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.

U02dah4 wrote:
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 this is an orange. They don't relate unless you can show they do

You do not have a dataslate when you are removed from play.

Being out of play means you can not effect the game at all. This is basic English.

"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"

Saying its and destroyed doesn't counter that targets were selected

Son this case targets were selected 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!

Saying that's its dead and destroyed doesnt counter always in and of itself you would need to show an actual rule to support that


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
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 this is an orange. They don't relate unless you can show they do

You do not have a dataslate when you are removed from play.

Being out of play means you can not effect the game at all. This is basic English.

Well thats rubbish lots of things have datasheets when they are not on the battlefield. Any thing in reserve anything in deepstrike unsummoned summonables

Can you provide a quote to support that because that might overrule always bit I don't recall any rule in the core rules state that being out of play prevents you from interacting you just need permission to do so

We have that in always

U02dah4 wrote:
"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"

You are leaving off the most important part of that quote...

Here is the whole thing:

BRB shooting phase rules wrote: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 know that when they say "attacks are always made against the target unit" they are referring to the fact that casualty removal does not stop the rest of the active unit's shots.

That is literally all it means. It does not mean that you can have a model in the shooting unit die and still shoot with that model, as that model is no longer in play.

Stop ignoring the context.

Your arguments are 100% incorrect because you ignore the context of the rules.

U02dah4 wrote:
Well thats rubbish lots of things have datasheets when they are not on the battlefield. Any thing in reserve anything in deepstrike unsummoned summonables

No they do not have dataslates that can affect a game. because they are not in play...

Didn't this come up back in 8th (and was similarly un-resolved then....)

What are peoples thoughts on the to me highly applicable reverse situation; what happens if the target(s) are destroyed before all the attacks are resolved when the attacking unit has some affect that means it will take damage/ have units removed on hit rolls of '1'?

For instance, a unit of 6 plasma inceptors fire everything on supercharge, but their target is completely destroyed with a number of shots unresolved (i.e. no to hit rolls yet made for those attacks)?

Do you, or do you not need still need to make the to hit rolls for these unresolved attacks?

As for a relevance, to me it stands to reason that if you have to continue to shoot a completely dead (and thus removed from the table) to unit resolve all declared attacks (due to the potential effects of those attacks on the attacking unit) then this demonstrates that being removed from the table doesn't break the requirements to make an attack. This would support the interpretation that once range and LOS are checked before any attacks are resolved, those attacks are committed will always take place (e.g. even if the target unit has been completely destroyed having committed to firing all your inceptors on supercharge you have to roll all the to-hits in case they cook themselves.
Thus, I do not see how if the target being removed from play having committed to the attack doesn’t stop any ‘left over’ attacks from being made, then why the reverse shouldn’t hold true (i.e. if somehow a model is destroyed before all the attacks it has been committed to be made have been resolved, the remainder of the attacks are still resolved).

For instance a unit of 6 plasma inceptors fire everything on supercharge, but their target is completely destroyed with shots unresolved (i.e. no to hit rolls yet made for those attacks)?

Do you, or do you need still need to make the to hit rolls for these unresolved attacks?

As for a relevance, to me it stands to reason that if you have to continue to shoot a completely dead unit to resolve all declared attacks (due to the potential affects of those attacks on the attacking unit) then this demonstates that being removed from the table doesn't prevent attacks from being made.

Indeed casualty removal does not stop the shots. It does not specify on which side those casualty are removed so it supports my position

Again context Is rrelevant in this context we have a clear rule I will address any rules argument you make but yammering context has no bearing

Then how do deamons summon anything they are not in play

You summon them because the datasheet has a rule giving it permission to be summoned.

Where does it say models not in play can't have datasheets. Giuilliman has a datasheet whether or not he's on the battlefield - I acknowledge he can't impact the battlefield unless a rule gives him permission to do so but we have one in this instance

6 plasma inceptors fire all there shots they always fire once a target is selected

U02dah4 wrote:
Indeed casualty removal does not stop the shots.

This is demonstrably false.

It does not specify on which side those casualty are removed so it supports my position

It does not support your opinion because you are ignoring the context of the rules. Stop asserting something that is blatantly incorrect.

Again context Is rrelevant

Yes, context Is always relevant, glad you agree. without context the rules are meaningless. You need context to have the rules fully understood and assessed.

in this context we have a clear rule I will address any rules argument you make but yammering context has no bearing

False, context ALWAYS has a bearing, it is quite literally how the rules can be fully understood and assessed.

Then how do deamons summon anything they are not in play

by the rules that are on the Dataslates of the models IN PLAY...

You summon them because the datasheet has a rule giving it permission to be summoned.

Umm... DAEMONIC RITUAL says "Instead of moving in their Movement phase, any CHAOS CHARACTER can..."

You have to be in play before you can do something instead of moving...

Where does it say models not in play can't have datasheets. Giuilliman has a datasheet whether or not he's on the battlefield - I acknowledge he can't impact the battlefield unless a rule gives him permission to do so but we have one in this instance

No one said "models not in play can't have datasheets" I said "You do not have a dataslate when you are removed from play." Which, if you looked at the context of what I was saying you would have understood this to mean that you can not use a models dataslate unless it is in play. Because that is how games/rules systems work. Take Monopoly for example. if you have one house on a property then the other houses in the tray are not in play and you do not get to use the rules for having more than one. Or Chess. once a piece is captured it is not in play anymore and you can not use its rules.

Remember the rules system is permissive, this means you can only do what the rules explicitly or implicitly tell you to do, and you may not do anything else.

6 plasma inceptors fire all there shots they always fire once a target is selected

Unless they are no longer in play.

If its demonstrative false then don't say that demonstrate it so far you have not so this is worthless as writing context

Context is relevant to rules yes however in this circumstance the context is not relevant because no part of the context in which it is written tells you to ignore always therefore just saying context without substantiating specifically how the context specifically tells you to overide always is not an argument- it's as meaningful as putting your fingers in your ears and saying I'm right it means nothing so yes i will address a rules point not the word context

So the rules of demonic ritual can summon giulliman then or a leman russ? No why not oh yes it refers to information on the datasheet and giulliman isn't a deamon

So yes that is the problem you have said models not in play can have datasheet but you have said in this instant it does not because it had been removed from play. You have not substantiate this. The rules of other games are not pertinent. in this game the rule is you always fire, there is no rule that the datasheet dissapears when you are removed from the table just normally that ends all interaction because you need permission. but in this case because we have a rule to fulfill that it always fires which is permission so it fires and we use its datasheet because no rule tells you not to or states it dissapears.

No always fires means they fire even if they are no longer in play you have no exemption or have not presented one

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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.

It won't work. Alextroy and I tried to get him to agree to disagree on page 2 of the thread since things were at an impasse there, but he had to be That Guy and keep on going, saying that no, we're wrong and his twisting a sentence beyond what its context was was the only RAW we needed, without any supporting evidence anywhere in the rulebook. I doubt he'll let things drop.

Yeah this thread has outlived its purpose and has just become a circular argument.