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.

No where in the rules does it say to check all the stats of the weapons and lock them in at the beginning of the attack sequence.

It says to check the AP and D after allocating each wound one at a time.

"If this is the case,make all of the hit rolls at the same time,then all of the wound rolls. Your opponent can then allocate the wounds one at a time,making the saving throws and suffering damage each time as appropriate." brb

So the timing for when I check those values, is after the model is removed. If the model no longer exists, how is a value supposed to be returned to me ? unless we are somehow accepting that a removed model is able to affect the game, have stats, characteristics, abilities and rules ?

My example in the previous post proves that rules on a datasheet can affect the game after the unit with that datasheet is removed.

 Stux wrote:
As a counterpoint to this:

Say I have a unit of Suppressors with 1 model left.

I shoot your Hellblasters who are next to your Ancient.

I kill a Hellblaster, you succeed the roll from the ancient and shoot me back, killing my last Suppressor.

Proceed to the charge phase, where another unit of mine charges your Hellblasters unit.

Do you get to shoot overwatch?

The Suppressors have a rule saying because I killed a model, your unit can't shoot overwatch. But the Suppressors are now dead, so by your interpretation their datasheet doesn't exist so I can't use the rule.

Good point, I didn't think of this.

Well, then, the real question is, do we have any source telling us when we are /arn't supposed to acknowledge a models weapon stats and a models characteristics.
because if we can acknowledge that characteristics are still in the game after removal, whats to stop us from always using the highest leadership total in the moral phase, even when that model with the highest has been removed ?

We do not have a rule saying when the characteristics of models and weapons are officially removed. I argue, it is when the model is removed from the game. However, we have 0 RAW for this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, what stops us from finishing ALL of our declared attacks instead of just the ones that were just fast rolled.
Why do the AP and D get to continue to exists but not the rest of weapon profile, BS/WS, Attacks characteristic, S, and the unrolled, but declared, attacks themselves ? Those attacks have already been locked in after checking the range, its not like we have to do that again (and if the models characteristics persists, the only thing stooping it from shooting in the future is it has no range to check, in this case, we have already done that.)

We can't really have it both ways ?
not without a source saying when these characteristics officially cease to exist and affect the game. There are so many precedence that we need to take a look at concerning abilities, rules and characteristics that persist, If removed from the game doesn't remove a models characteristics and stats from affecting the game.

I agree that it could be clearer. Ultimately it is a matter of interpretation. While RAW purists won't like this as an answer, there is a consensus interpretation that you resolve attacks you have already begun to roll, and do not make attacks you haven't rolled yet.

But some do disagree. Without further comment from GW I don't think we can make any progress on this debate.

[quote=Type40 777867 10507657 9b2637343c9fedd8c3f2bb7558a4c55e.jpgAlso, what stops us from finishing ALL of our declared attacks instead of just the ones that were just fast rolled.
Why do the AP and D get to continue to exists but not the weapon profile and the unrolled attacks themselves ?

 Stux wrote:
I agree that it could be clearer. Ultimately it is a matter of interpretation. While RAW purists won't like this as an answer, there is a consensus interpretation that you resolve attacks you have already begun to roll, and do not make attacks you haven't rolled yet.

But some do disagree. Without further comment from GW I don't think we can make any progress on this debate.

Indeed,

Sorry to be a bother with this, I was really playing devils advocate.

I will still play where all rolls that have been started in fast rolling will be resolved in total. As it seems the most fair and streamlined way to interpret the RAW.

I'd hate to sit in front of a guard player and say, ya, your going to have to resolve each one of those attacks one at a time and declare which model is firing which because you need to keep track of who is shooting what and because I might kill some before they shoot and etc. . . It would be a pain.

However, I think its important for people who stumble upon this thread to know RAW this is not an answerable question until we have some input from GW.

@stux I thank you for the joust and discourse.

I think, if it was up to me, the ideal way to keep it streamlined and adress this would be to allow all declared attacks to go through (just like you do when you no longer have LoS to a model) but immediately stop all attacks if the entire unit is removed. <this is not what the rules say to do, but something along those lines would make good errata, IMHO . >





Automatically Appended Next Post:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Also, what stops us from finishing ALL of our declared attacks instead of just the ones that were just fast rolled.
Why do the AP and D get to continue to exists but not the weapon profile and the unrolled attacks themselves ?

Exactly this. Let's put it this way, the shooting rules have given us permission to resolve all of the attacks that we have declared. Having the model removed from the table does not revoke these permissions - nobody has provided a rules quote showing that these permissions are revoked despite prior assertions.

When a model is removed from the table it does not cease to have a stat line. Nor does it's weapons cease to have a profile. Ergo, the shooting rules are still fully resolvable in this situation.

Again its because we have to do the best at interpreting streamlining, intention, and a basic understanding of the overall mechanics of the game here.
There is also no rule saying that the model with the highest leadership is no longer in the unit if it was removed from the game, however, if it was, its generally accepted that we do not get to use that models leadership characteristic in the morale phase.

This is a classic, take it up with your opponent, stick to RAW as close as possible but here we have to determine some amount of intent. There are other rules that specifically say the wounds, attacks, or abilities resolve after all the attacks have been made. Abilities like somber sentinels seem to have been specifically designed without that wording. It is likely that is for a reason. Otherwise by now it would have been erated . I will argue that a model that is removed gets no further attacks, but they finish the attacks they started. As this is a fair and streamlined middle ground. I can see arguments justifiably on both sides and there is no RAW to answer when characteristics officially cease to exist.

If you try to say to your opponent that characteristics, stats, rules and abilities never cease to exist, expect your opponent to start cheesing all sorts of things with rules/abilities/and use of characteristics from long removed models.

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Also, what stops us from finishing ALL of our declared attacks instead of just the ones that were just fast rolled.
Why do the AP and D get to continue to exists but not the weapon profile and the unrolled attacks themselves ?

Exactly this. Let's put it this way, the shooting rules have given us permission to resolve all of the attacks that we have declared. Having the model removed from the table does not revoke these permissions - nobody has provided a rules quote showing that these permissions are revoked despite prior assertions.

When a model is removed from the table it does not cease to have a stat line. Nor does it's weapons cease to have a profile. Ergo, the shooting rules are still fully resolvable in this situation.

Again its because we have to do the best at interpreting streamlining, intention, and a basic understanding of the overall mechanics of the game here.
There is also no rule saying that the model with the highest leadership is no longer in the unit if it was removed from the game, however, if it was, its generally accepted that we do not get to use that models leadership in the morale phase.

This is a classic, take it up with your opponent, and stick to RAW as close as possible. However, I will argue that a model that is removed gets no further attacks, but they finish the attacks they started. As this is a fair and streamlined middle ground. I can see arguments justifiably on both sides and there is no RAW to answer when characteristics officially cease to exist.
If you try to say they never cease to exist, expect your opponent to start cheesing all sorts of things with rules/abilities/and use of characteristics from long removed models.

The rules are fairly clear on that specific "issue".

"Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models" (battle primer, page 2, header "Units")
"If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play." (battle primer, page 7, header "Inflict Damage")

Ergo, if the model is removed from the game, it can not make up part of a unit. Which means you can't use a dead models leadership.

The part that you seem to be getting stuck on is that you think that as soon as a model is removed that the effects it has triggered are immediately removed. Stux gave a great example of the Suppressors where this is not the case. A psyker casting a buff then dying doesn't cause the buff to disappear. Shooting is just another effect. A model commits attacks against a unit with a weapon. Once the model has done that then it doesn't matter if it dies - it's effects are still in the game state and continue to be resolved unless something explicitly says otherwise.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Also, what stops us from finishing ALL of our declared attacks instead of just the ones that were just fast rolled.
Why do the AP and D get to continue to exists but not the weapon profile and the unrolled attacks themselves ?

Exactly this. Let's put it this way, the shooting rules have given us permission to resolve all of the attacks that we have declared. Having the model removed from the table does not revoke these permissions - nobody has provided a rules quote showing that these permissions are revoked despite prior assertions.

When a model is removed from the table it does not cease to have a stat line. Nor does it's weapons cease to have a profile. Ergo, the shooting rules are still fully resolvable in this situation.

Again its because we have to do the best at interpreting streamlining, intention, and a basic understanding of the overall mechanics of the game here.
There is also no rule saying that the model with the highest leadership is no longer in the unit if it was removed from the game, however, if it was, its generally accepted that we do not get to use that models leadership in the morale phase.

This is a classic, take it up with your opponent, and stick to RAW as close as possible. However, I will argue that a model that is removed gets no further attacks, but they finish the attacks they started. As this is a fair and streamlined middle ground. I can see arguments justifiably on both sides and there is no RAW to answer when characteristics officially cease to exist.
If you try to say they never cease to exist, expect your opponent to start cheesing all sorts of things with rules/abilities/and use of characteristics from long removed models.

The rules are fairly clear on that specific "issue".

"Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models" (battle primer, page 2, header "Units")
"If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play." (battle primer, page 7, header "Inflict Damage")

Ergo, if the model is removed from the game, it can not make up part of a unit. Which means you can't use a dead models leadership.

The part that you seem to be getting stuck on is that you think that as soon as a model is removed that the effects it has triggered are immediately removed. Stux gave a great example of the Suppressors where this is not the case. A psyker casting a buff then dying doesn't cause the buff to disappear. Shooting is just another effect. A model commits attacks against a unit with a weapon. Once the model has done that then it doesn't matter if it dies - it's effects are still in the game state and continue to be resolved unless something explicitly says otherwise.

This is wrong,

there is no such thing as ERGO in RAW, you are now making an interpretation.

The models AP checks and Damage checks have not been triggered yet, they are triggered one at a time for each allocated wound.
The models remaining attacks are NOT triggered as you have not started making those attacks yet, those attacks are resolved in sections (as per the fast rolling rules and the rules outlined in "choose ranged weapons") .
Unless you have a source, you are interpreting and not going by RAW and in this case, it is impossible to go by raw, as there is no raw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can just as easily say, as I have said before,

The model is removed from the game ERGO it has no stats to continue making attacks with... yet again, this is an interpretation.
or we can have more fun with ERGO.
My model has shot at your unit last turn, ERGO they are suppressed by heavy fire and can not move during your turn.
Making logical or illogical leaps is not RAW it is an attempt to determine RAI. In the case of a removed model not being a part of the unit, I agree with you, that is most likely the RAI. However, in the case of continuing attacks, I disagree with you, as unlike the Suppressors, the length of existence for the effect/stat/characteristic is not defined. The Suppressors ability length is clearly defined to stay in effect until the end of the turn .

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Also, what stops us from finishing ALL of our declared attacks instead of just the ones that were just fast rolled.
Why do the AP and D get to continue to exists but not the weapon profile and the unrolled attacks themselves ?

Exactly this. Let's put it this way, the shooting rules have given us permission to resolve all of the attacks that we have declared. Having the model removed from the table does not revoke these permissions - nobody has provided a rules quote showing that these permissions are revoked despite prior assertions.

When a model is removed from the table it does not cease to have a stat line. Nor does it's weapons cease to have a profile. Ergo, the shooting rules are still fully resolvable in this situation.

Again its because we have to do the best at interpreting streamlining, intention, and a basic understanding of the overall mechanics of the game here.
There is also no rule saying that the model with the highest leadership is no longer in the unit if it was removed from the game, however, if it was, its generally accepted that we do not get to use that models leadership in the morale phase.

This is a classic, take it up with your opponent, and stick to RAW as close as possible. However, I will argue that a model that is removed gets no further attacks, but they finish the attacks they started. As this is a fair and streamlined middle ground. I can see arguments justifiably on both sides and there is no RAW to answer when characteristics officially cease to exist.
If you try to say they never cease to exist, expect your opponent to start cheesing all sorts of things with rules/abilities/and use of characteristics from long removed models.

The rules are fairly clear on that specific "issue".

"Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models" (battle primer, page 2, header "Units")
"If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play." (battle primer, page 7, header "Inflict Damage")

Ergo, if the model is removed from the game, it can not make up part of a unit. Which means you can't use a dead models leadership.

The part that you seem to be getting stuck on is that you think that as soon as a model is removed that the effects it has triggered are immediately removed. Stux gave a great example of the Suppressors where this is not the case. A psyker casting a buff then dying doesn't cause the buff to disappear. Shooting is just another effect. A model commits attacks against a unit with a weapon. Once the model has done that then it doesn't matter if it dies - it's effects are still in the game state and continue to be resolved unless something explicitly says otherwise.

This is wrong,

there is no such thing as ERGO in RAW, you are now making an interpretation.

The models AP checks and Damage checks have not been triggered yet, they are triggered one at a time for each allocated wound.
The models remaining attacks are NOT triggered as you have not started making those attacks yet, those attacks are resolved in sections (as per the fast rolling rules and the rules outlined in "choose ranged weapons") .
Unless you have a source, you are interpreting and not going by RAW and in this case, it is impossible to go by raw, as there is no raw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can just as easily say, as I have said before,

The model is removed from the game ERGO it has no stats to continue making attacks with... yet again, this is an interpretation.

A model not in play can not make up part of a unit. Otherwise you have a strange definition of "removed from play". So yeah, ergo.

Just because a model is removed from play doesn't mean it's stats stop existing. I can still reference the datasheet of the model that triggered the shooting effect for it's BS, the weapons strength, ap, and damage and be able to continue the shooting sequence without issue.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Also, what stops us from finishing ALL of our declared attacks instead of just the ones that were just fast rolled.
Why do the AP and D get to continue to exists but not the weapon profile and the unrolled attacks themselves ?

Exactly this. Let's put it this way, the shooting rules have given us permission to resolve all of the attacks that we have declared. Having the model removed from the table does not revoke these permissions - nobody has provided a rules quote showing that these permissions are revoked despite prior assertions.

When a model is removed from the table it does not cease to have a stat line. Nor does it's weapons cease to have a profile. Ergo, the shooting rules are still fully resolvable in this situation.

Again its because we have to do the best at interpreting streamlining, intention, and a basic understanding of the overall mechanics of the game here.
There is also no rule saying that the model with the highest leadership is no longer in the unit if it was removed from the game, however, if it was, its generally accepted that we do not get to use that models leadership in the morale phase.

This is a classic, take it up with your opponent, and stick to RAW as close as possible. However, I will argue that a model that is removed gets no further attacks, but they finish the attacks they started. As this is a fair and streamlined middle ground. I can see arguments justifiably on both sides and there is no RAW to answer when characteristics officially cease to exist.
If you try to say they never cease to exist, expect your opponent to start cheesing all sorts of things with rules/abilities/and use of characteristics from long removed models.

The rules are fairly clear on that specific "issue".

"Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models" (battle primer, page 2, header "Units")
"If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play." (battle primer, page 7, header "Inflict Damage")

Ergo, if the model is removed from the game, it can not make up part of a unit. Which means you can't use a dead models leadership.

The part that you seem to be getting stuck on is that you think that as soon as a model is removed that the effects it has triggered are immediately removed. Stux gave a great example of the Suppressors where this is not the case. A psyker casting a buff then dying doesn't cause the buff to disappear. Shooting is just another effect. A model commits attacks against a unit with a weapon. Once the model has done that then it doesn't matter if it dies - it's effects are still in the game state and continue to be resolved unless something explicitly says otherwise.

This is wrong,

there is no such thing as ERGO in RAW, you are now making an interpretation.

The models AP checks and Damage checks have not been triggered yet, they are triggered one at a time for each allocated wound.
The models remaining attacks are NOT triggered as you have not started making those attacks yet, those attacks are resolved in sections (as per the fast rolling rules and the rules outlined in "choose ranged weapons") .
Unless you have a source, you are interpreting and not going by RAW and in this case, it is impossible to go by raw, as there is no raw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can just as easily say, as I have said before,

The model is removed from the game ERGO it has no stats to continue making attacks with... yet again, this is an interpretation.

A model not in play can not make up part of a unit. Otherwise you have a strange definition of "removed from play". So yeah, ergo.

Just because a model is removed from play doesn't mean it's stats stop existing. I can still reference the datasheet of the model that triggered the shooting effect for it's BS, the weapons strength, ap, and damage and be able to continue the shooting sequence without issue.

I would argue that you have a strange definition of "removed from play" if you think a model that is removed from play still has rules that can allow it to move on to its next attack(s) when its not on the battlefield... So yeah, ERGO,

Do you really not understand that you are implying interpretation here and not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You have triggered nothing, Attacks are resolved one at a time, and can be started together in sections (as per the fast dice rolling rules and the choose ranged weapon rules on page 179 of the BRB).
If you do not have a source, you can not claim anything else as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again suppressors have a very clearly defined piece of timing for when their rule stops. This, does not, neither does "when a model is considered to be a part of a unit" we need to make interpretations for these things.
We can not call that interpretation RAW no mater how obvious it might seem.
We agree on when a model stops being a part of a unit.
We do not agree in the interpretation of when a model stops being allowed to make attacks.,,, i think its weird you think removed models should be allowed to make attacks that they havnt started though, very strange interpretation.

 Type40 wrote:


I would argue that you have a strange definition of "removed from play" if you think a model that is removed from play still has rules that can allow it to move on to its next attack(s) when its not on the battlefield... So yeah, ERGO,

Do you really not understand that you are implying interpretation here and not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You have triggered nothing, Attacks are resolved one at a time, and can be started together in sections (as per the fast dice rolling rules and the choose ranged weapon rules on page 179 of the BRB).
If you do not have a source, you can not claim anything else as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again suppressors have a very clearly defined piece of timing for when their rule stops. This, does not, neither does "when a model is considered to be a part of a unit" we need to make interpretations for these things.
We can not call that interpretation RAW no mater how obvious it might seem.
We agree on when a model stops being a part of a unit.
We do not agree in the interpretation of when a model stops being allowed to make attacks.,,, i think its weird you think removed models should be allowed to make attacks that they havnt started though, very strange interpretation.

But the models have started to make the attacks, what do you call sections. 1, 2 and 3 under the shooting phase? Once they have been declared you are locked into resolving them. Being removed fron play doesn't interrupt this sequence.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


I would argue that you have a strange definition of "removed from play" if you think a model that is removed from play still has rules that can allow it to move on to its next attack(s) when its not on the battlefield... So yeah, ERGO,

Do you really not understand that you are implying interpretation here and not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You have triggered nothing, Attacks are resolved one at a time, and can be started together in sections (as per the fast dice rolling rules and the choose ranged weapon rules on page 179 of the BRB).
If you do not have a source, you can not claim anything else as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again suppressors have a very clearly defined piece of timing for when their rule stops. This, does not, neither does "when a model is considered to be a part of a unit" we need to make interpretations for these things.
We can not call that interpretation RAW no mater how obvious it might seem.
We agree on when a model stops being a part of a unit.
We do not agree in the interpretation of when a model stops being allowed to make attacks.,,, i think its weird you think removed models should be allowed to make attacks that they havnt started though, very strange interpretation.

But the models have started to make the attacks, what do you call sections. 1, 2 and 3 under the shooting phase? Once they have been declared you are locked into resolving them. Being removed fron play doesn't interrupt this sequence.

What rule says that ?
Other things can interrupt the sequence ? why would we assume being removed from play doesn't ?
Nothing says you are locked into resolving them, it says "... resolve all shots against one target before moving on to the next" and " ... in order to make several attack at once all the attacks must have the same ..." and "your opponent can then allocate the wounds one at a time"
You still have to have a model there to make the attacks, Yes you "declared" all your attacks, but that doesn't mean things can not change. For example you can play a strat that gives you +1 to something or your opponent can give you -1 to hit. Just because you declared an attack doesn't mean the attack or its stats have been locked in. Where are you getting that from ? It just means, if you can make the attacks, you have to make them on what you declared.
There is plenty of time to be interrupted, as attacks are resolved one at a time, and are started in sections. Again, the rules we are talking about in particular do not have "resolve this after all attacks have been made" however other rules do have this.
Seems like a bit of a stretch to try and say this is the only effect/set of rules in the game that can't interrupt a rule sequence without explicitly saying it wouldn't do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Declare does not = Must resolve.

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


I would argue that you have a strange definition of "removed from play" if you think a model that is removed from play still has rules that can allow it to move on to its next attack(s) when its not on the battlefield... So yeah, ERGO,

Do you really not understand that you are implying interpretation here and not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You have triggered nothing, Attacks are resolved one at a time, and can be started together in sections (as per the fast dice rolling rules and the choose ranged weapon rules on page 179 of the BRB).
If you do not have a source, you can not claim anything else as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again suppressors have a very clearly defined piece of timing for when their rule stops. This, does not, neither does "when a model is considered to be a part of a unit" we need to make interpretations for these things.
We can not call that interpretation RAW no mater how obvious it might seem.
We agree on when a model stops being a part of a unit.
We do not agree in the interpretation of when a model stops being allowed to make attacks.,,, i think its weird you think removed models should be allowed to make attacks that they havnt started though, very strange interpretation.

But the models have started to make the attacks, what do you call sections. 1, 2 and 3 under the shooting phase? Once they have been declared you are locked into resolving them. Being removed fron play doesn't interrupt this sequence.

What rule says that ?
Other things can interrupt the sequence ? why would we assume being removed from play doesn't ?
Nothing says you are locked into resolving them, it says "... resolve all shots against one target before moving on to the next" and " ... in order to make several attack at once all the attacks must have the same ..." and "your opponent can then allocate the wounds one at a time"
You still have to have a model there to make the attacks, Yes you "declared" all your attacks, but that doesn't mean things can not change. For example you can play a strat that gives you +1 to something or your opponent can give you -1 to hit. Just because you declared an attack doesn't mean the attack or its stats have been locked in. Where are you getting that from ? It just means, if you can make the attacks, you have to make them on what you declared.
There is plenty of time to be interrupted, as attacks are resolved one at a time, and are started in sections. Again, the rules we are talking about in particular do not have "resolve this after all attacks have been made" however other rules do have this.
Seems like a bit of a stretch to try and say this is the only effect/set of rules in the game that can't interrupt a rule sequence without explicitly saying it wouldn't do so.

I think you should imagine the unit and all the models in it shooting all their weapons at the some time.
The shells and bullets are already flying, when the aeldar are shooting back and kill the attacker/s.
That is the only reasonable interaction that don`t create million cases where normal and fast dice rolling give different results.

Marin wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


I would argue that you have a strange definition of "removed from play" if you think a model that is removed from play still has rules that can allow it to move on to its next attack(s) when its not on the battlefield... So yeah, ERGO,

Do you really not understand that you are implying interpretation here and not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You have triggered nothing, Attacks are resolved one at a time, and can be started together in sections (as per the fast dice rolling rules and the choose ranged weapon rules on page 179 of the BRB).
If you do not have a source, you can not claim anything else as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again suppressors have a very clearly defined piece of timing for when their rule stops. This, does not, neither does "when a model is considered to be a part of a unit" we need to make interpretations for these things.
We can not call that interpretation RAW no mater how obvious it might seem.
We agree on when a model stops being a part of a unit.
We do not agree in the interpretation of when a model stops being allowed to make attacks.,,, i think its weird you think removed models should be allowed to make attacks that they havnt started though, very strange interpretation.

But the models have started to make the attacks, what do you call sections. 1, 2 and 3 under the shooting phase? Once they have been declared you are locked into resolving them. Being removed fron play doesn't interrupt this sequence.

What rule says that ?
Other things can interrupt the sequence ? why would we assume being removed from play doesn't ?
Nothing says you are locked into resolving them, it says "... resolve all shots against one target before moving on to the next" and " ... in order to make several attack at once all the attacks must have the same ..." and "your opponent can then allocate the wounds one at a time"
You still have to have a model there to make the attacks, Yes you "declared" all your attacks, but that doesn't mean things can not change. For example you can play a strat that gives you +1 to something or your opponent can give you -1 to hit. Just because you declared an attack doesn't mean the attack or its stats have been locked in. Where are you getting that from ? It just means, if you can make the attacks, you have to make them on what you declared.
There is plenty of time to be interrupted, as attacks are resolved one at a time, and are started in sections. Again, the rules we are talking about in particular do not have "resolve this after all attacks have been made" however other rules do have this.
Seems like a bit of a stretch to try and say this is the only effect/set of rules in the game that can't interrupt a rule sequence without explicitly saying it wouldn't do so.

I think you should imagine the unit and all the models in it shooting all their weapons at the some time.
The shells and bullets are already flying, when the aeldar are shooting back and kill the attacker/s.
That is the only reasonable interaction that don`t create million cases where normal and fast dice rolling give different results.

We can imagine what ever we want, it doesn't make what we are imagining the rules.
The harlequin ability explicitly interrupts the sequence, other abilities explicitly do not. If the ability was not supposed to interrupt the sequence it would have the line "after all attacks from the unit are resolved" like the emperors children version of the ability has (probably balanced this way because they do not need a 4+ to trigger theirs).
So again, just because you have declared your attacks doesn't mean a removed model gets to start new attacks after it has been removed. I do concede that already started attacks (via the fast rolling rules) should be completed, but there is no way you are able to start new attacks after a model has been removed from play.

I think in general that this ability wont have much effect in game play. However in this specific case it had a huge impact. And unfortunately I fall between the two camps here.

In this specific case we are talking about a multi weaponed platform. I agree that all remaining weapons not yet rolled for do not get to fire/roll, however I do think that the weapon fired should roll all attacks, even if the first one killed the harlequin.

Cheers

Andrew

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


I would argue that you have a strange definition of "removed from play" if you think a model that is removed from play still has rules that can allow it to move on to its next attack(s) when its not on the battlefield... So yeah, ERGO,

Do you really not understand that you are implying interpretation here and not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You have triggered nothing, Attacks are resolved one at a time, and can be started together in sections (as per the fast dice rolling rules and the choose ranged weapon rules on page 179 of the BRB).
If you do not have a source, you can not claim anything else as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again suppressors have a very clearly defined piece of timing for when their rule stops. This, does not, neither does "when a model is considered to be a part of a unit" we need to make interpretations for these things.
We can not call that interpretation RAW no mater how obvious it might seem.
We agree on when a model stops being a part of a unit.
We do not agree in the interpretation of when a model stops being allowed to make attacks.,,, i think its weird you think removed models should be allowed to make attacks that they havnt started though, very strange interpretation.

But the models have started to make the attacks, what do you call sections. 1, 2 and 3 under the shooting phase? Once they have been declared you are locked into resolving them. Being removed fron play doesn't interrupt this sequence.

What rule says that ?
Other things can interrupt the sequence ? why would we assume being removed from play doesn't ?
Nothing says you are locked into resolving them, it says "... resolve all shots against one target before moving on to the next" and " ... in order to make several attack at once all the attacks must have the same ..." and "your opponent can then allocate the wounds one at a time"
You still have to have a model there to make the attacks, Yes you "declared" all your attacks, but that doesn't mean things can not change. For example you can play a strat that gives you +1 to something or your opponent can give you -1 to hit. Just because you declared an attack doesn't mean the attack or its stats have been locked in. Where are you getting that from ? It just means, if you can make the attacks, you have to make them on what you declared.
There is plenty of time to be interrupted, as attacks are resolved one at a time, and are started in sections. Again, the rules we are talking about in particular do not have "resolve this after all attacks have been made" however other rules do have this.
Seems like a bit of a stretch to try and say this is the only effect/set of rules in the game that can't interrupt a rule sequence without explicitly saying it wouldn't do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Declare does not = Must resolve.

Things can interrupt the sequence, but you have yet to post any evidence showing that you abandon the remainder of the sequence after resolving the interruption.
Given that I have been given permission by the rule set to resolve these attacks by virtue of the shooting rules. The onus is now on you to show that, as a result of a model being slain after it has already declared its attacks, results in the sequence being abandoned.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


I would argue that you have a strange definition of "removed from play" if you think a model that is removed from play still has rules that can allow it to move on to its next attack(s) when its not on the battlefield... So yeah, ERGO,

Do you really not understand that you are implying interpretation here and not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You have triggered nothing, Attacks are resolved one at a time, and can be started together in sections (as per the fast dice rolling rules and the choose ranged weapon rules on page 179 of the BRB).
If you do not have a source, you can not claim anything else as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again suppressors have a very clearly defined piece of timing for when their rule stops. This, does not, neither does "when a model is considered to be a part of a unit" we need to make interpretations for these things.
We can not call that interpretation RAW no mater how obvious it might seem.
We agree on when a model stops being a part of a unit.
We do not agree in the interpretation of when a model stops being allowed to make attacks.,,, i think its weird you think removed models should be allowed to make attacks that they havnt started though, very strange interpretation.

But the models have started to make the attacks, what do you call sections. 1, 2 and 3 under the shooting phase? Once they have been declared you are locked into resolving them. Being removed fron play doesn't interrupt this sequence.

What rule says that ?
Other things can interrupt the sequence ? why would we assume being removed from play doesn't ?
Nothing says you are locked into resolving them, it says "... resolve all shots against one target before moving on to the next" and " ... in order to make several attack at once all the attacks must have the same ..." and "your opponent can then allocate the wounds one at a time"
You still have to have a model there to make the attacks, Yes you "declared" all your attacks, but that doesn't mean things can not change. For example you can play a strat that gives you +1 to something or your opponent can give you -1 to hit. Just because you declared an attack doesn't mean the attack or its stats have been locked in. Where are you getting that from ? It just means, if you can make the attacks, you have to make them on what you declared.
There is plenty of time to be interrupted, as attacks are resolved one at a time, and are started in sections. Again, the rules we are talking about in particular do not have "resolve this after all attacks have been made" however other rules do have this.
Seems like a bit of a stretch to try and say this is the only effect/set of rules in the game that can't interrupt a rule sequence without explicitly saying it wouldn't do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Declare does not = Must resolve.

Things can interrupt the sequence, but you have yet to post any evidence showing that you abandon the remainder of the sequence after resolving the interruption.
Given that I have been given permission by the rule set to resolve these attacks by virtue of the shooting rules. The onus is now on you to show that, as a result of a model being slain after it has already declared its attacks, results in the sequence being abandoned.

Actually the onus on you, the shooting rules have not given you permission to resolve the attacks ?
I really do not know where you are getting this from ?
The shooting rules have only tell you to declare your attacks, no where does it say you must resolve all declared attacks. Factually it tells you to make an attack one at a time or use the fast rolling rules.
You do not abandon the remainder of the sequence,
you get to the part of the sequence where you check to see if you have another attack, but there are no more attacks to make because the model is not in play, so you move on to next eligible unit to shoot with.

So seriously, either show proof you MUST make all of your attacks or accept that you can't shoot with a model that has been removed from play.
Open up to page 179 of the BRB and read it. It really doesn't tell you to do what you seem to think it is telling you to do.

Are you possibly confusing the word Declare and Resolve ?

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Things can interrupt the sequence, but you have yet to post any evidence showing that you abandon the remainder of the sequence after resolving the interruption.
Given that I have been given permission by the rule set to resolve these attacks by virtue of the shooting rules. The onus is now on you to show that, as a result of a model being slain after it has already declared its attacks, results in the sequence being abandoned.

Actually the onus on you, the shooting rules have not given you permission to resolve the attacks ?
I really do not know where you are getting this from ?
The shooting rules have only tell you to declare your attacks, no where does it say you must resolve all declared attacks. Factually it tells you to make an attack one at a time or use the fast rolling rules.
You do not abandon the remainder of the sequence,
you get to the part of the sequence where you make the next attack, but there are no more attacks to make, so you move on to next eligible unit.

So seriously, either show proof you MUST make all of your attacks or accept that you can't shoot with a model that has been removed from play.

Are you possibly confusing the word Declare and Resolve ?

Sorry, can you come again on "the shooting rules have not given you permission to resolve the attacks"? It's spelt out clearly on page 5 of the battle primer under the Shooting Sequence box, the part that says "Resolve Attacks". You know, actually resolving the attacks that you declared that you were making in steps 1 to 3. So simply, that gives me permission to resolve all of the declared attacks.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Things can interrupt the sequence, but you have yet to post any evidence showing that you abandon the remainder of the sequence after resolving the interruption.
Given that I have been given permission by the rule set to resolve these attacks by virtue of the shooting rules. The onus is now on you to show that, as a result of a model being slain after it has already declared its attacks, results in the sequence being abandoned.

Actually the onus on you, the shooting rules have not given you permission to resolve the attacks ?
I really do not know where you are getting this from ?
The shooting rules have only tell you to declare your attacks, no where does it say you must resolve all declared attacks. Factually it tells you to make an attack one at a time or use the fast rolling rules.
You do not abandon the remainder of the sequence,
you get to the part of the sequence where you make the next attack, but there are no more attacks to make, so you move on to next eligible unit.

So seriously, either show proof you MUST make all of your attacks or accept that you can't shoot with a model that has been removed from play.

Are you possibly confusing the word Declare and Resolve ?

Sorry, can you come again on "the shooting rules have not given you permission to resolve the attacks"? It's spelt out clearly on page 5 of the battle primer under the Shooting Sequence box, the part that says "Resolve Attacks". You know, actually resolving the attacks that you declared that you were making in steps 1 to 3. So simply, that gives me permission to resolve all of the declared attacks.

The weapons a model has are listed on its datasheet.If a model has several weapons,it can shoot all of them at the same target,or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit.Similarly,if a unit contains more than one model,they can shoot at the same,or different targets as you choose.In either case,declare how you will split the shooting unit’s shots before any dice are rolled, and resolve all the shots against one target before moving on to the next

Attacks can be made one at a time, or in some cases, you can roll for multiple attacks together

umm where are you seeing this spelt out ?
It is telling you declare where you WILL split your attacks when you move on to resolving them... read it. It no where tells you to "tally up all the shots and resolve each one that you have previously declared" It just says you must declare them.
You check to see if you have anymore attacks, ONE AT A TIME or TOGETHER (when using fast rolling rules), if you do have an attack you must target the unit you have declared. If you do not have anymore attacks because 1. you are out of attacks or 2. the model was removed from play, you can not continue looping the Resolve Attacks sequence for step 4.

Seriously what part of the words on that page are telling you to "resolve all the previously declared attacks" ?
That's not how the game works friend. The word declare does not mean "tally the attacks for later" it does not mean "Resolve later" it doesn't mean anything but Declare. It is giving you a restriction for step 4, its not telling you that "these are all the attacks you make in step 4."

Under "number of attacks" it says

each time a model shoots a ranged weapon

It does not say anywhere in steps 2 or 3 that you have started shooting your ranged weapons. That doesn't happen until step 4.

There is nothing in the rules giving you permission to shoot every declared attack regardless of any game state changes.
Do tau fireblade cadre not get to their extra attack because it wasn't declared ? how about chainswords, do they not get an extra attack because it wasn't declared. Declaring attacks are a restriction, not some made up tally to circumvent removed models.

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Things can interrupt the sequence, but you have yet to post any evidence showing that you abandon the remainder of the sequence after resolving the interruption.
Given that I have been given permission by the rule set to resolve these attacks by virtue of the shooting rules. The onus is now on you to show that, as a result of a model being slain after it has already declared its attacks, results in the sequence being abandoned.

Actually the onus on you, the shooting rules have not given you permission to resolve the attacks ?
I really do not know where you are getting this from ?
The shooting rules have only tell you to declare your attacks, no where does it say you must resolve all declared attacks. Factually it tells you to make an attack one at a time or use the fast rolling rules.
You do not abandon the remainder of the sequence,
you get to the part of the sequence where you make the next attack, but there are no more attacks to make, so you move on to next eligible unit.

So seriously, either show proof you MUST make all of your attacks or accept that you can't shoot with a model that has been removed from play.

Are you possibly confusing the word Declare and Resolve ?

Sorry, can you come again on "the shooting rules have not given you permission to resolve the attacks"? It's spelt out clearly on page 5 of the battle primer under the Shooting Sequence box, the part that says "Resolve Attacks". You know, actually resolving the attacks that you declared that you were making in steps 1 to 3. So simply, that gives me permission to resolve all of the declared attacks.

The weapons a model has are listed on its datasheet.If a model has several weapons,it can shoot all of them at the same target,or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit.Similarly,if a unit contains more than one model,they can shoot at the same,or different targets as you choose.In either case,declare how you will split the shooting unit’s shots before any dice are rolled, and resolve all the shots against one target before moving on to the next

Attacks can be made one at a time, or in some cases, you can roll for multiple attacks together

umm where are you seeing this spelt out ?
It is telling you declare where you WILL split your attacks when you move on to resolving them... read it. It no where tells you to "tally up all the shots and resolve each one that you have previously declared" It just says you must declare them.
You check to see if you have anymore attacks, ONE AT A TIME or TOGETHER (when using fast rolling rules), if you do have an attack you must target the unit you have declared. If you do not have anymore attacks because 1. you are out of attacks or 2. the model was removed from play, you can not continue looping the Resolve Attacks sequence for step 4.

Seriously what part of the words on that page are telling you to "resolve all the previously declared attacks" ?
That's not how the game works friend. The word declare does not mean "tally the attacks for later" it does not mean "Resolve later" it doesn't mean anything but Declare. It is giving you a restriction for step 4, its not telling you that "these are all the attacks you make in step 4."

Under "number of attacks" it says

each time a model shoots a ranged weapon

It does not say anywhere in steps 2 or 3 that you have started shooting your ranged weapons. That doesn't happen until step 4.

There is nothing in the rules giving you permission to shoot every declared attack regardless of any game state changes.
Do tau fireblade cadre not get to their extra attack because it wasn't declared ? how about chainswords, do they not get an extra attack because it wasn't declared. Declaring attacks are a restriction, not some made up tally to circumvent removed models.

Your argument is wrong. Let's flip it around. If you aren't resolving the declared attacks, which attacks are you resolving?

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Things can interrupt the sequence, but you have yet to post any evidence showing that you abandon the remainder of the sequence after resolving the interruption.
Given that I have been given permission by the rule set to resolve these attacks by virtue of the shooting rules. The onus is now on you to show that, as a result of a model being slain after it has already declared its attacks, results in the sequence being abandoned.

Actually the onus on you, the shooting rules have not given you permission to resolve the attacks ?
I really do not know where you are getting this from ?
The shooting rules have only tell you to declare your attacks, no where does it say you must resolve all declared attacks. Factually it tells you to make an attack one at a time or use the fast rolling rules.
You do not abandon the remainder of the sequence,
you get to the part of the sequence where you make the next attack, but there are no more attacks to make, so you move on to next eligible unit.

So seriously, either show proof you MUST make all of your attacks or accept that you can't shoot with a model that has been removed from play.

Are you possibly confusing the word Declare and Resolve ?

Sorry, can you come again on "the shooting rules have not given you permission to resolve the attacks"? It's spelt out clearly on page 5 of the battle primer under the Shooting Sequence box, the part that says "Resolve Attacks". You know, actually resolving the attacks that you declared that you were making in steps 1 to 3. So simply, that gives me permission to resolve all of the declared attacks.

The weapons a model has are listed on its datasheet.If a model has several weapons,it can shoot all of them at the same target,or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit.Similarly,if a unit contains more than one model,they can shoot at the same,or different targets as you choose.In either case,declare how you will split the shooting unit’s shots before any dice are rolled, and resolve all the shots against one target before moving on to the next

Attacks can be made one at a time, or in some cases, you can roll for multiple attacks together

umm where are you seeing this spelt out ?
It is telling you declare where you WILL split your attacks when you move on to resolving them... read it. It no where tells you to "tally up all the shots and resolve each one that you have previously declared" It just says you must declare them.
You check to see if you have anymore attacks, ONE AT A TIME or TOGETHER (when using fast rolling rules), if you do have an attack you must target the unit you have declared. If you do not have anymore attacks because 1. you are out of attacks or 2. the model was removed from play, you can not continue looping the Resolve Attacks sequence for step 4.

Seriously what part of the words on that page are telling you to "resolve all the previously declared attacks" ?
That's not how the game works friend. The word declare does not mean "tally the attacks for later" it does not mean "Resolve later" it doesn't mean anything but Declare. It is giving you a restriction for step 4, its not telling you that "these are all the attacks you make in step 4."

Under "number of attacks" it says

each time a model shoots a ranged weapon

It does not say anywhere in steps 2 or 3 that you have started shooting your ranged weapons. That doesn't happen until step 4.

There is nothing in the rules giving you permission to shoot every declared attack regardless of any game state changes.
Do tau fireblade cadre not get to their extra attack because it wasn't declared ? how about chainswords, do they not get an extra attack because it wasn't declared. Declaring attacks are a restriction, not some made up tally to circumvent removed models.

Your argument is wrong. Let's flip it around. If you aren't resolving the declared attacks, which attacks are you resolving?

please see "Number of Attacks"
on page 179 of the BRB or page 3 of the battle primer.
Then you make them one at a time or in fast rolling batches, as per the first sentence under step 4.
Why would declaring attacks have a bearing on how many attacks a models datasheet/weapons says it is allowed to make ?
again are you trying to tell me that if you get extra attacks from a weapon you can't use them because it is past the deceleration steps ? You can't have the rules both ways.
The game tells you how many attacks you can make, it tells you when you can make them, it tells you how to resolve them, it gives you restrictions based on the deceleration steps. What it does not do is tell you that you must resolve and only resolve the attacks you have declared in step 3.

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

Your argument is wrong. Let's flip it around. If you aren't resolving the declared attacks, which attacks are you resolving?

please see "Number of Attacks"
on page 179 of the BRB or page 3 of the battle primer.
Then you make them one at a time or in fast rolling batches, as per the first sentence under step 4.
Why would declaring attacks have a bearing on how many attacks a models datasheet/weapons says it is allowed to make ?

Sorry, page 3 of battle primer? That's the movement phase. I suspect you meant page 5?
Also, I made no comment on how many attacks a weapon is allowed to make, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.

Further to the point I was making, you are only allowed to resolve the attacks that you have declared. By the time you have reached step 4 (resolve attacks), you have made all declarations. You have permission to resolve those attacks one at a time (or in batches). At no point do you ever go back to check a models eligibility for making those attacks. So if they get slain it doesn't matter.

If a model is dead, it doesn't get to do things.

Sorry, JakeSiren, you have no argument at all. Once a model is removed from play it can't do anything (barring special rules). You need to show rules allowing your argument, not just keep stating "but I've declared my shots!"

JakeSiren wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

Your argument is wrong. Let's flip it around. If you aren't resolving the declared attacks, which attacks are you resolving?

please see "Number of Attacks"
on page 179 of the BRB or page 3 of the battle primer.
Then you make them one at a time or in fast rolling batches, as per the first sentence under step 4.
Why would declaring attacks have a bearing on how many attacks a models datasheet/weapons says it is allowed to make ?

Sorry, page 3 of battle primer? That's the movement phase. I suspect you meant page 5?
Also, I made no comment on how many attacks a weapon is allowed to make, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.

Further to the point I was making, you are only allowed to resolve the attacks that you have declared. By the time you have reached step 4 (resolve attacks), you have made all declarations. You have permission to resolve those attacks one at a time (or in batches). At no point do you ever go back to check a models eligibility for making those attacks. So if they get slain it doesn't matter.

Because you asked what attacks you are resolving lol.
Sorry I got the battle primer page wrong, I use the big boy Book for the rules.

So you think Daka Daka Daka strat for the orks and stuff like it doesn't do anything then XD. Seriously, think about what you are implying.

You asked what attacks you are resolving, I was confused that you didn't understand that you were resolving the models attacks so I sent you the rules for the number of attacks.
Seriously, just read the rules in front of you, stop adding extra because you want it to work the way you want it to work.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am done with this, I don't think there is any other way for me to explain to you that the rules literately do not say what you keep insisting they do. All I can do is suggest you sit down and read them carefully and notice that the words you want that page to say,,, are not on that page.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If a model is dead, it doesn't get to do things.

Sorry, JakeSiren, you have no argument at all. Once a model is removed from play it can't do anything (barring special rules). You need to show rules allowing your argument, not just keep stating "but I've declared my shots!"

It literally says under Chose Ranged Weapon "declare how you will split the shooting unit’s shots before any dice are rolled, and resolve all the shots against one target before moving on to the next"

If I declare a plasma cannon, a las-cannon, a heavy bolter against a single Harlequins unit, and after shooting the heavy bolter, they kill my plasma cannon and las-cannon marines, the above still tells me to resolve all of the shots that were declared without exception.

If you don't think that the plasma and las can be shot, you need to show the exception, with rules (not just stating "If a model is dead, it doesn't get to do things.")

I simply don't. The model has been removed when its destroyed. You stop resolving there as dead models don't do anything. That's what the rules support. Nothing allows the frozen time you're positing. Time to wake up and smell the consensus.

JakeSiren wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If a model is dead, it doesn't get to do things.

Sorry, JakeSiren, you have no argument at all. Once a model is removed from play it can't do anything (barring special rules). You need to show rules allowing your argument, not just keep stating "but I've declared my shots!"

It literally says under Chose Ranged Weapon "declare how you will split the shooting unit’s shots before any dice are rolled, and resolve all the shots against one target before moving on to the next"

If I declare a plasma cannon, a las-cannon, a heavy bolter against a single Harlequins unit, and after shooting the heavy bolter, they kill my plasma cannon and las-cannon marines, the above still tells me to resolve all of the shots that were declared without exception.

If you don't think that the plasma and las can be shot, you need to show the exception, with rules (not just stating "If a model is dead, it doesn't get to do things.")

Learn to read it, you do not roll any dice until step 4, ok,
It imposes a restriction on you, in step 4, you resolve all the shots against one target before you are allowed to move on to the next.

You can't just ignore the entire sentence and read "resolve all the shots" (declared) XD that's not what the sentence says.

It still doesn't say, resolve all the declared shots against one target before moving on to the next. It just tells you to declare how you will split it up and to resolve all the shots (your model has (or lack there of in the case of the model being removed)) before moving on to the next.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I simply don't. The model has been removed when its destroyed. You stop resolving there as dead models don't do anything. That's what the rules support. Nothing allows the frozen time you're positing. Time to wake up and smell the consensus.

The shots have been declared and you are told to resolve them all. That's what the rules say. I even quoted the relevant part. You have invented an imaginary rule "You stop resolving there as dead models don't do anything" (which I concede is generally true for a lot of situations) despite the rules literally telling you to resolve all of the shots. You haven't shown an exception to the written rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If a model is dead, it doesn't get to do things.

Sorry, JakeSiren, you have no argument at all. Once a model is removed from play it can't do anything (barring special rules). You need to show rules allowing your argument, not just keep stating "but I've declared my shots!"

It literally says under Chose Ranged Weapon "declare how you will split the shooting unit’s shots before any dice are rolled, and resolve all the shots against one target before moving on to the next"

If I declare a plasma cannon, a las-cannon, a heavy bolter against a single Harlequins unit, and after shooting the heavy bolter, they kill my plasma cannon and las-cannon marines, the above still tells me to resolve all of the shots that were declared without exception.

If you don't think that the plasma and las can be shot, you need to show the exception, with rules (not just stating "If a model is dead, it doesn't get to do things.")

Learn to read it, you do not roll any dice until step 4, ok,
It imposes a restriction on you, in step 4, you resolve all the shots against one target before you are allowed to move on to the next.

You can't just ignore the entire sentence and read "resolve all the shots" (declared) XD that's not what the sentence says.

It still doesn't say, resolve all the declared shots against one target before moving on to the next. It just tells you to declare how you will split it up and to resolve all the shots (your model has (or lack there of in the case of the model being removed)) before moving on to the next.

Um, maybe you need to read it?

Step 4 tells you how to resolve the attacks and nothing else.
The full sentence in Step 3 says "In either case, declare how you will split the shooting unit’s shots before any dice are rolled, and resolve all the shots against one target before moving on to the next. "

So when it says "and resolve all the shots", well which ones? Well the ones that you specified when you "declare[d] how you will split the shooting unit’s shots before any dice are rolled".

So yeah, it literally does say to resolve all of the declared shots against one target before moving onto the next. You never go back to check your models eligibility for shooting.

"If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play."

Do you actually need additional sentences to this? It's pretty damn clear cut. It doesn't say "Oh, go on, fire some more gus before you go" (unlike the Ancients' special rule, etc. which do permit this)

'Removed from play' pretty clearly interrupts anything else. You have to be in play to shoot guns. Death is pretty binary for most models. Are you just gonna argue black is white until thread lock?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
"If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play."

Do you actually need additional sentences to this? It's pretty damn clear cut. It doesn't say "Oh, go on, fire some more gus before you go" (unlike the Ancients' special rule, etc. which do permit this)

'Removed from play' pretty clearly interrupts anything else. You have to be in play to shoot guns. Death is pretty binary for most models. Are you just gonna argue black is white until thread lock?

The Ancient's special rule is not analogous to this situation. (It's more like being on the Harlequins side)

Removed from play removes the model from play, but doesn't remove the effects that the model has caused. For example: a Psyker being removed from play doesn't cause any buffs / debuffs to disappear.

You have to be in play to be eligible to declare your attacks, however at the point you have got to step 4 (resolve attacks), your model has already contributed to the list of declared attacks, and you go through that list and resolve them. You aren't asking for your model to do anything more than it has already done, so being removed from play is irrelevant to the declared attacks. And you know what? When we play like this slow rolling and fast rolling then give us exactly the same results as we would expect.

As for getting the thread locked, it's not my intention, but I would prefer a vigorous and thorough discussion rather than worrying about the thread being locked.