I get killed by a model immediately fighting after I kill him, can I finish the rest of my attacks?

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.

**flandarz**

The other folks got what I was trying to say. A unit that isn't in play can't do anything. I'm still working, so I don't always get my full thought out.

**vict0988**

Ghaz wrote:
vict0988 wrote:

Ghaz wrote:
From the Warhammer 40,000 Main Rulebook:

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

Why are you trying to keep the model in play once it's wounds are reduced to 0?

Why does it need to be in play to make the attacks? The attacks have been declared, they must be carried out right?

Because making attacks (and everything else the model can do in the game) is because the model is in play. A dead model is no more in play than a model you happened to bring along and was not included in your army.

Is that your opinion or a rule?

flandarz wrote:
The other folks got what I was trying to say. A unit that isn't in play can't do anything. I'm still working, so I don't always get my full thought out.

No worries, I just want to get it right. Who knows maybe I'll be on the side of having such an ability and using it against someone else and I want to be able to say that my opponent doesn't get to finish the rest of their attacks, otherwíse I'll have to continue erring on the side of my opponent whether it's used against me or by me.

**Ghaz**

It's how games work. Something that is not in play can't have an effect on the game. Do you have something that says otherwise? No.

**vict0988**

Ghaz wrote:
It's how games work. Something that is not in play can't have an effect on the game. Do you have something that says otherwise? No.

Yes, the rules tell me to roll for my hit rolls, once I've done all the ones against one unit I move on to the next one, no mention of stopping in case any of the attacking models are destroyed. Then I roll to wound and my opponent rolls saves and takes damage.

**Stux**

vict0988 wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
It's how games work. Something that is not in play can't have an effect on the game. Do you have something that says otherwise? No.

Yes, the rules tell me to roll for my hit rolls, once I've done all the ones against one unit I move on to the next one, no mention of stopping in case any of the attacking models are destroyed. Then I roll to wound and my opponent rolls saves and takes damage.

Because its self evident, as the model is destroyed and cannot do anything.

**doctortom**

vict0988 wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
It's how games work. Something that is not in play can't have an effect on the game. Do you have something that says otherwise? No.

Yes, the rules tell me to roll for my hit rolls, once I've done all the ones against one unit I move on to the next one, no mention of stopping in case any of the attacking models are destroyed. Then I roll to wound and my opponent rolls saves and takes damage.

Under 4. Resolve Attacks:

1. hit rolls. Each time a model makes an attack, roll a dice."

You have no model on the board, therefore the non-existent model (for game purposes) can not legally make an attack, whether or not it was declared. The attack is an action the model is making. No model, no action. It doesn't matter what was declared.

**JohnnyHell**

Stux wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
It's how games work. Something that is not in play can't have an effect on the game. Do you have something that says otherwise? No.

Yes, the rules tell me to roll for my hit rolls, once I've done all the ones against one unit I move on to the next one, no mention of stopping in case any of the attacking models are destroyed. Then I roll to wound and my opponent rolls saves and takes damage.

Because its self evident, as the model is destroyed and cannot do anything.

Very much agreed. The rules don’t need to tell you to stop rolling, because the model has been removed from play. If the OP can’t accept that models removed from play don’t get to do more things, then they’re just railing against the rules, logic and consensus.

**vict0988**

JohnnyHell wrote:
Stux wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
It's how games work. Something that is not in play can't have an effect on the game. Do you have something that says otherwise? No.

Yes, the rules tell me to roll for my hit rolls, once I've done all the ones against one unit I move on to the next one, no mention of stopping in case any of the attacking models are destroyed. Then I roll to wound and my opponent rolls saves and takes damage.

Because its self evident, as the model is destroyed and cannot do anything.

Very much agreed. The rules don’t need to tell you to stop rolling, because the model has been removed from play. If the OP can’t accept that models removed from play don’t get to do more things, then they’re just railing against the rules, logic and consensus.

Guilliman's armour of fate has an effect despite Guilliman not being on the table. RAW still tells me to roll my attacks and you can't provide anything that says that models removed from the table don't have an effect on the game.

**Stux**

That's because Guilliman's rules specifically tell you to do someone after he is removed. It's an exception. No such exception exists here, so you cant make attacks.

I'm sorry, but your arguments are utterly unconvincing.

**vict0988**

Stux wrote:
That's because Guilliman's rules specifically tell you to do someone after he is removed. It's an exception. No such exception exists here, so you cant make attacks.

I'm sorry, but your arguments are utterly unconvincing.

The rules specifically tell me to roll my hit rolls on the other model after finishing my attacks against the first unit, no exception for my model being removed in the middle of their attacks and none of you can provide any rules that say a model cannot have an effect on the game after being removed from the table. Your argument is that models that are dead can't have an effect, except when their rules specifically say otherwise, what is the source of this rule? I want to agree but please pull something from the rules and not from other places.

**Stux**

You cant apply that kind of logic, the game rules are not written that way, that rigorously.

If models can do things normally after death, the whole game breaks apart. Therefore it must be a game rule. Its inductive.

I know you'll hate that as an answer, but it is what it is.

**vict0988**

Stux wrote:
You cant apply that kind of logic, the game rules are not written that way, that rigorously.

If models can do things normally after death, the whole game breaks apart. Therefore it must be a game rule. Its inductive.

I know you'll hate that as an answer, but it is what it is.

Alright, I can live with that kind of reasoning, can you show me an instance where the game breaks apart if I apply the "I get to finish the attacks I have already declared" reasoning to it?

**JohnnyHell**

Burden of proof is on you to demonstrate there’s a rule that allows you to do so...

This has turned into one of those “ OP asks a question > consensus established > OP ignores consensus and argues Reddit-logic until thread lock” type of threads.

**vict0988**

JohnnyHell wrote:
Burden of proof is on you to demonstrate there’s a rule that allows you to do so...

This has turned into one of those “ OP asks a question > consensus established > OP ignores consensus and argues Reddit-logic until thread lock” type of threads.

I already did, read the thread. People have only been saying "well it's common knowledge that dead models don't get to do nuttin'"

vict0988 wrote:
Stux wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Stux wrote:
They dont go off at the same time. Nothing happens at the same time in this game. If it would, sequencing stops it from happening at the same time.

If you're dead, you stop making attacks.

Quote on that? The attacks have already been declared, what makes them disappear?

Why would declaring them mean you definitely get to use them? We can play the asking for citation game all day. But the default position is you cant do it unless the game says you can.

3. Choose Targets
First, you must pick the target unit, or units, for the attacks. To target an enemy unit, the attacking model must either be within 1" of that unit, or within 1" of another model from its own unit that is itself within 1" of that enemy unit. This represents the unit fighting in two ranks. Models that charged this turn can only target enemy units that they charged in the previous phase.

If a model can make more than one close combat attack (see right), it can split them between eligible target units as you wish. Similarly if a unit contains more than one model, each can target a different enemy unit. In either case, declare how you will split the unit’s close combat attacks before any dice are rolled, and resolve all attacks against one target before moving on to the next.

Number of Attacks
The number of close combat attacks a model makes against its target is determined by its Attacks characteristic. You roll one dice for each close combat attack being made. For example, if a model has an Attacks characteristic of 2, it can make 2 close combat attacks and you can therefore roll 2 dice.

4. Choose Melee Weapon
Each time a model makes a close combat attack, it uses a melee weapon – the weapons a model is equipped with are described on its datasheet.

If a model has more than one melee weapon, choose which it will use before rolling the dice. If a model has more than one melee weapon and can make several close combat attacks, it can split its attacks between these weapons however you wish – declare how you will divide the attacks before any dice are rolled.

5. Resolve Close Combat Attacks
Close combat attacks can be made one at a time, or in some cases you can roll the dice for a number of attacks together. The attack sequence for making close combat attacks is identical to that used for shooting attacks except you use the model’s Weapon Skill characteristic instead of its Ballistic Skill to make hit rolls.

Rules for resolving attacks:

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:

1) Hit Roll
Each time a model makes an attack, roll a dice. If the roll is equal to or greater than the attacking model’s Ballistic Skill characteristic, then it scores a hit with the weapon it is using. If not, the attack fails and the attack sequence ends. A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply.

The rules tells me to split attacks, then it tells me to roll to hit for the attacks, by not rolling to hit I am breaking the rules right?

**alextroy**

To put it simply, the rules do not contemplate the possibility of a model dying while it is making attacks.

Is that poor rules writing on GWs part? Yes, but that is what you get with 8 pages of core rules. There are so many "common sense" rules you must follow to play 40K because it would take pages of rules to write them in, pages they elected not to give us.

**doctortom**

vict0988 wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
Burden of proof is on you to demonstrate there’s a rule that allows you to do so...

This has turned into one of those “ OP asks a question > consensus established > OP ignores consensus and argues Reddit-logic until thread lock” type of threads.

I already did, read the thread. People have only been saying "well it's common knowledge that dead models don't get to do nuttin'"

Also from the "resolve attacks" section, from 5. Inflict Damage

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

Continuing attacks after removing it from play is as if it is not removed from play.

Linking that back with what I put earlier, about step 1. Hit roll... "Each time a model makes an attack, roll a dice"

There is model in play when you are trying to make those attacks, as it had been removed from play after being slain. You have to have a model in play to be able to have the model make attacks. If the model is dead, you have to show a special rule allowing the model to make attacks after it has been slain. Without such a rule, you aren't eligible to make the second set of attacks because there is no model in play to make the attacks. That's more than "common knowledge", that's an application of the rules.

**vict0988**

doctortom wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
Burden of proof is on you to demonstrate there’s a rule that allows you to do so...

This has turned into one of those “ OP asks a question > consensus established > OP ignores consensus and argues Reddit-logic until thread lock” type of threads.

I already did, read the thread. People have only been saying "well it's common knowledge that dead models don't get to do nuttin'"

Also from the "resolve attacks" section, from 5. Inflict Damage

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

Continuing attacks after removing it from play is as if it is not removed from play.

Linking that back with what I put earlier, about step 1. Hit roll... "Each time a model makes an attack, roll a dice"

There is model in play when you are trying to make those attacks, as it had been removed from play after being slain. You have to have a model in play to be able to have the model make attacks. If the model is dead, you have to show a special rule allowing the model to make attacks after it has been slain. Without such a rule, you aren't eligible to make the second set of attacks because there is no model in play to make the attacks. That's more than "common knowledge", that's an application of the rules.

Stop replying to the thread with stuff you're pulling out of nowhere. If you cannot provide a definition made by GW of what "removed from play" is don't invent it and say "models removed from play have no effect on the game unless their abilities say otherwise". If Guilliman's abilities can have effect because his abiltilities say they can, then why can a model not continue to make its attacks after being removed from play when GW tells me to continue making the attacks?

**Jackal90**

His abilities work still as they specifically state they work.
Any rules that break basic steps always say so in their rules.

You cannot use a completely different rule with different wording to try and gain ground by trying to apply the same reasoning.

You divide up your attacks and resolve them 1 unit at a time, as per the rules.
Once killed, a special rule triggers allowing them to instantly fight back before being removed.
If they kill you with the retaliation attacks, your model is removed from play.
It has 0 wounds and no rules allowing it to stay in play, it’s dead.

A model no longer in play cannot do anything unless it has a special rule to state otherwise.

If you are going to pull up another models rules to use as reference, make sure it doesn’t have specific points like your current argument.
Can’t use it as an example if it’s completely different.

**doctortom**

vict0988 wrote:
Stop replying to the thread with stuff you're pulling out of nowhere. If you cannot provide a definition made by GW of what "removed from play" is don't invent it and say "models removed from play have no effect on the game unless their abilities say otherwise". If Guilliman's abilities can have effect because his abiltilities say they can, then why can a model not continue to make its attacks after being removed from play when GW tells me to continue making the attacks?

I'm not "pulling out of nowhere", I'm quoting rules from the Battle Primer, and frankly it's quite insulting for you to claim that. It makes it look like you haven't read the basic rules.

Gulliman's abilities can have an effect because he has a special exemption specifically stated on his sheet that it will happen. Your model does not have a specific ability on his sheet stating that he can continue attacking after he has been removed from play. In fact, you would need to provide a quotation that in general a model may use it's remaining attacks after being removed from play in order to do so. We have been told the model is removed from play, you have to have a rule that allows it to act as if it is in play after it has been removed. It's really up to you to provide the rules quote saying you can do it.

**vict0988**

doctortom wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Stop replying to the thread with stuff you're pulling out of nowhere. If you cannot provide a definition made by GW of what "removed from play" is don't invent it and say "models removed from play have no effect on the game unless their abilities say otherwise". If Guilliman's abilities can have effect because his abiltilities say they can, then why can a model not continue to make its attacks after being removed from play when GW tells me to continue making the attacks?

I'm not "pulling out of nowhere", I'm quoting rules from the Battle Primer, and frankly it's quite insulting for you to claim that. It makes it look like you haven't read the basic rules.

Gulliman's abilities can have an effect because he has a special exemption specifically stated on his sheet that it will happen. Your model does not have a specific ability on his sheet stating that he can continue attacking after he has been removed from play. In fact, you would need to provide a quotation that in general a model may use it's remaining attacks after being removed from play in order to do so. We have been told the model is removed from play, you have to have a rule that allows it to act as if it is in play after it has been removed. It's really up to you to provide the rules quote saying you can do it.

You call this:

doctortom wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
Burden of proof is on you to demonstrate there’s a rule that allows you to do so...

This has turned into one of those “ OP asks a question > consensus established > OP ignores consensus and argues Reddit-logic until thread lock” type of threads.

I already did, read the thread. People have only been saying "well it's common knowledge that dead models don't get to do nuttin'"

Also from the "resolve attacks" section, from 5. Inflict Damage

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

Continuing attacks after removing it from play is as if it is not removed from play.

Linking that back with what I put earlier, about step 1. Hit roll... "Each time a model makes an attack, roll a dice"

There is model in play when you are trying to make those attacks, as it had been removed from play after being slain. You have to have a model in play to be able to have the model make attacks. If the model is dead, you have to show a special rule allowing the model to make attacks after it has been slain. Without such a rule, you aren't eligible to make the second set of attacks because there is no model in play to make the attacks. That's more than "common knowledge", that's an application of the rules.

Quoting the rulebook? What you quoted had nothing to do with whether a model that has been removed from play can continue making its attacks, you quoted irrelevant parts of the attack sequence that say "each time a model", I highlighted the rules you invented, unless you can share some rules that actually say what you claim the rules say. What about models that are inside vehicles but that can still shoot.

"Open-topped: Models embarked on this model can attack in their Shooting phase. Measure the range and draw line of sight from any point on this model. When they do so, any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers; for example, the passengers cannot shoot if this model Fell Back in the same turn, cannot shoot (except with Pistols) if this model is within 1" of an enemy unit, and so on."

So when my opponent rolls to hit I can ask them:

- "but good sir, what model is making the attack?"

- "the models inside as per the instruction of my ability"

- "but good sir, the rules for rolling to hit require for your model to be on the table, if it is not then you cannot refer to your model and the attacks are lost"

Explain to me how that is different than

- "but vict0988 how can your model make attacks when it has been removed from play?"

- "as per the instruction of resolving an attack after I have made all my attacks against one target I move on to the next"

- "but vict0988, the rules for rolling to hit require for your model to be on the table, if it is not then you cannot refer to your model and the attacks are lost"

Don't tell me it has anything to do with the model needing range or line of sight, I have already explained how this is irrelevant since it is done in a previous step. You can declare you will shoot with models inside open-topped transports but you cannot roll to hit, because while the rule allows you to shoot, it does not allow you to roll to hit even though your models are not on the table.

**Stux**

It's simply that declaring is not doing. It is literally just declaring intention. The doing still can't be done if the model doing it is gone.

**JNAProductions**

If we're gonna bring in outside rules, what about Tyranid Lashwhips and Wraith's Whip Coils? Those specifically let you fight after death, implying that you cannot normally fight after death.

**vict0988**

JNAProductions wrote:
If we're gonna bring in outside rules, what about Tyranid Lashwhips and Wraith's Whip Coils? Those specifically let you fight after death, implying that you cannot normally fight after death.

Whip coils allow you to fight even though you died before DECLARING your attacks, which is a whole other issue, because a model not on the table is not within range to declare attacks.

"If the bearer is slain in the Fight phase before it has made its attacks, leave the model where it is. When its unit is chosen to fight in that phase, it can do so as normal. Once it has done so, remove the model from the battlefield."

Whip coils are insanely OP, they let you (in fact force you) to keep on piling wound after wound on the same Wraith since it hasn't been removed from the table after going to 0 wounds. If you thought they were just for fighting after dying halfway through your attacks you were mistaken.

**Jackal90**

The rules for open topped quite literally cover the entire thing, even down to measuring from the vehicle they are embarked on.

Again, the rule isn’t even close to the one in question.
Either give a solid point with rules or stop.

**BrookM**

Hey folks, kindly stick to the topic and remain polite to one another, thanks.

**vict0988**

Jackal90 wrote:
The rules for open topped quite literally cover the entire thing, even down to measuring from the vehicle they are embarked on.

Again, the rule isn’t even close to the one in question.
Either give a solid point with rules or stop.

Yes you measure for declaring the attack, just like I measured for my model and declared the attacks before my model was removed from the table, now we've both been allowed to declare our attacks and we're being told to go through with the attacks, but neither model is on the table and doctortom told me that a model needs to be on the table to roll to hit. The open-topped ability does not tell you to roll to hit despite the model not being on the table, leading me to believe a model does not need to be on the table to roll to hit or to wound, it does need to be on the table to declare its attacks. I declared my attacks normally, open-topped lets you do it despite not being on the table.

I don't know what it is about Dakka that makes it hard for me to be courteous, I apologize for not being so.

**JNAProductions**

vict0988 wrote:
Jackal90 wrote:
The rules for open topped quite literally cover the entire thing, even down to measuring from the vehicle they are embarked on.

Again, the rule isn’t even close to the one in question.
Either give a solid point with rules or stop.

Yes you measure for declaring the attack, just like I measured for my model and declared the attacks before my model was removed from the table, now we've both been allowed to declare our attacks and we're being told to go through with the attacks, but neither model is on the table and whatever their name is told me that a model needs to be on the table to roll to hit. The open-topped ability does not tell you to roll to hit despite the model being on the table, leading me to believe a model does not need to be on the table to roll to hit or to wound, it does need to be on the table to declare its attacks. I declared my attacks normally, open-topped lets you do it despite not being on the table.

You are explicitly given permission to shoot from an Open-Topped vehicle, despite normally not being able to do it since you're not on the table.

You need explicit permission to do ANYTHING if you're not on the table.

**vict0988**

JNAProductions wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Jackal90 wrote:
The rules for open topped quite literally cover the entire thing, even down to measuring from the vehicle they are embarked on.

Again, the rule isn’t even close to the one in question.
Either give a solid point with rules or stop.

Yes you measure for declaring the attack, just like I measured for my model and declared the attacks before my model was removed from the table, now we've both been allowed to declare our attacks and we're being told to go through with the attacks, but neither model is on the table and whatever their name is told me that a model needs to be on the table to roll to hit. The open-topped ability does not tell you to roll to hit despite the model being on the table, leading me to believe a model does not need to be on the table to roll to hit or to wound, it does need to be on the table to declare its attacks. I declared my attacks normally, open-topped lets you do it despite not being on the table.
You are explicitly given permission to shoot from an Open-Topped vehicle, despite normally not being able to do it since you're not on the table.

You need explicit permission to do ANYTHING if you're not on the table.

What part of the rulebook says this?

**Jackal90**

It’s been given specific rules that exempt it from standard steps, that’s the difference.

The ork that killed you also had a similar clause in its rules, allowing it to interrupt your sequence.

You have no rules that allow you to carry on fighting after being killed.

Edit: enough of the “where’s the rules that say that”
No rules say I don’t instantly win after deploying my army.
See how useless that view is?
This is why we use rules.

**JNAProductions**

vict0988 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Jackal90 wrote:
The rules for open topped quite literally cover the entire thing, even down to measuring from the vehicle they are embarked on.

Again, the rule isn’t even close to the one in question.
Either give a solid point with rules or stop.

Yes you measure for declaring the attack, just like I measured for my model and declared the attacks before my model was removed from the table, now we've both been allowed to declare our attacks and we're being told to go through with the attacks, but neither model is on the table and whatever their name is told me that a model needs to be on the table to roll to hit. The open-topped ability does not tell you to roll to hit despite the model being on the table, leading me to believe a model does not need to be on the table to roll to hit or to wound, it does need to be on the table to declare its attacks. I declared my attacks normally, open-topped lets you do it despite not being on the table.
You are explicitly given permission to shoot from an Open-Topped vehicle, despite normally not being able to do it since you're not on the table.

You need explicit permission to do ANYTHING if you're not on the table.

What part of the rulebook says this?

The part where it's a permissive ruleset, and therefore everything needs permission?

And what part of the rulebook says dice have to be numbered 1-6? Why can't I have a die with six 6s on it?