Invisibility never prevents hits, it prevents unit from being targeted by shooting attack that isn't snap shot, this is why Invisibility has no bearing on drifting blasts. Please, do not confuse acts of firing a weapon at a target and hitting with a weapon, those are separate actions.

 DeathReaper wrote:
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.

Why is it more specific? All I see is two special rules from the same BRB, one of them being permission, another being restriction, the latter wins.

 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 fact that you don't fire weapon that is normally template weapon doesn't mean you don't fire a shooting attack. It may be considered alternate firing mode provided by WoD rule, but it's still shooting attack unless you have more arguments.

On a side note, what you argue means that you can use combi-flamer to WoD every turn even though it's One Shot because by your logic weapon is never fired. Is it how you play it?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
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.

Again, not firing a weapon as S* AP* Template doesn't mean not firing a weapon at all.

As to automatic hits, yes, Invisible units do get hit with anything normally. But before you can calculate hits (which you will automatically as per WoD rule), you need to be able to soot at invisible unit in the first place. Since my argument is that WoD is likely a shooting attack and is not a snap shot, you cannot fire it at invisible unit.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
...snap shots are already required for Overwatch to even happen in the first place...

This is why you cannot understand our argument - you get basic mech wrong.
Snap shots aren't required for Overwatch to happen. Overwatch requires declaration. Only then you face the restriction that only Snap Shots can be fired during overwatch. WoD special rule provides an exception to that, allowing to fire what isn't snap shot. Which is exactly the reason you cannot fire it against invisible units as they can only be targeted by snap shots for reasons irrelevant to overwatch rules. In order to convince me otherwise you need to show me why WoD is not a shooting attack, but keep in mind that mere fact that you don't fire template weapon as template doesn't mean that weapon doesn't fire at all.
I'm on a fence here because even though it's entirely possible, it also allows for various abuses that show that it isn't what was intended, example above. That said, rules as intended aren't RAW, so I'm all ears.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
Can anyone point out where Wall of Death is a shooting attack or any kind of "shot" at all? If you can't find that explicit rule I think you need to just go with what Wall of Death says, which is: "Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved at its normal Strength and AP value."

You, sir, are correct, that is exactly the question. But see bolded in your post, isn't it an indication of sorts?

Nvm double post.

 jreilly89 wrote:
First, they're not just my views, pretty sure half of this thread disagrees with you. Second, if it's SO CLEAR, why is the thread still going and no one can come to an agreement?

Lack of basic understanding in the fields of English grammar and principles of a permissive rule set.

The grammar in the relevant rules can only be correctly read one way. The same goes for the interaction between the permissions and restrictions discussed. Would you like several specific examples of why your "half of the thread's" views would invalidate almost every interaction of special rules in the game? I can provide these if necessary.

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
I also notice you avoided answering if you allowed SM's to charge out of a drop pod.

I didn't even see that posed as a question.

Not that assaulting out of a drop pod has any bearing on Overwatch and Wall of Death so it is irrelevant.

It does have bearing. in this case the way

No it really has no bearing.

SM's charging out of a drop pod has nothing at all in common with snap shots via Overwatch...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Blog - before you get to automatically hit, you MUST have fired as a snapshot.

Is WoD a snapshot? No need for WoText, just a yes of no.

Instead of a long-winding argument, this is basically the premise "against".

Is a scattered Blast a Snap Shot?
Is a Terror from the Deep (Mawloc) a Snap Shot?
Is a Death Ray (fired at another unit, but clipping them) a Snap Shot?
Is a Total Collapse a Snap Shot?

We can both agree that the answer to those 4 and your first is: No, none of them are a snap shot. (You can't fire Blasts or Death Rays as Snap Shots, nor ever can Templates)

Crux Question:
For all 5 of the above situations, is the Unit involved (Invisible) immune to Hits generated?

I also require a simple Yes/No, just as i replied "No" to Nosferatu's simple break down of the "against" position.

 BlackTalos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Blog - before you get to automatically hit, you MUST have fired as a snapshot.

Is WoD a snapshot? No need for WoText, just a yes of no.

Instead of a long-winding argument, this is basically the premise "against".

Is a scattered Blast a Snap Shot?
Is a Terror from the Deep (Mawloc) a Snap Shot?
Is a Death Ray (fired at another unit, but clipping them) a Snap Shot?
Is a Total Collapse a Snap Shot?

We can both agree that the answer to those 4 and your first is: No, none of them are a snap shot. (You can't fire Blasts or Death Rays as Snap Shots, nor ever can Templates)

Crux Question:
For all 5 of the above situations, is the Unit involved (Invisible) immune to Hits generated?

I also require a simple Yes/No, just as i replied "No" to Nosferatu's simple break down of the "against" position.

Why did you add Death rays to this, While Invis tells you can to only snap shot at it should you target it, Death ray is a beam and does not target a unit, yet causes automatic hits based on models that fall over the death ray line after the distance has been rolled. Invis does not confer (Hard to Hit) and thus beam weapons completely ignore Invis.

Gravmyr wrote:
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.....

Overwatch prevents firing a template weapon because it also makes you snap shot. Two sources of snap shots doesn't make you snap fire twice, its a redundancy. Just like getting the same special rule twice doesn't let you use it twice. WoD lets you fire regardless of snap fires, not regardless of overwatching.

 BLADERIKER wrote:

Why did you add Death rays to this, While Invis tells you can to only snap shot at it should you target it, Death ray is a beam and does not target a unit, yet causes automatic hits based on models that fall over the death ray line after the distance has been rolled. Invis does not confer (Hard to Hit) and thus beam weapons completely ignore Invis.

Because the 4 other examples above work in the exact same fashion. Let me Add some RaW, just in case you would disagree:

"each unit suffers one hit for each of their models (...) beneath the blast marker"
"the occupying unit suffers 2D6 Strength 6 AP- hits with the Ignores Cover special rule"
"it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved at its normal Strength and AP value"
"All units (...) suffer a number of Strength 6 AP2 Hits with the Ignores Cover special Rule"

Invisibility applies a general rule to the models ("Snap Shots" is a general rule). WoD specifically states that it fires instead of Snap Shots when firing Overwatch.

Is WoD firing during Overwatch? yes
Does it ignore the rules for Snap Shots? yes
Does Invisibility stop special rules from working that specifically ignore Snap Shots? no

Saying that WoD only applies to "Overwatch Snap Shots" but not "Invisibility Snap Shots" is inventing new rules. Snap Shots are Snap Shots no matter where it comes from. It's a general rule that can be ignored by special rules like WoD.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The other argument I've seen on this thread is that a flamer can't be selected for Overwatch because it can't target the Invisible unit due to Snap Shots. If that were the case then not even WoD would work because you have to select a flamer to fire in Overwatch before WoD rule triggers.

Zimko wrote:
Invisibility applies a general rule to the models ("Snap Shots" is a general rule). WoD specifically states that it fires instead of Snap Shots when firing Overwatch.

Is WoD firing during Overwatch? yes
Does it ignore the rules for Snap Shots? yes
Does Invisibility stop special rules from working that specifically ignore Snap Shots? no

Saying that WoD only applies to "Overwatch Snap Shots" but not "Invisibility Snap Shots" is inventing new rules. Snap Shots are Snap Shots no matter where it comes from. It's a general rule that can be ignored by special rules like WoD.

I understand your position and I agree that Snap Shots are Snap Shots, however I believe that flamers never actually fire snap shots. Normally it's because templates can't snap shoot, but I also believe that WoD isn't snap shooting either.

Yes, WoD mentions that flamers don't fire snap shots, instead firing in a described way, but IMO this doesn't affect how rule plays out. We already know that templates don't snap shoot, and this reminder doesn't change that. I believe the way WoD is worded doesn't allow us to imply that flamer is considered as firing snap shots when using WoD rule, not to mention that what follows definitely isn't resolved as snap shots either.

Zimko wrote:
The other argument I've seen on this thread is that a flamer can't be selected for Overwatch because it can't target the Invisible unit due to Snap Shots. If that were the case then not even WoD would work because you have to select a flamer to fire in Overwatch before WoD rule triggers.

I think WoD allows you to shoot in overwatch specifically saying that it happens regardless of flamer's inability to fire snap shots (which, as I've said, I consider to result in redundant reminder the way it's put).

I have to ask:
Does overwatch happens per weapon/model that has weapon that can fire under these conditions? I don't think so, I believe that it's a state of entire unit, "declaring and resolving overwatch". My assumption that we apply knowledge of overwatch to assaulted unit first, and only then we determine what weapon we can shoot and how (snap shots, WoD...), based on knowledge that was called for first.

@RAWRAIrobblerobble Reread failed dangerous tests the wounds are never in the pool they are directly on the model. If you don't want to bring in are you fired at vs targeted then don't bring it up. "..enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6." Right out of the rule book. Stomp happens in the cc phase and the only part on the chart that mentions hits is the second block of possibilities. You have to parse the sentence if you want to know what it says, if you are only talking about cc and parse the sentence to remove shooting you get "...enemy units in close combat will only hit models in the target unit on To Hit rolls of a 6." Vector strikes would also not be affected by this as it is neither firing a weapon nor is it in cc.

@jrellly89 Personal bias and a desire to argue RAI without stating RAI. I agree it is a very powerful power and easily abusable. What I don't agree to is arguing that I don't like how powerful it is so therefor I will try to create a logical construct where I can ignore what it says. WoD cannot be snap shot therefor it cannot be shot at an invisible unit. In 6th did you allow SM's to charge out of a Drop pod? It has the same restriction for two reasons but only one permission, following the line of thinking that I have permission to bypass that restriction from all sources because I have permission to do it for a particular instance. Therefor you would have to allow anyone to charge out of a Drop Pod if you played 6 again as they have permission from open topped.

@Crownaxe I give you the same scenario did you allow SM's to charge out of a Drop Pod in 6th? If you didn't then you are accepting that the same restriction still applies from two sources.

@blacktalos WoD specifcally fires at the invisible unit. Does a single action you posted fire at the invisible unit?

@zimko I give you the same scenario did you allow SM's to charge out of a Drop Pod in 6th? If you didn't then you are accepting that the same restriction still applies from two sources. WoD allows you to fire in Overwatch despite not being a Snap Shot, it does not ignore the rule.

Gravmyr wrote:
@blacktalos WoD specifcally fires at the invisible unit. Does a single action you posted fire at the invisible unit?

I thought you'd agreed that there is only Shooting (firing) and CC?

Gravmyr wrote:
1 If it is not a shooting attack or CC attack what rules are you using to move wounds from the wound pool to the models? Since there are no rules in the WoD for how you do it then it has to be one or the other or you have no RAW way of doing so and have to come up with houserules to do so.

You would have me believe that Total Collapse, a consequence of shooting, in the shooting phase, and ignoring cover is a Close combat attack?

And to answer more directly: Yes i do think that those "actions" require you to follow the shooting phase steps, as if you were firing a weapon of decided S and AP at the unit.

I asked if they were shooting at the unit which is what is required. You are the one claiming that WoD isn't shooting.

 Barrogh wrote:

I have to ask:
Does overwatch happens per weapon/model that has weapon that can fire under these conditions? I don't think so, I believe that it's a state of entire unit, "declaring and resolving overwatch". My assumption that we apply knowledge of overwatch to assaulted unit first, and only then we determine what weapon we can shoot and how (snap shots, WoD...), based on knowledge that was called for first.

I don't understand your question here. Yes you declare the unit is going to Overwatch. Then you use the shooting rules for firing weapons from a unit (pick 1 weapon group at a time and resolve it's shots). When you pick the flamer weapon group, you then trigger the rules for WoD which says to deal d3 automatic hits instead of Snap Shots, thereby bypassing the entire 'to hit' phase of the shooting phase. So Invisibility's 'Snap Shots' never come into play against WoD.

Gravmyr wrote:
@zimko I give you the same scenario did you allow SM's to charge out of a Drop Pod in 6th? If you didn't then you are accepting that the same restriction still applies from two sources. WoD allows you to fire in Overwatch despite not being a Snap Shot, it does not ignore the rule.

I don't know. Yes? No? Why do you keep referring to a 6th rules argument that most of us weren't even part of? Did the Drop Pod rules have something called 'Snap Shots' and then have another rule that over-rode that rule?

It's a consistency question. Drop Pods, being vehicles, had a restrction. Coming in from reserves had the same restriction. Drop pods had permission to ignore that restriction. It was ruled that they still had the restriction from coming in from reserve and could not perform the action. It was FAQed in sixth and a clarification put in in 7th. It goes to illustrate that restrictions from multiple sources remain multiple restrictions and permission to ignore the restriction from one rule does not allow you to ignore the same restriction from another rule.

Ok, then I guess until they FAQed it (though i still don't know what restriction you're referring to) then probably 'yes' for your question.

Back to the discussion, what do you see wrong with these steps for applying WoD during Overwatch on a unit with Invisibility.

- Declare Charge
- Declare Overwatch
- Select weapon group (flamer)
- Trigger WoD
- Deal d3 hits
- Resolve hits

What part of that does Invisibility interrupt?

Gravmyr wrote:
I asked if they were shooting at the unit which is what is required. You are the one claiming that WoD isn't shooting.

I personally have never claimed that WoD is not shooting? I have always believed 40k only ever contains Shooting or CC and that things like Vector Strike are shooting attacks (as well as many others)

I will re-quote my claim for you:

 BlackTalos wrote:
We are in overwatch,
Model chooses Bolter, fires the weapon(and all other models in the group too)=
- (auto)picks target
- Checks range
- Rolls To Hit (Snap Fire)
- Rolls To Wound
Model chooses Flamer, fires the weapon(and all other models in the group too)=
- does not pick target . . . . . . . . . . . \
- does not check range . . . .. . . . . . | Wall of Death - D3 auto-hits onto charging unit.
- does not roll To Hit (Snap Fire) . /
- Rolls to Wound

If you are not requiring to roll To Hit (Step 4 of the shooting sequence) how do you ever apply Snap Shots?