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.

 BlackTalos wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
A scattered blast template did not Fire at the invisible unit, it scattered on to them after it received permission to fire somewhere else. Invisibility is a denial of permission to Fire. That is why the blast gets around invis when WoD doesn't. They are different situations and as such you can't use one to justify the other.

I would really like you to point to me where the Invisibility rule states the part i highlighted.

Ok... here you go

"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..."

chanceafs wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
A scattered blast template did not Fire at the invisible unit, it scattered on to them after it received permission to fire somewhere else. Invisibility is a denial of permission to Fire. That is why the blast gets around invis when WoD doesn't. They are different situations and as such you can't use one to justify the other.

I would really like you to point to me where the Invisibility rule states the part i highlighted.

Ok... here you go

"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..."

No, that's a requirement to snapshot, not a denial to fire.. WoD overrides snapshots.

chanceafs wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
A scattered blast template did not Fire at the invisible unit, it scattered on to them after it received permission to fire somewhere else. Invisibility is a denial of permission to Fire. That is why the blast gets around invis when WoD doesn't. They are different situations and as such you can't use one to justify the other.

I would really like you to point to me where the Invisibility rule states the part i highlighted.

Ok... here you go

"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..."

WoD is permission to fire when only snap shots can fire. WoD is a specific special rule, Snap shots, invis are general rules. WoD trumps invis. Even if it did not trump invis, the permission to fire during a time when you can only fire snap shots is still permission to fire during a time when you can only fire snap shots. During overwatch what only can you fire? snap shots. WoD does what during this time? Fires even if its not a snap shot. Snap shot is a basic rule. WoD is a special rule WoD has specific permission to trumps snap shots general rule during the instance of overwatch.

 jreilly89 wrote:

chanceafs wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
A scattered blast template did not Fire at the invisible unit, it scattered on to them after it received permission to fire somewhere else. Invisibility is a denial of permission to Fire. That is why the blast gets around invis when WoD doesn't. They are different situations and as such you can't use one to justify the other.

I would really like you to point to me where the Invisibility rule states the part i highlighted.

Ok... here you go

"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..."

No, that's a requirement to snapshot, not a denial to fire.. WoD overrides snapshots.

It says the only permission to fire is snap shots. Which denies permission for anything else to fire. And WoD overrides the OVERWATCH requirement for snapshots... not snapshots as a whole. If two rules place a restriction, anything attempting to override that restriction needs to call out both sources in order to be successful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:

chanceafs wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
A scattered blast template did not Fire at the invisible unit, it scattered on to them after it received permission to fire somewhere else. Invisibility is a denial of permission to Fire. That is why the blast gets around invis when WoD doesn't. They are different situations and as such you can't use one to justify the other.

I would really like you to point to me where the Invisibility rule states the part i highlighted.

Ok... here you go

"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..."

WoD is permission to fire when only snap shots can fire. WoD is a specific special rule, Snap shots, invis are general rules. WoD trumps invis. Even if it did not trump invis, the permission to fire during a time when you can only fire snap shots is still permission to fire during a time when you can only fire snap shots. During overwatch what only can you fire? snap shots. WoD does what during this time? Fires even if its not a snap shot. Snap shot is a basic rule. WoD is a special rule WoD has specific permission to trumps snap shots general rule during the instance of overwatch.

No... WoD is permission to fire DURING OVERWATCH. And overrides the normal snapshot restriction of overwatch. Invisibility places a second restriction that WoD does not specifically address, and there for does not superceed. Overwatch is the general rule, WoD and Invis are both specific rules that change the situation. And since neither immediately address the other... CAN'T trumps CAN.

chanceafs wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

chanceafs wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
A scattered blast template did not Fire at the invisible unit, it scattered on to them after it received permission to fire somewhere else. Invisibility is a denial of permission to Fire. That is why the blast gets around invis when WoD doesn't. They are different situations and as such you can't use one to justify the other.

I would really like you to point to me where the Invisibility rule states the part i highlighted.

Ok... here you go

"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..."

No, that's a requirement to snapshot, not a denial to fire.. WoD overrides snapshots.

It says the only permission to fire is snap shots. Which denies permission for anything else to fire. And WoD overrides the OVERWATCH requirement for snapshots... not snapshots as a whole. If two rules place a restriction, anything attempting to override that restriction needs to call out both sources in order to be successful.

So if I jink and I get a Crew Shaken result, do I have to roll a 6 twice to hit? No, snapshots don't stack. This is a double snapshot, which reduces down to just snapshotting, which WoD overrides.

 jreilly89 wrote:

chanceafs wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

chanceafs wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
A scattered blast template did not Fire at the invisible unit, it scattered on to them after it received permission to fire somewhere else. Invisibility is a denial of permission to Fire. That is why the blast gets around invis when WoD doesn't. They are different situations and as such you can't use one to justify the other.

I would really like you to point to me where the Invisibility rule states the part i highlighted.

Ok... here you go

"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit..."

No, that's a requirement to snapshot, not a denial to fire.. WoD overrides snapshots.

It says the only permission to fire is snap shots. Which denies permission for anything else to fire. And WoD overrides the OVERWATCH requirement for snapshots... not snapshots as a whole. If two rules place a restriction, anything attempting to override that restriction needs to call out both sources in order to be successful.

So if I jink and I get a Crew Shaken result, do I have to roll a 6 twice to hit? No, snapshots don't stack. This is a double snapshot, which reduces down to just snapshotting, which WoD overrides.

No, if you Jink and get a crew shaken... and you have a special rule that says you can fire at full BS even if you Jink, You are still crew shaken and still have to fire snap shots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Similarly if you arrive from reserves and disembark from a vehicle, you have two reasons why you can't charge in the assault phase. If you disembark from an Assault vehicle, you still can't assault because the arriving from reserves rule is still limiting you.

the arriving from reserves is a terrible analogy.

disembarking - general rule

disembarking from assault vehicle- general rule

arriving from reserves- general rule

compared to

Invisibility- general rule

Snap shots- general rule

WoD- special rule

blaktoof wrote:
the arriving from reserves is a terrible analogy.

disembarking - general rule

disembarking from assault vehicle- general rule

arriving from reserves- general rule

compared to

Invisibility- general rule

Snap shots- general rule

WoD- special rule

Incorrect, as Assault Vehicle is a special rule.

WoD overrides the necessity to fire as snap shots during overwatch part of the assault phase. it actually does not state it overrides the restriction of snap shots from overwatch. It states that they can fire over watch, even though they cannot fire snap shots. Which is permission to fire during overwatch, even if normally only snap shots may be fired

If you can find where it says that it overrides the restriction to fire snap shots FROM overwatch. Or where it states that it only applies to snap shots from overwatch.

Otherwise as it reads, it is a special rule that trumps basic rules (snap shots, invis) and is given permission to fire during overwatch, even though it cannot fire snap shots. Instead it automatically inflicts d3 hits on the charging unit.

During overwatch does an unit require to be hit by only snap shots? yes

During overwatch does an invisible unit require to be hit by only snap shots? Yes

WoD gives specific permission during this time to fire even though it cannot snap shot, and instead cause automatic d3 hits.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

chanceafs wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
the arriving from reserves is a terrible analogy.

disembarking - general rule

disembarking from assault vehicle- general rule

arriving from reserves- general rule

compared to

Invisibility- general rule

Snap shots- general rule

WoD- special rule

Incorrect, as Assault Vehicle is a special rule.

you are correct, however this is clarified under the special rule for assault vehicles "unless they arrived from reserve" Unlike in WoD which does not state "unless they are firing snap shots because the target unit is invisible"

Aside from all the other valid WoD works points expressed, look at the shooting rules:
A: "Any shots fired as Overwatch can only be fired as Snap Shots"
Wall of death says:
B: "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,"

So WoD is not a conventional shooting attack (ala Necron lightning guy, vector strikers, stomps, and the untargeted but scattering blasts) and simply triggers d3 hits.

The BRB says Basic<Advanced.
"Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon" and " The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry."
So WoD is an advanced rule, because a template weapon carried by a model is part of its Army List Entry on your list. (psychic template may be debatable but lets set that aside).

Invisibility is not listed in the advanced rules section, it is not part of an Army List Entry and it fails to meet the explicit criteria in the above sections to be an advanced rule. Invisibility interacts with basic rules, all of which are subservient to the advanced rules. WoD >>Invisibility.

Q.E.D.

Until there is something in Invisibility that lets it ignore automatic hits outside of close combat, I don't see what basis you have for saying they ignore it, other than really wanting it to work that way.

I really want my ThunderFire Cannon artillery piece to be able to move and shoot, but even though Artillery lost the move or fire verbiage, it is still a Heavy blast weapon so it can't.

So, despite WoD NOT being a snapshot, and explicitly so, you will fire it, despite
Only being allowed to fire snapshots?

Interesting.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, despite WoD NOT being a snapshot, and explicitly so, you will fire it, despite
Only being allowed to fire snapshots?

Interesting.

Me? No I would congratulate the other player on his win and not play them again, because I don't play cheaters.

As I just pointed out, nothing in Invisibility meets the criteria for an advanced rule by RAW in the book, whereas WoD does meet that criteria. Feel free to read the post and check your own book.

WoD>>Invisibility.

No, WoD is not noted in the army list entry. Page and graph if you contend otherwise.

WoD is not firing as a snapshot, and as such you csnnot fire at invisible units

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, despite WoD NOT being a snapshot, and explicitly so, you will fire it, despite
Only being allowed to fire snapshots?

Interesting.

Yes, because the WoD rule says instead of firing snap shots...

it is the more specific rule and trumps invisibility.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, WoD is not noted in the army list entry. Page and graph if you contend otherwise.

I already quoted them above. Search your digital version for the quotes I put up and you can find your own "pages".
All template weapons have wall of death, per the WoD rule.
A flamer, etc is a template weapon.
The weapon is on your list for the model carrying it and that is the Army List Entry.

If you have a flamer in your list, that model has a template weapon, and thus the advanced rule WoD, which trumps invisibility which is NOT, RAW, an advanced rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, despite WoD NOT being a snapshot, and explicitly so, you will fire it, despite
Only being allowed to fire snapshots?

Interesting.

Yes, because the WoD rule says instead of firing snap shots...

it is the more specific rule and trumps invisibility.

No, again, this is made up.

Is WoD a snapshot? No. What does invisibility restrict you to doing when firing? Snapshots only.

How is WoD more specific? It only lifts one restriction - smapshot when over watch. It doesn't let you snapshot at other times

You gave stated rules with no rules back up. Retract it, or cite page and para

Rawrai- nope, it's not listed in the army list entry. It is a general, basic rule. Don't repeat that assertion again.

WoD is a special rule not a basic rule, and is found in the section on special rules, because it its a special rule.

This makes WoD more specific as invisibility and snap shots are basic rules, not special rules.

WoD gives permission to fire during overwatch, despite it not being a snap shot. So during a time when snap shots are reqiured you have a special rule that grants specific permission to ignore a basic rule- snap shots.

I do not think anyone is suggesting it lets you snap shot outside of overwatch.

It lifts the restriction that over watch must be fired as snapshot.

Does it lift ANY restriction on snapshots from other sources, or just the one it SPECIFICALLY covers - over watch's requirement?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Rawrai- nope, it's not listed in the army list entry. It is a general, basic rule. Don't repeat that assertion again.

You don't list what special weapons your model take in your list? If I take a flamer, I indicate it in my list. That makes it part of my Army List Entry.
That gives the unit the ability to invoke Wall of Death, because it is part of the weapon's rules.
WoD is a special rule and that trumps the basic rule related to snapshots, as has already been pointed out. Repeatedly.
I'll continue to assert it is a special rule because it is a special rule.

I think you need to show where Invisibility is classified as a special/advanced rule if you want to argue precedence levels any more. Otherwise all people hear who disagree is "nyah nyah" and you will only be preaching to your choir.

Sigh.

WoD is never listed in the units entry. The flamer is, but not WoD. Your premise fails on this point.

Invisibility is a specific restriction. Fire snapshots. You can override one restriction, but have no permission - absolutely none - to override ANY requirement on firing as snapshots

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It lifts the restriction that over watch must be fired as snapshot.

Does it lift ANY restriction on snapshots from other sources, or just the one it SPECIFICALLY covers - over watch's requirement?

it actually does not specifically cover over watch's requirement.

it says it may fire during overwatch, even though it cannot snap shot. It doesn't state that other things that require snap shot prevent it from firing- such as "assault vehicles" and disembarking to assault from reserves being called out.

So when it covers the over watch requirement, specifically, it isn't talking about over watch?

Interesting.

It covers shooting during overwatch, if an invisible unit is charging a model with a template weapon there is an overwatch phase.

The basic rule of invisibility calls out that the unit can only be fired at with snap shots.

the basic rule of overwatch calls out the unit can only be fired at with snap shots.

As there is no such thing as "double snap shots" or "snap shots +1" then the unit can only be fired at with snap shots total.

the special rule of WoD gives you permission to fire during this time as a template weapon, even though its not a snap shot. This is permission to fire despite needing snap shots. You instead inflict d3 hits.

If you can find where it says "specifically the snap shot from overwatch" pleace cite it, page and para.

Ah, so in 6th you could assault having disembarked from a land raider, despite having arrived from reserve that turn?

After all, there is no "may not assault +1" .

Or, when told you may on,y fire snapshots, and WoD overrides (by referencing over watch) the requirement in overmatch to fire snapshots, this still means you aren't firing snapshots and so the more specific rule wins out.

Invisibility.
again, only one restriction has been lifted by WoD. Just because it is a similar one, you don't get to ignore it

Oh, and don't use quote marks when you aren't quoting.

I don't know if this has been mentioned. Because I refuse to read every post on this.

If you have two units. Unit A and unit B

Unit A is invisible
Unit B is targeted with a large blast.

The large blast scatters 12 inches over to unit A.

Does unit A get hit?

Yes, as the weapon wasn't fired at the invisible unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, as the weapon wasn't fired at the invisible unit.

Then I don't see why WoD can't auto hit an invisible unit

I suppose this case to be too minor for such a long discussion. I may be wrong but here are my ideas.
"Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots". I guess it's a general permission. Is there anything preventing ordinary overwatch? - No. Then you CAN fire overwatch and as far as you have permission for template weapons overwatch you may use it.
All in all, only a dead-hard invis deathstar powergamer can deny that.

Johnnytorrance wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, as the weapon wasn't fired at the invisible unit.

Then I don't see why WoD can't auto hit an invisible unit

Because the template WAS fired at the invisible unit. The situation is explicitly not comparable - in one the unit was targeted, the other it wasn't. In one the unit falls under the restriction of invis, the other it doesn't.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Johnnytorrance wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, as the weapon wasn't fired at the invisible unit.

Then I don't see why WoD can't auto hit an invisible unit

Because the template WAS fired at the invisible unit. The situation is explicitly not comparable - in one the unit was targeted, the other it wasn't. In one the unit falls under the restriction of invis, the other it doesn't.

Not necessarily.

The unit with WoD wasn't targeting either. The charging unit is running into their flaming goo