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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Andykp wrote:
This is HIWPI- it shoota all its shots and is removed. Because it in universe wouldn’t fire all its guns one at a time. That’s why they have you declare all your targets for a model. Because you could in real life wait and see how your turret gunner got on. The turn is there to represent a specific amount of time. The predator doesn’t move up the battlefield, stop and pop off its guns one at a time and then wait a second while the enemy shoots back. It all happens at once. So I would resolve the predators shots and then the lascannon then finish off the predator. Easy.

What would make sense in the real world has no bearing on the 40k ruleset

Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

I wasn’t talking about in the real world real world. I meant in the in game real world. The game represents the events in the 40000 universe. They don’t happen in a sequenced chain of actions. The occur in real time. The turns and sequence are just for the game, making it work as a turn based game. When ever I read a rule I try to think about what it is trying to represent in the worlds where the battle is occurring (not the real world). And I interpret the rule with that in mind. That to me is more important than sequencing. Hence the hiwpi disclaimer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:
Nothing is simultaneous in 40k. Anything that would be is instead sequenced.

That sequencing is just an abstract way of representing the simultaneous actions. That’s how I see it. And how I would play it. I would also use the bs it had at the start of the phase. If my opponent wasn’t happy with that I would use the bottom level. Chances are we would sort it however unlikely it is to happen.

Andykp wrote:


I wasn’t talking about in the real world real world. I meant in the in game real world.

There is not in game real world. it is a fabrication.

The game represents the events in the 40000 universe.

Which is made up. therefore you cant tie any real physics or situations into it. You said "Because it in universe wouldn’t fire all its guns one at a time." But it is just a model and the universe is made up.

They don’t happen in a sequenced chain of actions. The occur in real time.

No they do not occur at all, that is my point. They are models and a story. they are not events that actually happen and as such bringing up how it would happen is equating the situation to How it works in the real world.

The turns and sequence are just for the game, making it work as a turn based game. When ever I read a rule I try to think about what it is trying to represent in the worlds where the battle is occurring (not the real world). And I interpret the rule with that in mind. That to me is more important than sequencing. Hence the hiwpi disclaimer.

There are no worlds "where the battle is occurring". trying to "about what it is trying to represent in the worlds where the battle is occurring" is trying to pull in real world physics to a made up universe.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000. How it would work if it were real has no bearing on the rules for 40K.

Andykp wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Nothing is simultaneous in 40k. Anything that would be is instead sequenced.

That sequencing is just an abstract way of representing the simultaneous actions. That’s how I see it. And how I would play it. I would also use the bs it had at the start of the phase. If my opponent wasn’t happy with that I would use the bottom level. Chances are we would sort it however unlikely it is to happen.

You might see it that way, but I'm afraid you are wrong. Something that happens while resolving a sequence affects the rest of that sequence. The entire purpose of sequencing is to turn something simultaneous into something non-simultaneous.

If you want to play like that then that's fine, but using the BS from the start of the phase is not how the rules work. This would be a house rule.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
What BS does a Predator with 0 wounds have? The Tyranid FAQ only applies to Tyranids.

Funny how you say you can't use FAQ from other factions, until you try to use one to prove your arguments.

Its precedent.

Fragile wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
What BS does a Predator with 0 wounds have? The Tyranid FAQ only applies to Tyranids.

Funny how you say you can't use FAQ from other factions, until you try to use one to prove your arguments.

Its precedent.

There is a difference between using an FAQ that confirms the RAW and one that ignores it. Due to the bespoke nature of 8th edition, "precedent" means nothing.

Fragile wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
What BS does a Predator with 0 wounds have? The Tyranid FAQ only applies to Tyranids.

Funny how you say you can't use FAQ from other factions, until you try to use one to prove your arguments.

Its precedent.

Indeed. He does this constantly. It’s irritating. See also sidetracking threads onto his views...

There seems to be a really obvious answer to this if you follow the sequencing in the Core Rules.

"Number of Attacks
Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks. You roll one dice for each attack being made. The number of attacks a model can make with a weapon, and therefore the number of dice you can roll, is found on the weapon’s profile, along with the weapon’s type. A weapon’s type can impact the number of attacks it can make."

"4. Resolve Attacks
Attacks can be made one at a time, or, in some cases, you can roll for multiple attacks together. The following sequence is used to make attacks one at a time:"

The first quote defines what an attack is. It's one shot out of however many from a weapon. The second quote tells you how to resolve attacks, when sequencing you go through the entire process one attack (or shot) at a time. That means you make a hit roll, a single wound roll, one wound is allocated, one save is made, if failed a Banner ability is made and then you nestle the Banner sequence.

So even though you declared all of the shots for the Pred, it died before any of those attacks could be resolved. Just like failing the Plasma Gun clarifies, unless there's specific text saying otherwise a dead model cannot resolve more attacks.

Even though what you stated is an understandable way to interpret the shooting phase, its still incorrect in this case. You have to treat this situation exactly the same as it happens in the fight phase.


All models in the unit (in this case, one predator) may make all their attacks as long as when they first declared targets they were in range, no matter whether the targeted models die to the first weapon or some other effect happens and kills the predator.


Doing it any other way is pedantic and bogs the game down (either with extra rolls, or arguments).



With that said, im out of this. I dont think theres anything else I can say on the matter without repeating others or just aggravating people.

 Stux wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Nothing is simultaneous in 40k. Anything that would be is instead sequenced.

That sequencing is just an abstract way of representing the simultaneous actions. That’s how I see it. And how I would play it. I would also use the bs it had at the start of the phase. If my opponent wasn’t happy with that I would use the bottom level. Chances are we would sort it however unlikely it is to happen.

You might see it that way, but I'm afraid you are wrong. Something that happens while resolving a sequence affects the rest of that sequence. The entire purpose of sequencing is to turn something simultaneous into something non-simultaneous.

If you want to play like that then that's fine, but using the BS from the start of the phase is not how the rules work. This would be a house rule.

Now we have a a difference of opinion. If you want to see you’re games as a series or Mathematical events that’s fine. I see mine as an unfolding story. Almost like watching a film or a big role playing game. The rules have to make sense in that perspective to me. I’m not wrong, just see things differently to you and view the rules differently, they are an abstract frame work to allow my opponent and I to tell a story.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Andykp wrote:


I wasn’t talking about in the real world real world. I meant in the in game real world.

There is not in game real world. it is a fabrication.

The game represents the events in the 40000 universe.

Which is made up. therefore you cant tie any real physics or situations into it. You said "Because it in universe wouldn’t fire all its guns one at a time." But it is just a model and the universe is made up.

They don’t happen in a sequenced chain of actions. The occur in real time.

No they do not occur at all, that is my point. They are models and a story. they are not events that actually happen and as such bringing up how it would happen is equating the situation to How it works in the real world.

The turns and sequence are just for the game, making it work as a turn based game. When ever I read a rule I try to think about what it is trying to represent in the worlds where the battle is occurring (not the real world). And I interpret the rule with that in mind. That to me is more important than sequencing. Hence the hiwpi disclaimer.

There are no worlds "where the battle is occurring". trying to "about what it is trying to represent in the worlds where the battle is occurring" is trying to pull in real world physics to a made up universe.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000. How it would work if it were real has no bearing on the rules for 40K.

I use a thing called imagination to play a game set in the 40k universe. That’s most the fun for me. You clearly do maths with models. Which is good for you if you enjoy it. Sounds pretty dull to me. So I’ll stick to playing make believe with my toy soldiers cheers.

Again, that's all fine. But we're debating the rules here in this rules forum. This is a situation where there is an objectively correct way to play the game by the rules.

If you don't like that and get enjoyment from doing it a different way that is totally cool. Whatever you and your friends do to have fun playing the game, more power to you.

But it has no bearing on this discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Even if you were putting narrative first, why can't a gun explode from enemy fire part way through firing all its shots due to a heroic last gasp from a dying enemy?

Sounds pretty cool right?

That sounds fine and could convince me on game day to play it that way, but I don’t think I could have made it clearer that that was how I would play it. I said it straight off the bat in my first comment. And believe it or not some people come here on advice on how to play the game and actually deal with situations that can crop up. So all the theoretical discussions are great but I think it’s important to present a how you could play it scenario. People play in many ways and the discussions here can be very off putting to many of the people here who aren’t as into semantics as the dominant voices on here. So it’s good to have a range of opinions in the discussions rather than the same old people crying about the game being broken or trying to show how clever they are by reading a sentence a certain way. RAI and HIWPI are as valid in the discussion as RAW. Because we all want to actually play the game. So I post my thoughts on things. But make it clear that it’s HIWPI or RAI.

Again, all fine. And there is a place for HIWPI and RAI, even in YMDC.

It's just not particularly helpful to the issue at hand in this instance. It's not somewhere that the RAW is broken and so we need to interpret it. The RAW does tell you how to deal with the situation.

And that’s fine but it doesn’t mean there isn’t more than one way to solve the issue. Same with plasma gets hot stuff and modifiers. Raw is clear and faq backs it up, still not how I or others play it. All part of he discussion. Feel free to ignore me by all means but I’m not trying to be misleading. I made the view point of my stance clear, it wasn’t raw. So did nothing to derail the discussion. Sorry if it annoyed you but that is life. I only took issue with you and/or others telling me I was wrong with how I imagine the games while I’m playing. I didn’t say raw was wrong or you were. So shall we move on? I will continue to add my take to these discussions because if I was new to the hobby and came here looking for answers I would be out of for life by the attitudes of some of the frequent posters on here who treat this as their private area to tell people how to have fun (you all know who you are!) I want to encourage the more narrative casual gamers to participate, not just the rules lawyers.

Fair enough.

While you did use the phase "HIWPI" in your first post, I think (given the context of the discussion) that this was taken as "How I would interpret the rule". Which is very different to what you are actually saying. And things escalated from there.

Let's chalk it up to a misunderstanding, and indeed move on

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Even though what you stated is an understandable way to interpret the shooting phase, its still incorrect in this case. You have to treat this situation exactly the same as it happens in the fight phase.


All models in the unit (in this case, one predator) may make all their attacks as long as when they first declared targets they were in range, no matter whether the targeted models die to the first weapon or some other effect happens and kills the predator.

This is completely incorrect. The Core Rules state that resolving attacks for the fight phase is done in the exact same way it's done in the shooting phase. Just because you declare an attack, it does not mean it automatically gets to shoot or fight. Because the Banner triggers at the end of the first attack sequence, the dead model gets to retaliate before the next "Resolving Attacks" sequence happens. The dead model goes through its own "Resolving Attacks" and part of that sequence is removing Slain models.

You are suggesting that a model that has been removed from play can still make attacks. Good luck checking the Ballistic Skill of something that doesn't exist anymore when you get to that part of the sequence.

Andykp wrote:
I use a thing called imagination to play a game set in the 40k universe. That’s most the fun for me. You clearly do maths with models. Which is good for you if you enjoy it. Sounds pretty dull to me. So I’ll stick to playing make believe with my toy soldiers cheers.

That is all well and good if that works for you, just remember that if it were "really happening" even as a story, you should not try to tie any real world physics or situations into it. Because the 40K rules are a framework to play a game, not a tool to tell a story.

The 40k Game and 40k universe are clearly not compatible because if they were UltraMarines would never lose a game.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I use a thing called imagination to play a game set in the 40k universe. That’s most the fun for me. You clearly do maths with models. Which is good for you if you enjoy it. Sounds pretty dull to me. So I’ll stick to playing make believe with my toy soldiers cheers.

That is all well and good if that works for you, just remember that if it were "really happening" even as a story, you should not try to tie any real world physics or situations into it. Because the 40K rules are a framework to play a game, not a tool to tell a story.

The 40k Game and 40k universe are clearly not compatible because if they were UltraMarines would never lose a game.

I never mentioned real world physics. Just my view of how the game works and the story evolves. In real world physics a standard being near by doesn’t mitigate catastrophic trauma. So don’t worry I’m not going start saying how in real life this or this would happen. In universe, different story. I also ignore most long form fiction as anything other than myth and legend.