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.

There is none so he can’t prove a negative. Trying to staple discrete clauses together into proof ain’t gonna work. Needs to let it go.

We have shown a positive to counter that you need proof so if he has no proof we're correct thankyou


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:
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.

As stated that has no bearing on the rule the rule states it always fires once a target is selected you need to cite evidence it doesn't.

The context is not evidence either way. I mean no part of that context states that it doesn't fire. Regardless of how relevent or not you feel it is you need to show it doesn't fire if not

The proof is absolute as there is no evidence to contradict it unless you can cite some and you cant

I mean not much evidence beats zero evidence and this is pretty clear

 doctortom wrote:
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.

The context of the rule does not support the rule only applying to enemy models.

Take this hypothetical I posted earlier in the thread:

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

The content of that ENTIRE SENTENCE is the targeted unit. That is unarguable, if you read the whole sentence. It is all about models being out of range or line of sight.

The context is all units selected as targets

Also even were you correct not relevant, that neither states nor denies the rule that they always fire

U02dah4 wrote:
We have shown a positive to counter that you need proof so if he has no proof we're correct thankyou


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:
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.

As stated that has no bearing on the rule the rule states it always fires once a target is selected you need to cite evidence it doesn't.

The context is not evidence either way. I mean no part of that context states that it doesn't fire. Regardless of how relevent or not you feel it is you need to show it doesn't fire if not

The proof is absolute as there is no evidence to contradict it unless you can cite some and you cant

I mean not much evidence beats zero evidence and this is pretty clear

If you mean The "proof" is absolute garbage, then I agree. Nosferatu1001 has it right. The entire statement is dealing with continuing to shoot at units that may be out of sight or range that weren't initially. It was not dealing with continuing to shoot from beyond the grave.

Also, consider every other rule where they have something being able to fire back "after" they die, they have set it up in 9th edition so that it makes its attacks, then you take the model off the table. Your interpretation does not follow this finishing up the attacks before removing the model pattern, another indication that perhaps you should consider that your interpretation is not correct.

Again I get you don't like the rule but saying its garbage isn't isn't argument against it infact it shows your lack of argument.

No reason it has to follow the same pattern .

Flesh tearers can't take BA warlord traits that doesn't work the same pattern as other successors gw arnt always consistent in their writing the question how does it work in each specific instance.

All your demonstrateing is that rule A does not work in the same pattern as rule B. That is not the same as a rule saying rule B can't work the way that it does.

Your argument is a vague RAI at best maybe not relevant at all. and you need RAW evidence

The question is how does it work in this instance and it says

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...example

U02dah4 wrote:
Again I get you don't like the rule but saying its garbage isn't isn't argument against it infact it shows your lack of argument.

No reason it has to follow the same pattern .

Flesh tearers can't take BA warlord traits that doesn't work the same pattern as other successors gw arnt always consistent in their writing the question how does it work in each specific instance.

Your argument is a vague RAI at best maybe not relevant at all and you need RAW evidence

The question is how does it work in this instance and it says

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...example

Likewise, you need RAW evidence for your argument, and cherry picking a phrase and taking it out of context is not RAW. You need more proof to back your argument up first.

That's the entire relevant rule quoted word for word no cherry picking that is evidence but I admit you don't have to accept the actual rule text for evidence but if we are not going to use the rules text why are we on a rules forum. That is the rule! you don't have to like it or agree that's what it should be - but it is what it is. You can't supply more evidence than the actual rules text and exactly what it says it does.

RAW

"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"

The only bit I didn't quote word for word was the clarification clause that I listed as example to note it was there but that's not a rule so I don't see what bearing it has. It does not tell you to fire or not fire so has no bearing on the question at hand.

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

See there's no RAW instruction there

If you want the bracket that follows Least i be accused cherry picking again

(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).

no instruction to fire or not fire there there just an example of how the previous clause could have come about.

You really don’t have this right. Honestly, let it drop. This rule doesn’t say what you’re trying to make it and it’s painful.

Again I've cited the raw word for word and explained what's relevant and whats not useing that raw and you've cited none which bit did i not have right please respond only with cited RAW evidence to support your position not a vague statement

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

No. Oddly, this particular rule is missing from both GT and the Basic Rules online. It states:

Hints and Tips
Fast Dice Rolling
The rules for making attacks (pg 220) have been written assuming you will resolve them one at a time. However, it is possible to speed up your battles by rolling the dice for similar attacks together. In order to make several attacks at once, all the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it's a shooting attack) or the same Weapon Skill (if it's a close combat attack). They must also have the same Strength and Armour Penetration characteristics, they must inflict the same Damage, they must be affected by the same abilities, and they must be directed at the same unit. If this is the case, make all the hit rolls at the same time, then all the wound rolls. Your opponent can then allocate the attack one at a time, making saving throws and suffering damage each time as appropriate. Remember, if the target unit contains a model that has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, they must allocate further attacks to this model until either it is destroyed, or all attacks have been saved or resolved.

U02dah4 wrote:
Again I've cited the raw word for word and explained what's relevant and whats not useing that raw and you've cited none which bit did i not have right please respond only with cited RAW evidence to support your position not a vague statement

You have not posted any proof. You keep saying a paragraph describing what happens when LOS changes after declaration of shots gives permission to keep shooting after a shooting model has been killed and removed from the table. That is not what it says and adding those three letters RAW adds no credence to your argument. It has been explained to you why you’re wrong here but you are refusing to listen. You cannot prove your stance because the rules don’t back it up. No rebuttal needed given the words you posted simply don’t mean what you say they do.

 alextroy wrote:

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

No. Oddly, this particular rule is missing from both GT and the Basic Rules online. It states:

Hints and Tips
Fast Dice Rolling
The rules for making attacks (pg 220) have been written assuming you will resolve them one at a time. However, it is possible to speed up your battles by rolling the dice for similar attacks together. In order to make several attacks at once, all the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it's a shooting attack) or the same Weapon Skill (if it's a close combat attack). They must also have the same Strength and Armour Penetration characteristics, they must inflict the same Damage, they must be affected by the same abilities, and they must be directed at the same unit. If this is the case, make all the hit rolls at the same time, then all the wound rolls. Your opponent can then allocate the attack one at a time, making saving throws and suffering damage each time as appropriate. Remember, if the target unit contains a model that has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, they must allocate further attacks to this model until either it is destroyed, or all attacks have been saved or resolved.

Thanks! I absolutely never saw this before as I’m just using the GT book. That’s waaaay better than the little blurb they put in.

I think the section “they must be affected by the same abilities” prevents fast rolling in this (and similar) cases? Attacks that end up killing a model are not going to be affected by the same abilities as attacks that don’t kill a model.

But in like, 99% of cases the opposite is true and you can fast roll up until saves and damage rolls.

The attack is not affected by an ability that happens when a model in the target unit dies. Even if it is, all the attacks are affected by that ability, so you are allowed to fast roll.

I don’t think the fast rolling rule makes a distinction there though. Otherwise, only rules that affected your hit rolls would prevent fast rolling.

Its a rule that allows for convenience but expects you to look forward (past just the hit rolls to the wound rolls, AP, damage, etc). The abilities that complicate some hits versus others are there just as much as knowing that the plasma gun is going to roll differently than the bolters. It’s not always going to proc, but it is a complicating ability that inhibits fast rolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I think, more importantly here, even if GW dropped a FAQ saying, “yeah you can fast roll just based on your own abilities” your opponent would be pretty well within their rights to say “holup a second, this is actually more complicated and requires attack by attack rolls for my own models to do what they need to”

 JohnnyHell wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Again I've cited the raw word for word and explained what's relevant and whats not useing that raw and you've cited none which bit did i not have right please respond only with cited RAW evidence to support your position not a vague statement

You have not posted any proof. You keep saying a paragraph describing what happens when LOS changes after declaration of shots gives permission to keep shooting after a shooting model has been killed and removed from the table. That is not what it says and adding those three letters RAW adds no credence to your argument. It has been explained to you why you’re wrong here but you are refusing to listen. You cannot prove your stance because the rules don’t back it up. No rebuttal needed given the words you posted simply don’t mean what you say they do.

If your not cherry picking

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

Look at the salient part of that statement

The thing it refers to

"So long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when it was selected as a target"

In this case it was so the next clause applies

"that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit"

Note always no qualification just ALWAYS, no always unless its dead, no always unless its off the table, no always unless I feel like it, no always unless you can prove it can fire when it's dead. ALWAYS!

The rest of the text as shown two posts ago gives you no instructions just clarification hence even it is not relevant but if you feel it gives a specific instruction quote the specific instruction and only the specific instruction so I can see it because I don't.

Noone has quoted another relevant rule so its the only RAW that matters. Feel free to enter more relevant RAW rules with quotes.

So yes its the RAW answer and yes you ALWAYS fire in all circumstances that's what the word always means. Saying its not what it says doesn't change what it says

Show me how

"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, "

Does not apply to the targets selected by the other guns using a raw quote

If you can't

Show me where in the RAW with an explicit quote you have permission not to enact the rule

"that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit"

You say they don't mean it so what exactly do those specific clauses mean

If you can't we fall back on the standard RAW trumps RAI and it it doesn't matter what you infer or think about context if you have no answer to my RAW other than I don't think that's right or what you think is wrong which are RAI arguments and you have no RAW yourself the RAW answer wins.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
I don’t think the fast rolling rule makes a distinction there though. Otherwise, only rules that affected your hit rolls would prevent fast rolling.

Its a rule that allows for convenience but expects you to look forward (past just the hit rolls to the wound rolls, AP, damage, etc). The abilities that complicate some hits versus others are there just as much as knowing that the plasma gun is going to roll differently than the bolters. It’s not always going to proc, but it is a complicating ability that inhibits fast rolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I think, more importantly here, even if GW dropped a FAQ saying, “yeah you can fast roll just based on your own abilities” your opponent would be pretty well within their rights to say “holup a second, this is actually more complicated and requires attack by attack rolls for my own models to do what they need to”

It requires the attacks to have "same Strength and Armour Penetration characteristics, they must inflict the same Damage, they must be affected by the same abilities, and they must be directed at the same unit". I don't see how some complex interaction that happens after the damage is applied can be called an ability that affects the attack. Abilities that affect the attack are things like the abilities that impact your rolls that apply to some of the attacks, but not other.

For example, a unit of 5 Intercessor armed with Autobolt Rifles fires at a unit. The Sergeant has a Crusade Relic that means his Autobolt Rifle gets an additional hit on unmodified Hit Rolls of 6. You can't fast roll his attacks with those of the other 4 models because they don't have that ability on their attacks.

The attack doesn’t stop being an attack until the attack sequence ends though. The Retributor stops the sequence in the middle of “5. Inflict Damage”, makes it’s own sequence, then resumes the dread attack sequence by being removed.

This ability doesn’t affect every attack the dread makes, it only affects failed saves resulting in 0 wounds on a 5+. And in this case, if it were the first attack (not that it mattered really, only one wound got through) the remaining three attacks would not have been performed (in addition to the remaining weapons not being fired).

An ability affecting a unit when it dies or takes damage is not an ability affecting my attack. It has no bearing on my resolution of an attack.

If a model can kill you before the conclusion of step 5 of your attack, not do so to every attack you make necessarily, and prevent you from attacking further after concluding step 5, then I'm really interested in your definition of what does count here.

Except the evidence is if you kill it it doesn't stop that model attacking further so no impact

U02dah4 wrote:
Except the evidence is if you kill it it doesn't stop that model attacking further so no impact

You are not reading that correctly though. There is no evidence for what you claim. You are ignoring the context of the rules here.

A model can not attack when it is dead/has been removed from the table. (Unless it has specific permission to do so such as the Astartes Banner, though you make the shots before you remove the model).

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
If a model can kill you before the conclusion of step 5 of your attack, not do so to every attack you make necessarily, and prevent you from attacking further after concluding step 5, then I'm really interested in your definition of what does count here.

Any rules that affects or that keys off the attack’s hit roll, wound roll, or damage roll that would be different between two attacks prevents those attacks from being fast rolled together. This is because you then have to differentiate those attacks from each other to determine which rules apply to them.

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Except the evidence is if you kill it it doesn't stop that model attacking further so no impact

You are not reading that correctly though. There is no evidence for what you claim. You are ignoring the context of the rules here.

A model can not attack when it is dead/has been removed from the table. (Unless it has specific permission to do so such as the Astartes Banner, though you make the shots before you remove the model).

Now that would be a relevent rule can you cite any evidence to support it - no - because it doesn't exist and again back to the vague statement reguarding context with out addressing the actual rules text or providing any quote to support that position in any way

You seem to think you can make up rules and that your position can be supported without any citation or evidence at all.

U02dah4 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Except the evidence is if you kill it it doesn't stop that model attacking further so no impact

You are not reading that correctly though. There is no evidence for what you claim. You are ignoring the context of the rules here.

A model can not attack when it is dead/has been removed from the table. (Unless it has specific permission to do so such as the Astartes Banner, though you make the shots before you remove the model).

Now that would be a relevent rule can you cite any evidence to support it - no - because it doesn't exist and again back to the vague statement reguarding context with out addressing the actual rules text or providing any quote to support that position in any way

You seem to think you can make up rules and that your position can be supported without any citation or evidence at all.

There doesnt need to be a rule saying that, because you cant do anything unless the game says you can...

It is a permissive ruleset, so you default to you CAN NOT have a model make attacks when it is dead/has been removed from the table, unless you can cite a rule stating that you can make attacks with a model when it is dead/has been removed from the table.

But you do not have that citation...

As one guy seems to keep arguing in bad faith using an incorrect RAW reading there doesn’t seem much point in continuing to discuss. U02dah4, if you’re intent on misrepresenting that text and typing “RAW” as if that validates it there isn’t much point trying to change your mind. DeathReaper is right, it’s a permissive ruleset. You need permission to fire after death. There is none in the rules. “Destroyed and removed from play” is pretty cast-iron proof they’re done. Please stop torturing the grammar of that paragraph to try and pretend it’s proof... you’ve misinterpreted it as explained several times over. Dead models don’t fight on, unless by virtue of a special rule.

Yes I acknowledge your arguing in bad faith you say my RAW reading is incorrect but you have not shown that in any way I broke it down in as detailed a fashion as I could and not one of you addressed it at all. You have permission ALWAYS is permission. You say dead models don't fight on well ALWAYS says they do unless you have a rules citation to support that position and you have not provided one. You haven't made any rules based argument against my argument because you can't address the points - you just ignore it and make unsubstantiated statements. So I will copy and paste it again and give you another chance to actually address the rules


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Again I've cited the raw word for word and explained what's relevant and whats not useing that raw and you've cited none which bit did i not have right please respond only with cited RAW evidence to support your position not a vague statement

You have not posted any proof. You keep saying a paragraph describing what happens when LOS changes after declaration of shots gives permission to keep shooting after a shooting model has been killed and removed from the table. That is not what it says and adding those three letters RAW adds no credence to your argument. It has been explained to you why you’re wrong here but you are refusing to listen. You cannot prove your stance because the rules don’t back it up. No rebuttal needed given the words you posted simply don’t mean what you say they do.

If your not cherry picking

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

Look at the salient part of that statement

The thing it refers to

"So long as at least one model in the target unit was visible to the shooting model and in range of its weapon when it was selected as a target"

In this case it was so the next clause applies

"that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit"

Note always no qualification just ALWAYS, no always unless its dead, no always unless its off the table, no always unless I feel like it, no always unless you can prove it can fire when it's dead. ALWAYS!

The rest of the text as shown two posts ago gives you no instructions just clarification hence even it is not relevant but if you feel it gives a specific instruction quote the specific instruction and only the specific instruction so I can see it because I don't.

Noone has quoted another relevant rule so its the only RAW that matters. Feel free to enter more relevant RAW rules with quotes.

So yes its the RAW answer and yes you ALWAYS fire in all circumstances that's what the word always means. Saying its not what it says doesn't change what it says

Show me how

"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, "

Does not apply to the targets selected by the other guns using a raw quote

If you can't

Show me where in the RAW with an explicit quote you have permission not to enact the rule

"that weapon’s attacks are always made against the target unit"

You say they don't mean it so what exactly do those specific clauses mean

If you can't we fall back on the standard RAW trumps RAI and it it doesn't matter what you infer or think about context if you have no answer to my RAW other than I don't think that's right or what you think is wrong which are RAI arguments and you have no RAW yourself the RAW answer wins.

Oh good grief I’m done watching you twist logic in circles. There is literally a piece of rules text in my last post. It is all the proof you need. Enjoy this thread til it’s locked, it’s not worth expending energy on anymore.

Writing "destroyed and removed from play" is technically rules text I suppose but as a quote its meaningless because you've not addressed the salient point - I'm not questioning that it's destroyed or removed from play. What you have not shown in that being destroyed or removed from play overules that it always fires.

I've said this an apple this is my proof this is an apple you've written there is an orange. They don't relate unless you can show they do