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.

rigeld2 wrote:

Your argument that invisible units cannot be snap shot at assumed wod is a shooting attack. Which it is not.

It's not?

if a Template weapon fires Overwatch,

So it's not a shooting attack, but it fires Overwatch which is a shooting attack, but it's totally not.
In addition - what rules do we use for wound allocation?

So you have measured range for the weapon, as required by the Shooting rules?
Or are you going to quote the last 3 "fluff" phrases in WoD?

I agree it IS a shooting attack though, just like Molten Beam, because it starts on Step 5. Roll To Wound. After you have allocated the Auto-Hits both rules provide.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
How would you resolve automatic hits on an Invisible Unit?
Say i trace a "Molten Beam" or "Infernal Gaze" through the invisible Unit. It is arguably "Fired" as a Witchfire. But a Beam is not a Snap Shot, does a Beam have no effect on Invisible Units?

No - it has an effect. You're conflating hitting and firing/targeting. You shouldn't.

WoD cannot be fired at an Invisible unit because it cannot ever be a Snap Shot.
Molten Beam is not fired at an Invisible unit. Neither is Infernal Gaze.

"firing" and "firing at" are different things. Beams target a point on the table and therefore are never fired at an invisible unit.

WoD does not "fire at", it "automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit".

It's fired as part of Overwatch. Agreed?
Overwatch fire (weapons firing as part of Overwatch) is fired at a unit. Agreed?

As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units, that unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker – it doesn’t have to, but it’s often a good idea.

The actual rules say that Overwatch fire is fired at the would-be attacker. So your assertions are incorrect. Please cite rules supporting your assertions before continuing to argue this point.

Molten Beam inflict Auto-Hits on the Unit, WoD inflicts Auto-Hits on the Unit.
They both auto-hit instead of rolling To Hit. Why does snap Firing restrict 1 and not the other?

I've explained why, you're refusing to accept it.

Consistency requires you resolve both cases in the same way.

You're ignoring the fact that Snap Shots have a rule saying things that Auto-Hit cannot be fired as Snap Shots.
Hence, there's a difference between shooting and CC.
Hence, you cannot compare them because they have a significant difference that you continue to ignore despite the fact it's been pointed out multiple times. Please actually address that rule rather than handwaving it away.

Can Wall of Death ever by fired as a Snap Shot? Yes or No.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Your argument that invisible units cannot be snap shot at assumed wod is a shooting attack. Which it is not.

It's not?

if a Template weapon fires Overwatch,

So it's not a shooting attack, but it fires Overwatch which is a shooting attack, but it's totally not.
In addition - what rules do we use for wound allocation?

So you have measured range for the weapon, as required by the Shooting rules?

No.

Don’t worry about comparing the length of the template with the distance to the enemy.

I'm not required to.

Or are you going to quote the last 3 "fluff" phrases in WoD?

Comparing the length of the template with the distance to the enemy is a fluff sentence?

I agree it IS a shooting attack though, just like Molten Beam, because it starts on Step 5. Roll To Wound. After you have allocated the Auto-Hits both rules provide.

Normally, that's correct. Against an Invisible unit there is a difference, however. And that difference is that Molten Beam doesn't ever fire at the invisible unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
It seems like this whole thread is being overthought a little. It's simple. WoD says that a flamer can fire overwatch, even though it can't fire snap shots, and does d3 hits. So, can you use WoD on an invisible unit?

Are you firing overwatch? Then, yes.

There is nothing ambiguous about the rule. People are getting too caught up on what the nature of the snap shot is. A flamer can fire overwatch even though it can't fire snap shots. Nowhere in the rules does it give any impression that the source of the Snap Shot rule is relevant. It just says you can fire Overwatch, even though you can't usually snap shoot.

Only if you ignore Invisibility - which I've quoted in this thread.
"Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit"
Was the Wall of Death fired at the would be attacker? Yes.
Was it fired as a Snap Shot? No - it can never fire as a Snap Shot.

Therefore firing it is illegal and cannot be done.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
How would you resolve automatic hits on an Invisible Unit?
Say i trace a "Molten Beam" or "Infernal Gaze" through the invisible Unit. It is arguably "Fired" as a Witchfire. But a Beam is not a Snap Shot, does a Beam have no effect on Invisible Units?

No - it has an effect. You're conflating hitting and firing/targeting. You shouldn't.

WoD cannot be fired at an Invisible unit because it cannot ever be a Snap Shot.
Molten Beam is not fired at an Invisible unit. Neither is Infernal Gaze.

"firing" and "firing at" are different things. Beams target a point on the table and therefore are never fired at an invisible unit.

WoD does not "fire at", it "automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit".

It's fired as part of Overwatch. Agreed?
Overwatch fire (weapons firing as part of Overwatch) is fired at a unit. Agreed?

As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units, that unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker – it doesn’t have to, but it’s often a good idea.

The actual rules say that Overwatch fire is fired at the would-be attacker. So your assertions are incorrect. Please cite rules supporting your assertions before continuing to argue this point.

Molten Beam inflict Auto-Hits on the Unit, WoD inflicts Auto-Hits on the Unit.
They both auto-hit instead of rolling To Hit. Why does snap Firing restrict 1 and not the other?

I've explained why, you're refusing to accept it.

Consistency requires you resolve both cases in the same way.

You're ignoring the fact that Snap Shots have a rule saying things that Auto-Hit cannot be fired as Snap Shots.
Hence, there's a difference between shooting and CC.
Hence, you cannot compare them because they have a significant difference that you continue to ignore despite the fact it's been pointed out multiple times. Please actually address that rule rather than handwaving it away.

Can Wall of Death ever by fired as a Snap Shot? Yes or No.

I see that in a very roundabout way, you are referring to a very simple RaW, let me help:

Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots.

I can even shorten it to make the point even clearer:

(Some weapon types, such as)
"Template, cannot be fired as Snap Shots."

The rule above is very simple. Template weapons cannot be fired as Snap Shots.

So how does a Template weapon inflict Hits on the Charging Unit?
Please explain the process to me considering the weapon cannot be "fired as a Snap Shot". Once you do, you can apply the same process on the Invisible Unit, and realise that there is no difference.

You have admitted WOD is not a snapshot nor is held to snap shot rules when you said, "You're ignoring the fact that Snap Shots have a rule saying things that Auto-Hit cannot be fired as Snap Shots."

When in fact wod is an ability used in overwatch when other weapons snapshoot.


Ps technically it doesn't say instead of. I was technically correct, and in rules lawyering and bureaucracy, technically correct is the best kind of correct.

 BlackTalos wrote:
I see that in a very roundabout way, you are referring to a very simple RaW, let me help:

Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots.

Nope. I've specified the rule I'm referring to multiple times. It was the very next sentence after the one you quoted.

In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot.

Does Wall of Death use Ballistic Skill? Yes or No.
Is Wall of Death fired at the would be attacker? Yes or No.

Please answer those two simple questions.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

FratHammer wrote:
You have admitted WOD is not a snapshot nor is held to snap shot rules when you said, "You're ignoring the fact that Snap Shots have a rule saying things that Auto-Hit cannot be fired as Snap Shots."

When in fact wod is an ability used in overwatch when other weapons snapshoot.

Correct - WoD is not a Snap Shot and cannot ever be fired as a Snap Shot. That's what I've said all along.

Can you fire at an Invisible unit with something that is not fired as a Snap Shot?

Don’t worry about comparing the length of the template with the distance to the enemy. If the charge is successful, it doesn’t matter anyway. If the charge failed, we can assume that the enemy ran into range of the Template weapon and were driven back.

The underlined is RaW? great support
Oh and "If the charge is successful", "If the charge failed" grammatically connect the previous sentence. So the 3 sentences above are 1.

But they are fluff, not RaW. RaW is:

"it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved at its normal Strength and AP value."

Because you don't measure range when you are provided with Auto-Hits from a Special rule.
Like Vector Strike
Or Total Collapse
Or maybe Soul Blaze.

Does Total Collapse need to snap fire? They are all Auto-Hits, and we know how to resolve Auto-Hits on a Unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I see that in a very roundabout way, you are referring to a very simple RaW, let me help:

Some weapon types, such as Template and Ordnance, or those that have certain special rules, such as Blast, cannot be fired as Snap Shots.

Nope. I've specified the rule I'm referring to multiple times. It was the very next sentence after the one you quoted.

In addition, any shooting attack that does not use Ballistic Skill cannot be ‘fired’ as a Snap Shot.

Does Wall of Death use Ballistic Skill? Yes or No.
Is Wall of Death fired at the would be attacker? Yes or No.

Please answer those two simple questions.

I have answered many times that a Template weapon cannot ever fire Snap Shots, by RaW.
But this is true for any Overwatch,not only Invisible Units. It still inflict D3 Hits.

The Template weapon is fired at the would be attacker, Yes. But instead, the Unit suffers D3 Hits.
Do you "fire at" a Unit with Auto-Hits?

Does Total collapse "Fire at" the Unit? Does Vector Strike "fire at"?
No, Auto-Hits are resolved against a Unit without a To Hit Step, IE without Snap Shots.

If you wish to disallow any Auto-Hitting damage as per some convoluted conclusion that this damage must have been a Snap shot, feel free.
The RaW on how to resolve Hits allocated is clear.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Don’t worry about comparing the length of the template with the distance to the enemy. If the charge is successful, it doesn’t matter anyway. If the charge failed, we can assume that the enemy ran into range of the Template weapon and were driven back.

The underlined is RaW? great support

Did I quote those as support? Hm. Nope, I sure didn't.

Oh and "If the charge is successful", "If the charge failed" grammatically connect the previous sentence. So the 3 sentences above are 1.

Except 2 are fluff and one isn't.

But they are fluff, not RaW. RaW is:

"it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved at its normal Strength and AP value."

Because you don't measure range when you are provided with Auto-Hits from a Special rule.

Like Vector Strike
Or Total Collapse
Or maybe Soul Blaze.

None of these are part of a shooting attack - comparing them isn't valid.

Does Total Collapse need to snap fire? They are all Auto-Hits, and we know how to resolve Auto-Hits on a Unit.

Again, none of those are part of a shooting attack. You're comparing apples and oranges to argue a banana.
You've failed to find fault with my actual arguments and are now trying to chip away at the edge for a weakness. I've proven - multiple times - why your assertions are incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

I have answered many times that a Template weapon cannot ever fire Snap Shots, by RaW.
But this is true for any Overwatch,not only Invisible Units. It still inflict D3 Hits.

I'm not addressing Templates in general - my question was specific to Wall of Death. Please answer the question I ask and don't make up a question.

The Template weapon is fired at the would be attacker, Yes. But instead, the Unit suffers D3 Hits.
Do you "fire at" a Unit with Auto-Hits?

Yes. Since you're firing as part of Overwatch and Overwatch is indisputably fired at a unit.

Does Total collapse "Fire at" the Unit? Does Vector Strike "fire at"?
No, Auto-Hits are resolved against a Unit without a To Hit Step, IE without Snap Shots.

Neither of these are fired as part of Overwatch, and therefore irrelevant as comparison.

If you wish to disallow any Auto-Hitting damage as per some convoluted conclusion that this damage must have been a Snap shot, feel free.

Straw man - I'm not arguing that, you're saying I'm arguing that and arguing against it. The very definition of a straw man.
Please stop and re-think your position.

Yes! Overwatch is a snapshot for everyone else, you activate wod during overwatch...

Wait... Are you just trolling? Or are you honestly misreading the rules? Because there is no other option at this point.

It is an ABILITY, used during a portion of a phase, activated by declaring overwatch, which assigns AUTOMATIC HITS, which by the book and your own admission cannot be a snapshot (not that it is a shooting attack anyway) so I don't understand your point...

If it is, by your admission, not a snap shot, then it must be an ability, if it is an ability, where in invisibility does it states you get to strip that ability?



Edit-changed starts to states then added this line.

FratHammer wrote:
Yes! Overwatch is a snapshot for everyone else, you activate wod during overwatch...

No, you use the WoD rule when you fire a Template weapon as part of Overwatch. Per the actual rules:

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...

So your assertion is incorrect.

Wait... Are you just trolling? Or are you honestly misreading the rules? Because there is no other option at this point.

I've quoted actual rules, and you haven't. Accusations of trolling are violations of rule #1 and get reported as such.

It is an ABILITY, used during a portion of a phase, activated by declaring overwatch, which assigns AUTOMATIC HITS, which by the book and your own admission cannot be a snapshot (not that it is a shooting attack anyway) so I don't understand your point...

It's not an ability, your statement has no rules support.
It's a shooting attack - asserting otherwise has no rules support.
It's fired at the would-be attackers - asserting otherwise has no rules support.

Could you cite an actual rule for once instead of making something up? That'd be great.

If it is, by your admission, not a snap shot, then it must be an ability, if it is an ability, where in invisibility does it starts you get to strip that ability?

No, those are not the only two options. Please do not make up rules, or tell me how a rule is worded when I've quoted the actual rule and you haven't.

Has this been FAQ'ed yet? Either way, I would argue yes, whether it was to my benefit in game or not.

So resolving Total collapse damage as part of a Unit's shooting attack is not a shooting attack?
Sure, there is not much precedence or examples to go by, but we make do. Provide more example of Auto-Hits during Shooting attacks if you disagree.

My argument is clear and easy:
Wall of Death inflicts D3 Automatic Hits on the charging Unit.
When a Unit suffers Automatic Hits, you simply resolve the damage.

All weapons must snap shoot at charging targets (Overwatch)
All weapons must snap shoot at Invisible targets.

Wall of Death provides damage to any charging target, it is not snap firing. Resolve.

 BlackTalos wrote:
So resolving Total collapse damage as part of a Unit's shooting attack is not a shooting attack?

Correct.

Sure, there is not much precedence or examples to go by, but we make do. Provide more example of Auto-Hits during Shooting attacks if you disagree.

Nope - onus is on you. I've proven my argument, you're trying to straw man me.

My argument is clear and easy:
Wall of Death inflicts D3 Automatic Hits on the charging Unit.
When a Unit suffers Automatic Hits, you simply resolve the damage.

This is true if you ignore all other rules in the rulebook, and is a simplification.

All weapons must snap shoot at charging targets (Overwatch)
All weapons must snap shoot at Invisible targets.

Actual rules:

Any shots fired as Overwatch can only be fired as Snap Shots.

enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit

Templates have a specific exception to the former. They have no exception to the latter.
If it is not fired as a Snap Shot (You've agreed WoD isn't) it cannot fire at Invisible units. That's literally what the rule says.

Wall of Death provides damage to any charging target, it is not snap firing. Resolve.

Making up rules again. Please refrain from doing so.

" 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...

So your assertion is incorrect." -you

What about that says, fire this as a shooting attack? It says INSTEAD, which means "as a substitute or replacement; in the place or stead of someone or something" so instead of firing overwatch, would mean in place of. RAW Dictionary.

"I've quoted actual rules, and you haven't. Accusations of trolling are violations of rule #1 and get reported as such."

I apologize. I honestly could not believe your assertions could possibly be sincere.

" It's not an ability, your statement has no rules support."

What section do we find the rule Wall of Death? As stated, by me in fact, it is on pg 173. That section is called what? Special rules, also in slang called abilities.

" It's a shooting attack - asserting otherwise has no rules support."

I believe you in fact have no rules to support your argument. It takes the place of a shooting attack. Says so in the rule you and I keep quoting. Also if it was a shooting attack, not in fact an ability, why is it in the abilities section, not in fact in the shooting section?

" It's fired at the would-be attackers - asserting otherwise has no rules support."

No one is saying it is not activating at would be attackers, only that it is not a shooting attack which I've supported with evidence. Where is your evidence that it is a shooting attack?

"Could you cite an actual rule for once instead of making something up? That'd be great."

I originally paraphrased but did site the pg in the book and asked others to read it on pg1 of this forum post. But from here on out... Sure.

" No, those are not the only two options. Please do not make up rules, or tell me how a rule is worded when I've quoted the actual rule and you haven"

I believe it is either a shooting attack or not. What third option did you see? And I will be more efficient with your own quotes from here on out.



Edit- changed super to support, changed sorting to shooting, also added this line.

FratHammer 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 on the charging unit, resolved...

So your assertion is incorrect." -you

What about that says, fire this as a shooting attack? It says INSTEAD, which means "as a substitute or replacement; in the place or stead of someone or something" so instead of firing overwatch, would mean in place of. RAW Dictionary.

Because the Template weapon is firing Overwatch - which is demonstrably a Shooting Attack.

" It's not an ability, your statement has no rules support."

What section do we find the rule Wall of Death? As stated, by me in fact, it is on pg 173. That section is called what? Special rules, also in slang called abilities.

Because Template is a special rule, not Wall of Death. In addition, I've explain other reasons why it's a shooting attack. Where it's located in the rulebook isn't relevant.

" It's a shooting attack - asserting otherwise has no rules support."

I believe you in fact have no rules to super your argument. It takes the place of a shooting attack. Says so in the rule you and I keep quoting.

No, it doesn't - in fact it says a Template weapon fires Overwatch.

Also if it was a sorting attack, not in fact an ability, why is it in the abilities section, not in fact in the shooting section?

Because it's specific to weapons with the Template special rule. Where it's located in the BRB is irrelevant.

" It's fired at the would-be attackers - asserting otherwise has no rules support."

No one is saying it is not activating at would be attackers, only that it is not a shooting attack which I've supported with evidence. Where is your evidence that it is a shooting attack?

The Template weapon is fired in Overwatch. Overwatch is a shooting attack. Therefore anything fired as part of that Shooting Attack is a shooting attack.

" No, those are not the only two options. Please do not make up rules, or tell me how a rule is worded when I've quoted the actual rule and you haven"

I believe it is either a shooting attack or not. What third option did you see? And I will be more efficient with your own quotes from here on out.

You said, and I'll quote since you left it out:

If it is, by your admission, not a snap shot, then it must be an ability, if it is an ability, where in invisibility does it starts you get to strip that ability?

It is a shooting attack. It is not a snap shot. It is not an "ability".
Shooting Attacks fired at Invisible units must be Snap Shots.
Template Weapons cannot fire Snap Shots - and Wall of Death is not a Snap Shot and cannot be. Wall of Death fires the Template at the Invisible unit - which is disallowed as it's not a Snap Shot.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
So resolving Total collapse damage as part of a Unit's shooting attack is not a shooting attack?

Correct.

Sure, there is not much precedence or examples to go by, but we make do. Provide more example of Auto-Hits during Shooting attacks if you disagree.

Nope - onus is on you. I've proven my argument, you're trying to straw man me.

I've proven my argument, i'm just giving you example of Auto-Hitting attacks, since you did not seem to grasp their resolution.
It does not involve any Snap Firing.

rigeld2 wrote:

My argument is clear and easy:
Wall of Death inflicts D3 Automatic Hits on the charging Unit.
When a Unit suffers Automatic Hits, you simply resolve the damage.

This is true if you ignore all other rules in the rulebook, and is a simplification.

All weapons must snap shoot at charging targets (Overwatch)
All weapons must snap shoot at Invisible targets.

Actual rules:

Any shots fired as Overwatch can only be fired as Snap Shots.

enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit

Templates have a specific exception to the former. They have no exception to the latter.
If it is not fired as a Snap Shot (You've agreed WoD isn't) it cannot fire at Invisible units. That's literally what the rule says.

Wall of Death provides damage to any charging target, it is not snap firing. Resolve.

Making up rules again. Please refrain from doing so.

You mean this RaW?

they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit

What from the above quote is made up?
The Automatic Hits?
Or that fact that it is not snap firing?

Templates do not have a specific exception to Snap Shots (only in) Overwatch.
They have a permission to automatically inflicts D3 hits during the Overwatch Phase. What does Invisibility do to Automatic Hits? (Hopefully you don't need more examples of how Auto-Hits work)

"Because Template is a special rule, not Wall of Death. In addition, I've explain other reasons why it's a shooting attack. Where it's located in the rulebook isn't relevant."

So the assumption here is it is not a special rule for a special rules? I am using facts. It is in the special rules section, and is a rule assigned to a special rule assigned to a profile. Your assumption is incorrect. If we are having a purely raw argument, you cannot state that GW placed the rule in the wrong section.

"The Template weapon is fired in Overwatch. Overwatch is a shooting attack. Therefore anything fired as part of that Shooting Attack is a shooting attack."

The Fear special rule happens at the start of the fight sub phase. Is fear a close combat attack?

Do you believe "No Escape" does not apply as well? Because a special role is assigning automatic hits on an invisible target?

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
So resolving Total collapse damage as part of a Unit's shooting attack is not a shooting attack?

Correct.

Sure, there is not much precedence or examples to go by, but we make do. Provide more example of Auto-Hits during Shooting attacks if you disagree.

Nope - onus is on you. I've proven my argument, you're trying to straw man me.

I've proven my argument, i'm just giving you example of Auto-Hitting attacks, since you did not seem to grasp their resolution.
It does not involve any Snap Firing.

Which is a problem, given the rule I've cited.

You mean this RaW?

they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit

What from the above quote is made up?
The Automatic Hits?
Or that fact that it is not snap firing?

Neither, but that's not what I'm addressing.

Templates do not have a specific exception to Snap Shots (only in) Overwatch.
They have a permission to automatically inflicts D3 hits during the Overwatch Phase. What does Invisibility do to Automatic Hits? (Hopefully you don't need more examples of how Auto-Hits work)

Invisibility doesn't do anything directly.
Instead, it requires that everything fired at the unit be a Snap Shot. Is Wall of Death firing at the unit? Is it firing Snap Shots?
The answers, as we know according to the cited rules are "Yes" and "No". Therefore firing a Template weapon as part of Overwatch against an Invisible unit isn't allowed, as it cannot be fired as a Snap Shot (given the snap shot rules that forbid attacks that don't use a BS from being Snap Shots).

HIWPI = yes, flame away, and I'd expect to be allowed to.
RAI = who knows? I'm leaning towards yes, WoD is supposed to work against Invisibility
RAW = must snap fire = must be able to snap fire... so no, fluff and logic don't apply, only the rules, no flamer wall against Invisible unit.

FratHammer wrote:
"Because Template is a special rule, not Wall of Death. In addition, I've explain other reasons why it's a shooting attack. Where it's located in the rulebook isn't relevant."

So the assumption here is it is not a special rule for a special rules? I am using facts. It is in the special rules section, and is a rule assigned to a special rule assigned to a profile. Your assumption is incorrect. If we are having a purely raw argument, you cannot state that GW placed the rule in the wrong section.

The section is irrelevant.

"The Template weapon is fired in Overwatch. Overwatch is a shooting attack. Therefore anything fired as part of that Shooting Attack is a shooting attack."

The Fear special rule happens at the start of the fight sub phase. Is fear a close combat attack?

No. Fear is not made as part of a Close Combat Attack.

Do you believe "No Escape" does not apply as well? Because a special role is assigning automatic hits on an invisible target?

No Escape isn't a shooting attack. Wall of Death demonstrably (as in - I've demonstrated) is.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
So resolving Total collapse damage as part of a Unit's shooting attack is not a shooting attack?

Correct.

Sure, there is not much precedence or examples to go by, but we make do. Provide more example of Auto-Hits during Shooting attacks if you disagree.

Nope - onus is on you. I've proven my argument, you're trying to straw man me.

I've proven my argument, i'm just giving you example of Auto-Hitting attacks, since you did not seem to grasp their resolution.
It does not involve any Snap Firing.

Which is a problem, given the rule I've cited.

You mean this RaW?

they cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit

What from the above quote is made up?
The Automatic Hits?
Or that fact that it is not snap firing?

Neither, but that's not what I'm addressing.

Templates do not have a specific exception to Snap Shots (only in) Overwatch.
They have a permission to automatically inflicts D3 hits during the Overwatch Phase. What does Invisibility do to Automatic Hits? (Hopefully you don't need more examples of how Auto-Hits work)

Invisibility doesn't do anything directly.
Instead, it requires that everything fired at the unit be a Snap Shot. Is Wall of Death firing at the unit? Is it firing Snap Shots?
The answers, as we know according to the cited rules are "Yes" and "No". Therefore firing a Template weapon as part of Overwatch against an Invisible unit isn't allowed, as it cannot be fired as a Snap Shot (given the snap shot rules that forbid attacks that don't use a BS from being Snap Shots).

Overwatch requires that everything fired be a Snap Shot. Is Wall of Death firing? Is it firing Snap Shots?

The same conclusions apply: No, it is not Snap shooting, but the automatic hits are still resolved.

weapons and models that cannot fire Snap Shots cannot fire Overwatch

 BlackTalos wrote:
Overwatch requires that everything fired be a Snap Shot. Is Wall of Death firing? Is it firing Snap Shots?

Please read the rules for Wall of Death. It explicitly allows Templates to fire Overwatch (in contradiction to the normal rules).

There is no rule allowing Template weapons to make Snap Shots. Ever.

The same conclusions apply: No, it is not Snap shooting, but the automatic hits are still resolved.

weapons and models that cannot fire Snap Shots cannot fire Overwatch

Please stop applying conclusions from different situations to this one. They aren't similar because Wall of Death explicitly allows something that isn't a Snap Shot to happen during Overwatch.

Template weapons cannot Snap Shot.
Template weapons can fire Overwatch (Wall of Death allows this).
Weapons fired at an invisible unit must be fired as Snap Shots.
Template weapons cannot fire Snap Shots - even with Wall of Death.
Template weapons cannot be fired at Invisible units.

Please quote the assertion you disagree with and why.

Well, neither of us can win this argument then.

You refuse to read the rules as I feel they are plainly written. I see what you are saying, that because it happens at the same time it must be the same. But RAW it is never called a shooting attack, it breaks the rules of a shooting attack, it is a special rule activated during overwatch as I believe is clearly stated in the rule itself, which we have quoted at length, and is in the section to cover such rules. It also states that you do this in place of normal overwatch, stated as such because you cannot snap fire. So the ability, which is not a shooting attack, triggers.

You believe, if I am not mistaken, that it is a shooting attack and as such must snapfire. Even though I do not agree that is what RAW tells us. I've even cited 1 example of an ability that occurs during another phase, but is not the same type of action. Neither is WOD. It is during the overwatch as an overwatch, but just as you stated fear is not a close combat attack(which it obviously is not) with no evidence to support you, you claim WOD is a shooting attack, not an activated ability, which I have supported with evidence.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
"They aren't similar because Wall of Death explicitly allows something that isn't a Snap Shot to happen during Overwatch."

OMG then you even say it! How are you not seeing the flaw in your logic?

It is a special rules that happens! You say it in your argument...i don't understand how you don't grasp that. It isn't a shooting attack... It isn't a snap shot... it is an effect...a special rules that comes into effect causing d3 hits... How do you not see the flaw in your argument...

FratHammer wrote:
. I see what you are saying, that because it happens at the same time it must be the same.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying.
Is Overwatch a shooting attack - yes or no will suffice.

"They aren't similar because Wall of Death explicitly allows something that isn't a Snap Shot to happen during Overwatch."

OMG then you even say it! How are you not seeing the flaw in your logic?

It is a special rules that happens! You say it in your argument...i don't understand how you don't grasp that. It isn't a shooting attack... It isn't a snap shot... it is an effect...a special rules that comes into effect causing d3 hits... How do you not see the flaw in your argument...

No, I never said it was a special rule that happens. You're failing to read my argument correctly.

Also, please learn how to use quotes correctly.

From my phone that would be difficult at best. When I'm home quotes are used with the website's built in assistance, but the quotes I am using are "correct"

Overwatch, with non template weapons, isa shooting attack. But as you said, "... Wall of Death explicitly allows something that isn't a snap shot to happen during overwatch" in 40k we call those special circumstance rules, special rules. Especially when listed in the special rules section, listed as a special rule for a special rule.

You want your statements to be true, but have no RAW to even set precedence. You're trying to convert special rules into something they are not. If WOD were a normal shooting attack, as with witchfire, it would state that it is a shooting attack.

BRB Template, Wall of Death "Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though they cannot fire Snap Shots...."

Wall of Death is a shooting attack that happens in overwatch.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
It seems like this whole thread is being overthought a little. It's simple. WoD says that a flamer can fire overwatch, even though it can't fire snap shots, and does d3 hits. So, can you use WoD on an invisible unit?

Are you firing overwatch? Then, yes.

Wrong question.

Invisibility specifically requires the shooter to fire snap shots. Being Overwatch doesn't get around Invisibility... being a Snap Shot does.

Templates can fire Overwatch (which is normally a Snap Shot), even though they can't Snap Shoot. They can never Snap Shoot.

So when you try to make Wall of Death attacks against an Invisible unit, are you firing Snap Shots?


The answer is no, you're not. And so that attack is not allowed.

FratHammer wrote:
Overwatch, with non template weapons, isa shooting attack. But as you said, "... Wall of Death explicitly allows something that isn't a snap shot to happen during overwatch" in 40k we call those special circumstance rules, special rules. Especially when listed in the special rules section, listed as a special rule for a special rule.

So you're just going to ignore the rule I quoted that Template weapons fire Overwatch, and that Overwatch is a shooting attack?

You want your statements to be true, but have no RAW to even set precedence. You're trying to convert special rules into something they are not. If WOD were a normal shooting attack, as with witchfire, it would state that it is a shooting attack.

I've shown the actual rules. You've asserted things that aren't actually rules. The Actual rules do state it's a shooting attack.

 Lobukia wrote:
HIWPI = yes, flame away, and I'd expect to be allowed to.
RAI = who knows? I'm leaning towards yes, WoD is supposed to work against Invisibility
RAW = must snap fire = must be able to snap fire... so no, fluff and logic don't apply, only the rules, no flamer wall against Invisible unit.

I completely agree I would not play it that way but it would be nice to know one way or the other cause someone else might try it against me. My regular opponent and I have have just agreed if you get invisibility to reroll the power as it is not very well balanced and not conducive to a fun game.

...Overwatch is resolved LIKE a normal shooting attack...shots fired as Overwatch can only be fired as snap shots. Therefore, weapons and models that cannot fire snap shots cannot fire Overwatch...pg45

Wall of Death: 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...pg173 as a portion of the Template Special Rule.

Overwatch is "RESOLVED LIKE A SHOOTING ATTACK"

Now lets look at a rule that is during a non shooting phase that "IS a shooting attack"

Witchfire pg27. "Witchfire powers ARE SHOOTING ATTACKS."

You can claim you can read RAW. You can claim you are basing your argument on RAW, but when I refute it, when I give evidence several times to the contrary, you can claim what you want. RULES DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT. And other guy, your BRB conclusion is incorrect, RAW.

Having read through the discussion, the RAW seem to strongly lean towards not being able to WoD. This seems in line with spirit of the rules. Why would an attack be more effective firing in a more limited shooting phase? I know spirit of the rules is a very nebulous notion. But if there is a debate over the rules with no clear resolution (not saying this is a case like that), I tend to focus on that.