Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 19:38:10
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Mulletdude wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
You're unable to fire a Template weapon because it's a Template weapon. It has nothing to do with the "no BS, no snap shot" rule.
In addition, we're not discussing the shooting phase at all.
Relax a bit. My premise was correct and I'm trying to explain how it is. Ignore the topic of the thread and please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following premises.
1) If a unit is invisible, when it is being targeted by a shooting attack, the attack must be snap shots.
2) If the current phase is the shooting phase and I select a target to shoot at an invisible unit, the resulting shots must be snap shots.
3) If I am restricted to firing snap shots, I cannot fire a template weapon.
4) If a unit it charged, it gets to declare Overwatch.
5) Overwatch shots have the restriction of 'must be snap shots'.
6) Wall of Death allows a template weapon to fire Overwatch.
Yes, all of those in general are correct.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 19:41:58
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
...as a specific exception to the requirement for Overwatch to be fired as Snap Shots.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 19:43:27
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot
|
rigeld2 wrote: Mulletdude wrote:rigeld2 wrote: You're unable to fire a Template weapon because it's a Template weapon. It has nothing to do with the "no BS, no snap shot" rule. In addition, we're not discussing the shooting phase at all. Relax a bit. My premise was correct and I'm trying to explain how it is. Ignore the topic of the thread and please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following premises. 1) If a unit is invisible, when it is being targeted by a shooting attack, the attack must be snap shots. 2) If the current phase is the shooting phase and I select a target to shoot at an invisible unit, the resulting shots must be snap shots. 3) If I am restricted to firing snap shots, I cannot fire a template weapon. 4) If a unit it charged, it gets to declare Overwatch. 5) Overwatch shots have the restriction of 'must be snap shots'. 6) Wall of Death allows a template weapon to fire Overwatch.
Yes, all of those in general are correct. Alright, cool. Now with my base premises being accepted, I would like to continue my train of logic. Combining premises 1, 4, and 5 gives us the following. 7) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, it gets to declare overwatch and the shots must be resolved as snap shots. EDIT: Selected the wrong premises. Should've been 1,4,5, not 1,2,4 Automatically Appended Next Post: insaniak wrote: ...as a specific exception to the requirement for Overwatch to be fired as Snap Shots.
Shh, lemme finish. Tryin to steal mah thundah.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/02/25 19:47:11
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 19:45:30
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Mulletdude wrote:7) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, it gets to declare overwatch and the shots must be resolved as snap shots.
Slightly incorrect -
enemy units can only fire Snap Shots
Not just "resolved as". You have to fire Snap Shots.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 19:45:31
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
sirlynchmob wrote:The thing is though, WOD doesn't roll to hit at all, it just generates d3 wounds. As you are just generating wounds, you are not restricted by the invisibility, nor are you breaking that rule. .
WOD generates hits, not wounds.
Template weapons firing normally don't roll to hit either. They just generate a number of hits equal to the number of models under the template. So by your logic, Template weapons firing normally would also ignore Invisibility.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 19:50:11
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot
|
rigeld2 wrote: Mulletdude wrote:7) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, it gets to declare overwatch and the shots must be resolved as snap shots.
Slightly incorrect -
enemy units can only fire Snap Shots
Not just "resolved as". You have to fire Snap Shots.
That's semantics and me mistyping. Let me rephrase it according to actual rules wording.
7) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, it gets to declare overwatch and the shots must be snap shots.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 19:50:44
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Sure.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 19:53:12
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot
|
Sweet. That leads me to my next premise.
Combining 4,5, and 6 gives the following.
8) If a unit is charged, it gets to declare overwatch with template weapons.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 19:53:44
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Mulletdude wrote:Sweet. That leads me to my next premise.
Combining 4,5, and 6 gives the following.
8) If a unit is charged, it gets to declare overwatch with template weapons.
Sure.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 19:59:31
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot
|
And that leads me to what should be my last premise
9) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, it gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons.
This is because being charged is logically equivalent to being charged by an invisible unit, as described by premise 7.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/25 20:01:12
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 20:02:28
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
|
It gets to declare overwatch but it must fire all shots as snap shots which templates cannot do. Automatically Appended Next Post: Which is exactly like disembarking from and assault vehicle after it comes in from reserve two restrictions with a single allowance. It's a no go.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/25 20:04:38
ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.
You're not a Time Lord stick with linear time.
Specific Vs General |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 20:04:39
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
Mulletdude wrote:And that leads me to what should be my last premise
9) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, it gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons.
This is because being charged is logically equivalent to being charged by an invisible unit, as described by premise 7.
What is giving you permission to ignore your premise #1?
Yes, you can declare Overwatch with the unit that has a template weapon being charged by an Invisible unit... but you're only going to be able to resolve any shots with weapons that can snap fire.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/25 20:05:33
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 20:04:40
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Mullet - wall of death doesn't make it fire snapshots. We know this for a fact, as it never States it does so.
Your leaping conclusion is proven incorrect.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 20:06:54
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot
|
insaniak wrote: Mulletdude wrote:And that leads me to what should be my last premise
9) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, it gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons.
This is because being charged is logically equivalent to being charged by an invisible unit, as described by premise 7.
What is giving you permission to ignore your premise #1?
Please show me using the 8 accepted premises on how I ignored premise 1?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 20:07:44
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Mulletdude wrote:And that leads me to what should be my last premise
9) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, it gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons.
This is because being charged is logically equivalent to being charged by an invisible unit, as described by premise 7.
Here's the issue with that.
You have general permission to declare Overwatch with Template weapons. You have a specific restriction on top of the general Overwatch restriction of requiring snap shots.
Template weapons cannot fire snap shots.
If a Land Raider arrives from Reserves, can the Sternguard embarked on it disembark and declare a charge? No.
Cannot declare a charge when disembarking from a vehicle - Assault Ramps conflict and override this.
Cannot declare a charge the turn you arrive from Reserves - nothing conflicts.
In this case you have:
Overwatch requires Snap shots - WoD conflicts and overrides.
Invisible requires snap shots - nothing conflicts. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mulletdude wrote: insaniak wrote: Mulletdude wrote:And that leads me to what should be my last premise
9) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, it gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons.
This is because being charged is logically equivalent to being charged by an invisible unit, as described by premise 7.
What is giving you permission to ignore your premise #1?
Please show me using the 8 accepted premises on how I ignored premise 1?
1) If a unit is invisible, when it is being targeted by a shooting attack, the attack must be snap shots.
The Template weapon is never making a Snap Shot against the invisible unit. It can't. Nothing in your premises allows it to make a snap shot.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/25 20:08:35
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 20:08:55
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
You're assuming that just because you declare over watch that all weapons will fire as snapshots. This isn't true. Templates fire, without ever being snapshots.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 20:20:03
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot
|
rigeld2 wrote:The Template weapon is never making a Snap Shot against the invisible unit. It can't. Nothing in your premises allows it to make a snap shot. You are correct. According to my premise 3, a template weapon cannot be fired as a snap shot. But you agreed with me and said premise 8 was true, allowing a template weapon to be fired in Overwatch. The only thing I did between premise 8 and 9 is change out the logically equivalent statement. This is because if the charging unit is invisible or not, the charged unit can fire overwatch as snap shots.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/25 20:20:20
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 20:24:57
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Mulletdude wrote:rigeld2 wrote:The Template weapon is never making a Snap Shot against the invisible unit. It can't. Nothing in your premises allows it to make a snap shot. You are correct. According to my premise 3, a template weapon cannot be fired as a snap shot. But you agreed with me and said premise 8 was true, allowing a template weapon to be fired in Overwatch. The only thing I did between premise 8 and 9 is change out the logically equivalent statement. This is because if the charging unit is invisible or not, the charged unit can fire overwatch as snap shots.
Template weapons can be fired in Overwatch. This does not mean that they are firing as Snap Shots. Nothing in Wall of Death or in any of your premises says that Templates fire Snap Shots - in fact, the Snap Shot rules say that cannot happen (not only can Templates not fire Snap Shots, but as a shooting attack that does use Ballistic Skill it can't be 'fired' as a Snap Shot). edit: You're making the leap that because you can fire Overwatch, you're firing Snap Shots. That isn't true at all. edit2: You also said that "a unit is charged" and " If a unit is charged by an invisible unit" are logically equivalent which is demonstrably untrue. There are significant additional rules in place with an invisible unit versus a non-invisible one so they are not equivalent.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/25 20:29:22
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 20:29:55
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Mulletdude wrote:rigeld2 wrote:The Template weapon is never making a Snap Shot against the invisible unit. It can't. Nothing in your premises allows it to make a snap shot.
You are correct. According to my premise 3, a template weapon cannot be fired as a snap shot. But you agreed with me and said premise 8 was true, allowing a template weapon to be fired in Overwatch. The only thing I did between premise 8 and 9 is change out the logically equivalent statement. This is because if the charging unit is invisible or not, the charged unit can fire overwatch as snap shots.
Already pointed out you have made a leap in logic there.
WoD allows you to fire. It does not require that to be as a snapshot. We know this to be true, as WoD does not say it makes the flamer fire a snapshot .
If you want to prove your assertion, prove that WoD makes it into a snapshot.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 20:34:01
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
Twisted Trueborn with Blaster
|
ClockworkZion wrote:rigeld2 wrote:ClockworkZion wrote:I think it might be time for folks to take a step back from the thread and come back when their heads are a bit cooler. I think we can agree there is an argument both ways and because of that there is no true "100% right answer" at the moment.
Well, there is. I've quoted the rules supporting it.
And they've quoted rules to argue against it.
Neither side is going to "win" this one and I really think it's better for people to step back instead of arguing to the point where a mod gets involved and starts smacking people upside the head.
You're absolutely right, but it's pointless to try to stop the bickering. Unfortunately, there is a certain class of player, who don't understand the rules of good debate, who rely one accusing their opponents their opponents of logical fallacies (generally the same logical fallacies they themselves are fall prey to), ad hominem attacks (often, as seen above, while using ad hominem attacks themselves), and an unshakable belief in the superiority of their own interpretations (often making assertions while refusing any burden of proof, yet expecting the other side to fulfil said burden) to win arguments (or rather, to grind everyone's patience down to the point that they stop arguing). These kinds of players are incapable of having an intelligent debate, because they do not know how to assume good faith, they cannot acknowledge, and therefore debate, the merits of different viewpoints, and their only goal is to "win" the argument (not surprisingly, these are the same types of players nobody wants to play with, because of the same type of attitude). And unfortunately, those are the types of players carrying this thread (and the majority of threads in YMDC).
So yeah, it's about time for this thread to end. But I don't think that's gonna happen without the mods just closing it.
And seriously people, it's a game. It's supposed to be fun, not...this
|
"But If the Earth isn't flat, then how did Jabba chakka wookiee no Solo ho ho ho hoooooooo?" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 21:11:29
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets
|
AnFéasógMór wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:rigeld2 wrote:ClockworkZion wrote:I think it might be time for folks to take a step back from the thread and come back when their heads are a bit cooler. I think we can agree there is an argument both ways and because of that there is no true "100% right answer" at the moment.
Well, there is. I've quoted the rules supporting it.
And they've quoted rules to argue against it.
Neither side is going to "win" this one and I really think it's better for people to step back instead of arguing to the point where a mod gets involved and starts smacking people upside the head.
You're absolutely right, but it's pointless to try to stop the bickering. Unfortunately, there is a certain class of player, who don't understand the rules of good debate, who rely one accusing their opponents their opponents of logical fallacies (generally the same logical fallacies they themselves are fall prey to), ad hominem attacks (often, as seen above, while using ad hominem attacks themselves), and an unshakable belief in the superiority of their own interpretations (often making assertions while refusing any burden of proof, yet expecting the other side to fulfil said burden) to win arguments (or rather, to grind everyone's patience down to the point that they stop arguing). These kinds of players are incapable of having an intelligent debate, because they do not know how to assume good faith, they cannot acknowledge, and therefore debate, the merits of different viewpoints, and their only goal is to "win" the argument (not surprisingly, these are the same types of players nobody wants to play with, because of the same type of attitude). And unfortunately, those are the types of players carrying this thread (and the majority of threads in YMDC).
So yeah, it's about time for this thread to end. But I don't think that's gonna happen without the mods just closing it.
And seriously people, it's a game. It's supposed to be fun, not...this
This. Above all it's supposed to be fun, but i've seen a lot of evidence both for and against WOD on Invisible units. Until they FAQ it, it will be house rules or HIWPI.
Side note: most of YMDC is fine, but every once in a while this or another thread pops up and people lose their fething mind.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/25 21:15:14
~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 21:14:46
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Seriously - what evidence is there allowing Wall of Death to fire at a unit that requires you use Snap Shots? There isn't any actual evidence in this thread (unless I've somehow missed it) just people inaccurately quoting rules or making things up.
And the game is fun. I find rules discussions - including this one - also fun. Remember that just because I argue a certain way doesn't mean I play that way.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 21:16:10
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets
|
rigeld2 wrote:Seriously - what evidence is there allowing Wall of Death to fire at a unit that requires you use Snap Shots? There isn't any actual evidence in this thread (unless I've somehow missed it) just people inaccurately quoting rules or making things up.
And the game is fun. I find rules discussions - including this one - also fun. Remember that just because I argue a certain way doesn't mean I play that way.
Not even gonna get dragged into this okay? So don't bother. I'm just saying I've seen points that make sense on both sides, so back off.
|
~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 21:19:30
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
jreilly89 wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Seriously - what evidence is there allowing Wall of Death to fire at a unit that requires you use Snap Shots? There isn't any actual evidence in this thread (unless I've somehow missed it) just people inaccurately quoting rules or making things up.
And the game is fun. I find rules discussions - including this one - also fun. Remember that just because I argue a certain way doesn't mean I play that way.
Not even gonna get dragged into this okay? So don't bother. I'm just saying I've seen points that make sense on both sides, so back off.
Then don't reply?
If you state something as fact ("but i've seen a lot of evidence both for and against WOD on Invisible units") you should expect to be asked about it.
Since you've opted not to support your statement by pointing out any evidence how do you expect me to take your statement?
And I don't need to "back off" because I wasn't specifically addressing you nor calling you out. All I did was ask for evidence. You said it exists, so did the other poster - I've yet to see any.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 21:21:46
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
If you're not here to discuss RAW then you are not posting in the relevant forum, i.e., you are probably breaking Rule Number Two. YMDC is for discussing RAW, not for lecturing us about why discussing RAW is not fun (for you). Thanks.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 21:22:45
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
jreilly89 wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Seriously - what evidence is there allowing Wall of Death to fire at a unit that requires you use Snap Shots? There isn't any actual evidence in this thread (unless I've somehow missed it) just people inaccurately quoting rules or making things up.
And the game is fun. I find rules discussions - including this one - also fun. Remember that just because I argue a certain way doesn't mean I play that way.
Not even gonna get dragged into this okay? So don't bother. I'm just saying I've seen points that make sense on both sides, so back off.
Posting that you have seen something factual, in an ongoing discussion, would normally mean you would expect to be asked to substantiate your claims. It's in the tenets or something.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 21:23:57
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis
On the Internet
|
You have a specific rule that invokes a general rule (invisibility) conflicting with another specific rule (Wall of Death). Frankly I see logic on both sides but I also see a lot of rejection of alternate ideas here.
This has hardly been a discussion or a debate but instead the WWI trench lines on the Western Front.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 21:24:28
Subject: Re:wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot
|
Manchu wrote:If you're not here to discuss RAW then you are not posting in the relevant forum, i.e., you are probably breaking Rule Number Two. YMDC is for discussing RAW, not for lecturing us about why discussing RAW is not fun (for you). Thanks.
And with that, this is my last attempt to prove my point. I have refined my premises to be more clear and include proper citation.
1) If a unit it charged, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch and the shots must be snap shots. ( BRB pg 45 - Overwatch)
P->Q
2) If a unit is declaring Overwatch, then template weapons may be fired. ( BRB pg 173 - Wall of Death)
Q->S
3) If a unit is charged, then the charged unit gets to fire with template weapons. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
P->S
4) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare overwatch and the shots must be snap shots. (New assumption, previously agreed to be true)
R->Q
5) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
R->S
Premises 1 thru 4 are agreed to be true. Premises 1 and 4 have the same Q. Therefore, because premise 2 is true, premise 5 must be true because of Hypothetical Syllogism. If someone can find fault with this Logic I'd love to know.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 21:26:11
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Find where wall of death States it turns the firing into a snapshot. Page and graph please.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/02/25 21:26:31
Subject: wall of death and invisibility question?
|
 |
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets
|
rigeld2 wrote: jreilly89 wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Seriously - what evidence is there allowing Wall of Death to fire at a unit that requires you use Snap Shots? There isn't any actual evidence in this thread (unless I've somehow missed it) just people inaccurately quoting rules or making things up.
And the game is fun. I find rules discussions - including this one - also fun. Remember that just because I argue a certain way doesn't mean I play that way.
Not even gonna get dragged into this okay? So don't bother. I'm just saying I've seen points that make sense on both sides, so back off.
Then don't reply?
If you state something as fact ("but i've seen a lot of evidence both for and against WOD on Invisible units") you should expect to be asked about it.
Since you've opted not to support your statement by pointing out any evidence how do you expect me to take your statement?
And I don't need to "back off" because I wasn't specifically addressing you nor calling you out. All I did was ask for evidence. You said it exists, so did the other poster - I've yet to see any.
This is what I've seen for evidence. It makes the most sense, but still falls in line with RAI.
Mulletdude wrote: Manchu wrote:If you're not here to discuss RAW then you are not posting in the relevant forum, i.e., you are probably breaking Rule Number Two. YMDC is for discussing RAW, not for lecturing us about why discussing RAW is not fun (for you). Thanks.
And with that, this is my last attempt to prove my point. I have refined my premises to be more clear and include proper citation.
1) If a unit it charged, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch and the shots must be snap shots. ( BRB pg 45 - Overwatch)
P->Q
2) If a unit is declaring Overwatch, then template weapons may be fired. ( BRB pg 173 - Wall of Death)
Q->S
3) If a unit is charged, then the charged unit gets to fire with template weapons. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
P->S
4) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare overwatch and the shots must be snap shots. (New assumption, previously agreed to be true)
R->Q
5) If a unit is charged by an invisible unit, then the charged unit gets to declare Overwatch with template weapons. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
R->S
Premises 1 thru 4 are agreed to be true. Premises 1 and 4 have the same Q. Therefore, because premise 2 is true, premise 5 must be true because of Hypothetical Syllogism. If someone can find fault with this Logic I'd love to know.
|
~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) |
|
 |
 |
|