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.

OK. Let's break this down:

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)

First off a "weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit".

When is that true? "so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target" "even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)".

You don't get to make weapon attacks when the attacking model is off the board. Not deployed. In a transport. Not the unit firing. You get to make the attacks under the condition that the target unit was a valid target when you declared the attack regardless of range or LOS to the target when you get to rolling the attack. That is what the sentence says. It says nothing about any other conditions that would make an attack impossible.

 alextroy wrote:
OK. Let's break this down:

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)

First off a "weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit".

When is that true? "so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target" "even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)".

You don't get to make weapon attacks when the attacking model is off the board. Not deployed. In a transport. Not the unit firing. You get to make the attacks under the condition that the target unit was a valid target when you declared the attack regardless of range or LOS to the target when you get to rolling the attack. That is what the sentence says. It says nothing about any other conditions that would make an attack impossible.

The rule is unequivocal. The only check required to see if a model is eligible to shoot is made when targets are declared. That is when range and LOS are checked. There are no additional checks for eligibility. Unless you are able to provide a rule which says otherwise, if the target is eligible during targeting then the shots are resolved.

Agreed its absolutely clear

First off a "weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit".

When is that true? "so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target" "

It was.



This is the bit you misunderstand you state "You get to make the attacks under the condition that the target unit was a valid target when you declared the attack regardless of range or LOS to the target when you get to rolling the attack."

It doesn't mention rolling the attack it only refers to when the unit was selected as the target- it doesn't recheck and that's an explicit part of the clarification of removing models so a unit is no longer visible in the normal way this occurs

so your argument is wrong

Sadly, no. You have to follow the attack sequence.

"1. HIT ROLL: When a model makes an attack..."

Retributor shoots-back happens when it is reduced to 0 wounds, not when you feel like sequencing it. It is reduced to 0 wounds at the end of an attack sequence. It then kills the dreadnought, and the dreadnought is removed from play in the "5. INFLICT DAMAGE" portion of the retributors attack sequence.

You go back to step one for the dreadnought, and you no longer have a model that makes an attack, as it was removed from play under "5. INFLICT DAMAGE". Further attacks fail.

Sequencing here is a red herring, nothing happens simultaneously, its all in order of attack->retributor reduced to 0->retributor shoots back->dreadnought removed->retributor removed.

You may have missed out on more attacks by fast rolling, or the retributor may have killed your dread on the very first plasma shot (out of however many shots the plasma was going to make).

I agree that sequencing doesn’t apply here. However nothing in the attack sequence countermands the instruction that once a units attacks are declared on eligible targets they are always resolved.

Just as when dice are rolled they can’t be unrolled due to a subsequent change in circumstances, declared attacks cannot be “undeclared”. The usual practice of a model being unable to do anything when it is not on the tabletop is specifically addressed by the rule.

Aash wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Aash wrote:
From the Core Rules:

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)

The way I see it, it doesn't matter if the attacking model is removed before shots are resolved.

1) was at least one model in the target unit visible and in range when the target was selected?
2) If yes, the shots are "always made"

The fact that the attacking model was removed from play is irrelevant.
"no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them" - the shots are still resolved. This includes if models being targeted are removed as well as if the model doing making the attack is removed.
"this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first". It says "models being destroyed..." not "enemy model destroyed" so this applies to both the target unit and the attacking unit.

Once again, you have to finish the sentence before you can interpret it. I've highlighted in red why your analysis is incorrect.

I'm not sure of the basis of your argument.

I quoted the entire rule, and didn't truncate or edit it to present a misleading argument.
The section in brackets is a clarification, not an exhaustive list. The opening phrase "this can happen" rather than "this happens when.." or some other variation makes it clear that the example provided is one way that this situation may arise, and not the only way.

The phrase you highlighted in red supports my argument since it specifies that when a model is removed (from either army) such that there is no longer LOS or range then the attacks are still resolved.

None of this contradicts the rule that "that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit". Any other interpretation of the rules would violate this key statement.

You totally ignored that it said "models [u]in the target unit". That means it is not applying to all models in either army, it is only referring to enemy models being shot at. It makes no explicit claim about still shooting after removing the model doing the shooting. Your whole premise is wrong.

I don't understand your point

It refers to models that have been selected as the target of shots. Obviously that doesn't apply to the whole of your army unless you only have 1 or 2 units left. It has absolutely no relevance. It doesn't need an explicit claim you're told they always fire not they always fire except. That is explicit enough.

From the Core Rules:

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)

You totally ignored that it said "models [u]in the target unit". That means it is not applying to all models in either army, it is only referring to enemy models being shot at. It makes no explicit claim about still shooting after removing the model doing the shooting. Your whole premise is wrong.

I haven't ignored anything.

so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target

Aash wrote:
I agree that sequencing doesn’t apply here. However nothing in the attack sequence countermands the instruction that once a units attacks are declared on eligible targets they are always resolved.

Just as when dice are rolled they can’t be unrolled due to a subsequent change in circumstances, declared attacks cannot be “undeclared”. The usual practice of a model being unable to do anything when it is not on the tabletop is specifically addressed by the rule.

There shouldn't be an "unrolled dice". Fast rolling is permissible in some cases. What are those cases? Talk with your opponent, its literally never defined. "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".

Attacks are not all of a weapon's shots, its each shot a weapon makes.

If you are making multiple attacks at once in a situation like this, you are not allowing your opponent the appropriate reactions to each attack as it happens. Some people don't care as the chances of "shoots-back" resulting in the other dread attacks not going through is miniscule. But really, you are depriving your opponent of chances and they may insist you not screw them.

The model is not there, you cannot complete the firing sequence

Aash wrote:

From the Core Rules:

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)

You totally ignored that it said "models [u]in the target unit". That means it is not applying to all models in either army, it is only referring to enemy models being shot at. It makes no explicit claim about still shooting after removing the model doing the shooting. Your whole premise is wrong.

I haven't ignored anything.

so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target

It was when the unit was targeted.

even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them

If they firing model has been removed from the tabletop then there are no models in the target unit visible or in range because it is no longer on the tabletop. Range and LOS is between two models. If either is out of range or LOS then they both are.

 doctortom wrote:

Aash wrote:

From the Core Rules:

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)

You totally ignored that it said "models [u]in the target unit". That means it is not applying to all models in either army, it is only referring to enemy models being shot at. It makes no explicit claim about still shooting after removing the model doing the shooting. Your whole premise is wrong.

I haven't ignored anything.

so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target

It was when the unit was targeted.

even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them

If they firing model has been removed from the tabletop then there are no models in the target unit visible or in range because it is no longer on the tabletop. Range and LOS is between two models. If either is out of range or LOS then they both are.

Look at what I highlighted. You claim model removal from both sides is covered, but it is only talking about models in the target unit being removed from earlier shots that have been resolved. That is not model removal from both sides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The model is not there, you cannot complete the firing sequence

This.

I'm not sure where the fast rolling reference is coming from, perhaps it was addressing my analogy comparing undeclaring attacks to unrolling dice, if that was the case I was obviously unclear, I wasn't saying that fast-rolling is relevant in this case, but making the point that you cannot undo actions.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The model is not there, you cannot complete the firing sequence

Not only is this nowhere in the rules (if I am wrong I will happily concede this point), and even if it were in the rules, the Core Rules for shooting specifically tell us to resolve shooting attacks even if models are removed from the tabletop, and unless I am mistaken the convention is that specific rules trump general rules.

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)

The example given is very clear, and noteworthy in that it doesn't specify that the removed model is in the target unit. Even if a model is removed the shots are always resolved.

Edit:
To address the bracketed clause:

(this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)

First, this is an example and in no way an exhaustive list of circumstances where shots are resolved due to lack of range or LOS.
Second, this example refers to models destroyed and removed as a result of "resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit" - this specific example would still apply in cases of damage caused to your own unit. If a plasma weapon overcharged and destroyed a model after shooting with their plasma weapon they are still able to resolve the rest of their declared shots. This is specifically a case of a model (your own) being destroyed by resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model's unit.

A hypothetical single model unit armed with a plasma gun and a bolter. it declares the attacks of both weapons and resolves the plasma weapon first, which kills the bearer due to overcharging. the bolter shots are still resolved it exactly matches the example given in the rules:

because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first

And as I said, this is a single example and not an exhaustive list.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

Aash wrote:
I agree that sequencing doesn’t apply here. However nothing in the attack sequence countermands the instruction that once a units attacks are declared on eligible targets they are always resolved.

Just as when dice are rolled they can’t be unrolled due to a subsequent change in circumstances, declared attacks cannot be “undeclared”. The usual practice of a model being unable to do anything when it is not on the tabletop is specifically addressed by the rule.

There shouldn't be an "unrolled dice". Fast rolling is permissible in some cases. What are those cases? Talk with your opponent, its literally never defined. "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".

Attacks are not all of a weapon's shots, its each shot a weapon makes.

If you are making multiple attacks at once in a situation like this, you are not allowing your opponent the appropriate reactions to each attack as it happens. Some people don't care as the chances of "shoots-back" resulting in the other dread attacks not going through is miniscule. But really, you are depriving your opponent of chances and they may insist you not screw them.

No one is saying you don't get to shoot back that. Of course you get to shoot back that uses sequencing. Even if the shots are successful you don't however stop the dreadnought firing as then its weapons wouldn't always fire. Most players leave shoot back to the end once all shots are resolved precisely because it doesnt have any impact

There shouldn't be an action to undo. If you make more attack rolls than are guaranteed to land after all other effects, you are screwing your opponent.

If there's really any question as to how an attack will resolve vis-a-vis other special rules, roll it one at a time.

As an example in the other way, if I had two blighthaulers and you fast rolled 3 multimelta shots as 1 damage, 7 damage, and 9 damage, I'm going to apply those to a single blight hauler in the order of 1, 7, and 9.

U02dah4 wrote:
it talks about no models being target unit being visible or in range it, does not refer to either side in the removal

You can say this all you want its not a case no rule has been presented to that effect only one saying it always fires

"as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)" It doesn't say anything about model removal of the shooting unit as the result of return fire from special rules. You have to read the entire sentence, and read the context.

Given you shouldn’t be fast rolling damage, how you resolve that is outside of the rules.

And for that question of when you can fast roll, that is very clearly covered in the rules for fast rolling attacks.

Do you have a page reference for fast rolling? All I'm coming up with is the start of the shooting sequence.

Core rule book page 221.

Im on the GT book. Is this the two sentence blurb above the attack sequence?

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
it talks about no models being target unit being visible or in range it, does not refer to either side in the removal

You can say this all you want its not a case no rule has been presented to that effect only one saying it always fires

"as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)" It doesn't say anything about model removal of the shooting unit as the result of return fire from special rules. You have to read the entire sentence, and read the context.

Thats because its not relevant. It says it always fires their is no qualification on that. therefore it always fires. Unless you have a specific quotable rule that says it doesn't fire it fires. it doesn't need to list exhaustive examples of every situation where that could occur it has a blanket rule.

U02dah4 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
it talks about no models being target unit being visible or in range it, does not refer to either side in the removal

You can say this all you want its not a case no rule has been presented to that effect only one saying it always fires

"as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)" It doesn't say anything about model removal of the shooting unit as the result of return fire from special rules. You have to read the entire sentence, and read the context.

Thats because its not relevant. It says it always fires their is no qualification on that. therefore it always fires. Unless you have a specific quotable rule that says it doesn't fire it fires. it doesn't need to list exhaustive examples of every situation where that could occur it has a blanket rule.

It may not need to list "exhaustive example", but still shooting after you're dead is a major thing and should be spelled out specifically in the rules if this may happen. Your quote is not a specific example stating this.

This rules dispute is only a thing because GW added the shoot on death rule after they wrote the core rules (of which do not contain any shoot on death abilities).

It needs clarification and until then its really just a roll off thing.


As far as my personal opinion, the dread still fires everything. All the attacks were already declared and in action. Sisters definately dont need the help either.

U02dah4 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
it talks about no models being target unit being visible or in range it, does not refer to either side in the removal

You can say this all you want its not a case no rule has been presented to that effect only one saying it always fires

"as the result of resolving the shots with other weapons in the shooting model’s unit first)" It doesn't say anything about model removal of the shooting unit as the result of return fire from special rules. You have to read the entire sentence, and read the context.

Thats because its not relevant. It says it always fires their is no qualification on that. therefore it always fires. Unless you have a specific quotable rule that says it doesn't fire it fires. it doesn't need to list exhaustive examples of every situation where that could occur it has a blanket rule.

There is a qualification. It is the rest of the sentence. You cannot pull part of a sentence out and get the full meaning.

Note that so long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when that unit was selected as the target, that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit, even if no models in the target unit remain visible to or in range of it when you come to resolve them

There's no qualification

At least one model in the target unit was selected as the target of an attack so the weapons attacks are always made.

The word even indicates a clarification not a qualification and the bracket that follows is an example

You have no reason to do otherwise

I will have to disagree. I guess we are done here.

You can disagree all you want if you can't cite a specific qualification your wrong

U02dah4 wrote:
You can disagree all you want if you can't cite a specific qualification your wrong

No, he's reading it with the context we have from the entire sentence. We don't see that quote as proof that you can shoot after death. You interpret it differently. We say you are interpreting it wrong, you say we are. It's just going to go in circles if you want to keep the "You're wrong" "No, you're wrong" "No, you're wrong" schtick going. Alextroy is merely pointing out that we're at an impasse and are not going to convince the other side.

No we are saying there is no interpretation here. If you are giving a RAI your wrong. The RAW is clear there is no question of interpretation. We have shown the entire sentance supports us.

You can talk about context but no part of that rule states it doesn't fire. If you can cite a RAW quotation supporting your point great but up till now he and you have cited zero RAW quotations and then are surprised it doesn't convince us?

I say there's no qualification he says there is but he can't cite it. If you can't cite it there's no qualification that's not an impass that's one argument correct and one wrong. Equally if he can cite it that would be the other way around. But we are looking for a specific quote supporting your position not a vague assertion that it doesn't work that way

We cited the context, it was in relation to removing enemy models (not any model) with the resolution of previous shooting from the model. It did not say the model itself shoots after it died. You haven't demonstrated enough proof to back up a model being able to shoot after it is dead.