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 shooting rules require differently. again, provably incomparable situations.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 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.

It really is not made up, there are actual rules that state instead of snap shots, template weapons generate auto hits when firing Overwatch, because template weapons can not snap shot.

So do vector strikes- attacks treated as close combat attacks that automatically hit- have to roll 6s to hit invisible units too?

If you say yes, you're wrong. If you say no, then Wall of Death works too because its worded pretty much the exact same way. They are automatic hits using the S and AP profiles of the user / user's flamer.

Are the two models in CC when they are hit by Vector Strikes? If the answer is no they are still hit. You are also speaking about what amounts to two entirely separate rules. Per the shooting section you can't even fire at them unless you snap fire. If you are in CC then you only hit on 6's, therefor you are allowed to swing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What people are saying by saying that WoD meets the criteria for all Snap Shot requirements is that I can use it to wound fliers. It then bypasses the Snap Shot requirement for shooting at a flyer.... Does that sound right to you?

How would you use WOD against fliers since it only happens in overwatch and fliers cant assault?

Gravmyr wrote:
Are the two models in CC when they are hit by Vector Strikes? If the answer is no they are still hit. You are also speaking about what amounts to two entirely separate rules. Per the shooting section you can't even fire at them unless you snap fire. If you are in CC then you only hit on 6's, therefor you are allowed to swing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What people are saying by saying that WoD meets the criteria for all Snap Shot requirements is that I can use it to wound fliers. It then bypasses the Snap Shot requirement for shooting at a flyer.... Does that sound right to you?

If you had a flyer that could assault and activate overwatch, then yes. That unit doesn't exist though.

That unit doesn't exist... currently. Assaulting vehicles never had a skimmer either.... In the end if you want to play that way good luck but I wouldn't expect it to work like that in a tourney nor to be faqed that way...

 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.

The answer to this is very simple. None of these attacks are FIRING AT the invisible unit. Key words being FIRING and AT. Invisibility requires us to FIRE AT the invisible unit in order for the snap shot restriction to take effect. Now read the first sentence of WoD. It clearly states that it is FIRING.

Gravmyr wrote:
That unit doesn't exist... currently. Assaulting vehicles never had a skimmer either.... In the end if you want to play that way good luck but I wouldn't expect it to work like that in a tourney nor to be faqed that way...

I would also suspect that if such a unit did exist, it would have to be in hover mode to assault, much like a FMC needing to be in glide mode to declare an assault.

So WoD would absolutely apply as a hovering flyer is not a zooming flyer.

Which would be a completely different question then the one I asked now wouldn't it?

Gravmyr wrote:
Which would be a completely different question then the one I asked now wouldn't it?

No, because only zooming flyers have the hard to hit rule, and a flyer that could assault would not be zooming.

Again. Currently.

Gravmyr wrote:
Again. Currently.

And in the future.

Just like they do not allow Swooping FMC's to assault.

If we are going by what is likely the again what about my question about charging in sixth? Isn't it likely that if you have two restrictions and a single permission just like that use to be that the current discussion would be ruled the same?

Well since WoD is the more specific rule, it trumps invis.

The specific vs general existed in 6th as well and yet you know exactly how that was ruled. Also, it is more specific in your opinion.

Gravmyr wrote:
The specific vs general existed in 6th as well and yet you know exactly how that was ruled. Also, it is more specific in your opinion.

All units fire snap shots at invisible units.

All units fire snap shots on overwatch

WoD is not a snap shot, instead it autohits when firing at a unit in Overwatch.

Not my opinion, it is fact that WoD is more specific, as I have illustrated.

P.S. specific vs General is a function of the permissive ruleset. you can also call it basic vs advanced.

Glad you called it general vs advanced. General rules are defined as being the sections dealing with movement, shooting, moral and close combat, the standard rules for infantry. Everything else is defined as advanced.

Edit: Clarity

Gravmyr wrote:
What people are saying by saying that WoD meets the criteria for all Snap Shot requirements is that I can use it to wound fliers. It then bypasses the Snap Shot requirement for shooting at a flyer.... Does that sound right to you?

 BlackTalos wrote:
In a way, a BS 4 model is restricted to Snap Firing in Overwatch, and restricted to Snap Firing at Invis targets, and restricted to Snap Firing at Swooping MC, etc.
If a Swooping MC, with Invisibility charged a Unit that is Crew Shaken and Jinked last turn, then what is that Units' restriction?

There is no roll To Hit with Wall of Death. If i am restricted to <Snap Shots>, why is it of any relevance? I have permission to fire the weapon, and i am restricted to Snap Shots (both by Overwatch + Invisibility), what rule am i breaking? My model could be BS 0 and still i would have the Wall of Death Persmission to fire the weapon. (Can a BS0 Model Vector Strike? Can he "terror from the Deep"?)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

The answer to this is very simple. None of these attacks are FIRING AT the invisible unit. Key words being FIRING and AT. Invisibility requires us to FIRE AT the invisible unit in order for the snap shot restriction to take effect. Now read the first sentence of WoD. It clearly states that it is FIRING.

Not really a Yes/No answer... But how do you resolve Total Collapse on a Unit?

I personally use Steps 5 onwards from the shooting Sequence....
Now what does the BrB define as "Fire Overwatch"? Follow the Shooting Sequence.
My Template weapon is given permission to "Fire Overwatch", with RaW: D3 Auto-Hits. How do i resolve that?

I use Steps 5 Onwards after i rolled a D3. Steps 1, 2 and 3 are not a choice if you decided (1+) of your models will be Overwatching with a Template.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well since WoD is the more specific rule, it trumps invis.

In your opinion.

Given it never mentions invis, and specifically states it is NOT a snapshot, your opinion is factually wrong .

Invis requires you to fire as a snapshot. WoD lets you fire over watch despite not firing snapshots. You cannot meet the requirement on invis, so cannot fire.

 BlackTalos wrote:
There is no roll To Hit with Wall of Death. If i am restricted to <Snap Shots>, why is it of any relevance? I have permission to fire the weapon, and i am restricted to Snap Shots (both by Overwatch + Invisibility), what rule am i breaking? My model could be BS 0 and still i would have the Wall of Death Persmission to fire the weapon. (Can a BS0 Model Vector Strike? Can he "terror from the Deep"?)

I think you should reread through the shooting steps again, particularly page 32. BS0 means you cannot fire. While snap fire does alter the units BS it is no consequence if the model cannot fire the weapon you would like to.

In a permissive ruleset restriction will trump allowances most times. The exceptions to that are when they have a specific allowance to ignore that restriction. Again look back at Drop Pods.

Also if you have not selected the Flamer as a weapon, step 3 in shooting, you cannot roll to wound so by skipping that step you are not even allowed to fire. Now that I have access to my book I would have to say that the restriction from flamers, about not being able to Snap Shot, would prevent you from being able to select it as a weapon at all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well since WoD is the more specific rule, it trumps invis.

In your opinion.

Given it never mentions invis, and specifically states it is NOT a snapshot, your opinion is factually wrong .

Invis requires you to fire as a snapshot. WoD lets you fire over watch despite not firing snapshots. You cannot meet the requirement on invis, so cannot fire.

I am not at all incorrect.

Overwatch is resolved as a snap shot, and we have permission to use the template with Overwatch even though it can not snap shot.

You already can not meet the requirement of snap shots on Overwatch, so instead you inflict hits automatically.

Firing at a unit with invis is less specific than firing overwatch at a unit with invis, which is less specific than firing with a template weapon on overwatch at a unit with invis.

Which again is still not how any of that works per the General vs Advanced section there are only two levels. I gave you the breakdown above.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
What people are saying by saying that WoD meets the criteria for all Snap Shot requirements is that I can use it to wound fliers. It then bypasses the Snap Shot requirement for shooting at a flyer.... Does that sound right to you?

 BlackTalos wrote:
In a way, a BS 4 model is restricted to Snap Firing in Overwatch, and restricted to Snap Firing at Invis targets, and restricted to Snap Firing at Swooping MC, etc.
If a Swooping MC, with Invisibility charged a Unit that is Crew Shaken and Jinked last turn, then what is that Units' restriction?

There is no roll To Hit with Wall of Death. If i am restricted to <Snap Shots>, why is it of any relevance? I have permission to fire the weapon, and i am restricted to Snap Shots (both by Overwatch + Invisibility), what rule am i breaking? My model could be BS 0 and still i would have the Wall of Death Persmission to fire the weapon. (Can a BS0 Model Vector Strike? Can he "terror from the Deep"?)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

The answer to this is very simple. None of these attacks are FIRING AT the invisible unit. Key words being FIRING and AT. Invisibility requires us to FIRE AT the invisible unit in order for the snap shot restriction to take effect. Now read the first sentence of WoD. It clearly states that it is FIRING.

Not really a Yes/No answer... But how do you resolve Total Collapse on a Unit?

I personally use Steps 5 onwards from the shooting Sequence....
Now what does the BrB define as "Fire Overwatch"? Follow the Shooting Sequence.
My Template weapon is given permission to "Fire Overwatch", with RaW: D3 Auto-Hits. How do i resolve that?

I use Steps 5 Onwards after i rolled a D3. Steps 1, 2 and 3 are not a choice if you decided (1+) of your models will be Overwatching with a Template.

Total collapse is not related is it is in no way shooting or firing a weapon. There is nothing in the rules that tells you to use the rules for shooting to resolve total collapse. That is your own house rule, and you are trying to resolve WoD based on that?

What you are failing to see here is that the restriction that Ivisibility puts forth requires us to FIRE snap shots. The only way to FIRE a snap shot is to roll to hit. If you can not roll to hit, but FIRE the weapon anyway, you are breaking the rules. So even when steps 1, 2, and 3 are skipped, WoD is still firing, and it is still not a snap shot.

Firing overwatch is less specific than firing WoD as overwatch, which is less specific than firing WoD as overwatch at a unit with invis.

Basing an argument on how you compose a sentence is not the way to change minds. As you can see above Invis can make it more specific. Which is more likely to be in a game template weapons or Invis? Wouldn't that make it a more specific occurrence then?

 extremefreak17 wrote:

Total collapse is not related is it is in no way shooting or firing a weapon. There is nothing in the rules that tells you to use the rules for shooting to resolve total collapse.

Ditto with WoD. It doesn't roll to hit. It automatically hits.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

Total collapse is not related is it is in no way shooting or firing a weapon. There is nothing in the rules that tells you to use the rules for shooting to resolve total collapse.

Ditto with WoD. It doesn't roll to hit. It automatically hits.

Wow you are completely missing the point. Collapse does not interact differently with Invisibility because it is NOT FIRING. The fact that WoD is FIRING is the reason why it doesnt work on invisible units. It has nothing to do with the auto hits. If collapse had text defining it as "FIRING" then it would be relevant. As it has no such text, it is not bound by the restriction of snap shots.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well since WoD is the more specific rule, it trumps invis.

In your opinion.

Given it never mentions invis, and specifically states it is NOT a snapshot, your opinion is factually wrong .

Invis requires you to fire as a snapshot. WoD lets you fire over watch despite not firing snapshots. You cannot meet the requirement on invis, so cannot fire.

I am not at all incorrect.

Overwatch is resolved as a snap shot, and we have permission to use the template with Overwatch even though it can not snap shot.

You already can not meet the requirement of snap shots on Overwatch, so instead you inflict hits automatically.

Firing at a unit with invis is less specific than firing overwatch at a unit with invis, which is less specific than firing with a template weapon on overwatch at a unit with invis.

Nope, still no rules reference.

I tell you: you can only snapshot
You say: I can't snapshot, so instead....

I point out, correctly, that you cannot meet my requirement, so cannot fire. You have NO ANSWER to this. None

Is WoD a snapshot? Simple yes of no. Once you answer no, take a step back and ponder on his you can fire when you MUSTZ snapshot

At the risk of getting yelled at. Do any of the people who think you can't use WoD on invisible units think you SHOULDN'T be able to do it? It seems to be a good way of balancing the preponderance of invisible units and another excuse to put more flamers on the table. Everyone loves flamers.

 OldSkoolGoff wrote:
At the risk of getting yelled at. Do any of the people who think you can't use WoD on invisible units think you SHOULDN'T be able to do it? It seems to be a good way of balancing the preponderance of invisible units and another excuse to put more flamers on the table. Everyone loves flamers.

Hard to say really. Invis is pretty strong for sure. However, it is not reliable to base a strategy around it due to random power generation, and the increased difficulty in casting successfully in 7th edition. Most of the top tourney armnies dont bother with it.