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.

Let me see Korlandril!

For reference 7th Ed. BRB

When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired. In addition, firing Ornance weapons has no effect on a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan Creature's ability to fire other weapons. Gargantuan Creatures and Flying Gargantuan Creatures cannot fire overwatch

old apocalypse rule

Gargantuan Creatures can fire all of their weapons every turn, and they can fire them at different targets if they wish (creatures of such enormous size normally have more than one brain – or even crew – controlling different parts of the body).

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/a/apoc6thupdate.pdf

 Korlandril wrote:

You literally just proved the point that it can only fire 2 weapons as per the monstrous creatures special rule, so they have changed the rule from what you quoted to no longer include the phrase "can fire all of their weapons every turn". So the RAW is now you can only fire 2 weapons as per the monstrous creatures special rules and due to the gargantuan creature special rule you may fire these at different targets.

Example unit: Wraithknight with two heavy wraithcannons and two shoulder mounted Shuriken cannons. Total ranged weapons four (4).
Apocalypose "Can fire all of their weapons every turn, and it can fire them at different targets".
The knight can fire four (4) weapons every turn. I assume we are in agreement here.

7th Ed "... a Gargantuan Creature...may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired."
The knight can fire each of its four (4) weapons at a different target if desired.
Since there is no restriction on the general rule to fire each turn listed anywhere, that part is redundant.
The phrases for the variable, i.e. "all their weapons" and "each of its weapons", both reference the same value. Therefore the result is identical.

 Korlandril wrote:

And if you look above I posted the example of the super-heavy special rules, where it states, prior to saying it can fire each weapon at different targets, that it can fire all weapons (via the vehicle shooting special rules) AND also the example YOU just gave as well proves that you can only fire 2 weapons per shooting phase. The old rules specifically stated separately that you can fire all weapons AND fire each weapon at different targets, the new rule states you may fire each weapon at a different target ONLY, as per the way they worded the old rule and the super-heavy special rule.

The SHV rules are entirely different, since non-flyer vehicles can fire all weapons anyway, albeit at different BS depending on movement performed or special rules applicable.

Logically, it is not necessary for two permissions to be seperated by an explict "and", with or without a comma. The permission to fire four weapons at different targets includes the permission to fire four weapons. This isn't as apparent at first glance, since it doesn't say "four" there, but uses a variable instead, which will in almost all cases hold a value of less than three, but logically this is the result. The rule is also more specific than the general or MC unit type shooting rules. There are no rules broken or rule logic issues raised.

That being said, to my understanding, there are currently only two gargantuan models with more than two ranged weapons or the option to take more than two.
Given that only the Hierophant was relevant when 7th was being written, it is quite likely that nobody bothered to spend any real thought on it.

So what if I have a GMC and I want to fire all four of my weapons at the same target? Is there a rule that allows that?

"Each weapon" means "every weapon". It does not mean "Each weapon it has permission to fire", nor does it mean "every weapon it has permission to fire". As has been stated, the wording gives permission both to fire each of its weapons and to fire those weapons at separate targets.

Honestly, this could be read either way. It's another example of ambiguous rules.

I read permission to fire 2 weapons and then permission to fire each weapon at different targets as permission to fire 2 weapons at different targets.

If you read this as permission to fire ALL of the weapons at different targets, fine. You just need to agree with your current opponent or ask a TO before a tourney starts. The RaW is clearly not straightforward enough for a firm answer.

The annoying thing is , I think this is just an editing error when they wrote the new apocalypse book, which got copied verbatim into the 7th rulebook. There really is no reason for ambiguity (and there was none in 1st edition apocalypse).

Captyn_Bob wrote:
The annoying thing is , I think this is just an editing error when they wrote the new apocalypse book, which got copied verbatim into the 7th rulebook. There really is no reason for ambiguity (and there was none in 1st edition apocalypse).

Warhammer 40k rule books are absolutely riddled with errors. It's very obvious that they either don't employ a technical copy editor OR they do and need to replace him/her.

I think you're right though. I think the intention is to allow a GC to fire all weapons at different targets and not just two. Unfortunately, the actual rules can be read either way.

 Kriswall wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
The annoying thing is , I think this is just an editing error when they wrote the new apocalypse book, which got copied verbatim into the 7th rulebook. There really is no reason for ambiguity (and there was none in 1st edition apocalypse).

Warhammer 40k rule books are absolutely riddled with errors. It's very obvious that they either don't employ a technical copy editor OR they do and need to replace him/her.

I think you're right though. I think the intention is to allow a GC to fire all weapons at different targets and not just two. Unfortunately, the actual rules can be read either way.

This ^

It is written ambiguously. It can be interpreted either way so no point arguing over it. My 2 cents is that if they intended it to only shoot the 2 weapons like a normal MC then they would have just written "split fire" as an additional rule, instead of going above and beyond that by saying it can fire each of its weapons at a different target.

Yeah, thanks a lot for that quote, again it really clears things up for me. When i compare:
-Gargantuan Creatures can fire all of their weapons every turn, and they can fire them at different targets if they wish ("fluff").
-When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired.

I can clearly see a difference:
1) Has 2 clear permissions:
-Gargantuan Creatures can fire all of their weapons every turn
-they can fire them at different targets if they wish

2) Only has 1 permission:
-it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired

It's 1 phrase: Permission to fire each weapon at a different target.
Not: Permission to fire each weapon AND fire each weapon at a different target like it was very clear in Apocalypse.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Yeah, thanks a lot for that quote, again it really clears things up for me. When i compare:
-Gargantuan Creatures can fire all of their weapons every turn, and they can fire them at different targets if they wish ("fluff").
-When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired.

I can clearly see a difference:
1) Has 2 clear permissions:
-Gargantuan Creatures can fire all of their weapons every turn
-they can fire them at different targets if they wish

2) Only has 1 permission:
-it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired

It's 1 phrase: Permission to fire each weapon at a different target.
Not: Permission to fire each weapon AND fire each weapon at a different target like it was very clear in Apocalypse.

The (1) and (2) are equivalent it you parse the rule text for models with 3+ weapons.

"Each weapon" could mean "each weapon you got permission to fire in some other rule" or "each weapon the model has".

That is not the phrase used however. "Each of its weapons" refers to the weapons the model has. That could be four weapons as in WK example above.

 Stephanius wrote:
"Each weapon" could mean "each weapon you got permission to fire in some other rule" or "each weapon the model has".

That is not the phrase used however. "Each of its weapons" refers to the weapons the model has. That could be four weapons as in WK example above.

Correct: the model has permission to fire "Each of its weapons" at a different target. This could indeed be 4 weapons.

But having the permission to fire 4 weapons at different targets is not the same as permission to fire 4 weapons.

As such, you have permission to fire [Each of its weapons] at different targets, but no permission to fire more than 2.
[Each of its weapons] = 1,2 or 25 weapons

I think it's pretty clear that they can fire all of their weapons. While the wording is misleading, if you just flipped to the gargantuan creatures section and looked at their shooting rules, without cross referencing other portions of the book, it would seem entirely clear that they can fire all of their weapons. That's what the GW editors do, and that's why they run into these issues. They don't intensely cross reference everything in the book. The editor isn't a super-knowledgeable rules guy. He's just reading the rules on the page to ensure they're clear.

In every other book up to this one, it has been clearly spelled out that gargantuan creatures could fire ALL of their weapons. I think if they were going to change that, they'd have made it more clear than an ambiguous contradiction that you can only come up with by cross referencing 2 different sections of the book. I mean really, guys, the wraithknight becoming a gargantuan creature means it's joining the ranks of creatures up to a thousand points in cost! Are we really going to try to enforce that a guy who paid for a 1000 point creature is limited to firing only 2 of his 8 weapons? That is obviously not the intent of GW.

I think people's opinions in this thread are tainted by the fact that wraithknights are now GCs, and that's making them forget that the majority of GCs cost extraordinary amounts of points, and shouldn't be super-gimped because people think eldar are OP.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
I think it's pretty clear that they can fire all of their weapons.

It is not, because they can not.

While the wording is misleading, if you just flipped to the gargantuan creatures section and looked at their shooting rules, without cross referencing other portions of the book, it would seem entirely clear that they can fire all of their weapons. That's what the GW editors do, and that's why they run into these issues. They don't intensely cross reference everything in the book. The editor isn't a super-knowledgeable rules guy. He's just reading the rules on the page to ensure they're clear.

Except you can not cherry pick rules...

You have to follow them all, and that includes a 2 weapon max for a MC.

I think people's opinions in this thread are tainted by the fact that wraithknights are now GCs, and that's making them forget that the majority of GCs cost extraordinary amounts of points, and shouldn't be super-gimped because people think eldar are OP.

Personal opinions have nothing to do with the RAW.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Personal opinions have nothing to do with the RAW.

I'm not going to get into a RAW debate with you here, as it's impossible for either of us to win. There are 2 ways that sentence can be interpreted, and BOTH of them are 100% valid in both structure and context. You can make the assertion that you're defending RAW till you die of old age, but it won't make you right unless you can somehow alter the meaning of the word "each" not to be all inclusive in certain context. But since I feel, based on your response, that you won't agree to disagree, I'll engage in the game you started. Here goes:

Because it can be interpreted both ways, I am right, and any evidence you have that could shift an opinion one way or another is irrelevent because RAW has nothing to do with opinions and I choose to read it this way. Na na boo boo. Haha.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Personal opinions have nothing to do with the RAW.

I'm not going to get into a RAW debate with you here, as it's impossible for either of us to win. There are 2 ways that sentence can be interpreted, and BOTH of them are 100% valid in both structure and context. You can make the assertion that you're defending RAW till you die of old age, but it won't make you right unless you can somehow alter the meaning of the word "each" not to be all inclusive in certain context. But since I feel, based on your response, that you won't agree to disagree, I'll engage in the game you started. Here goes:

Because it can be interpreted both ways, I am right, and any evidence you have that could shift an opinion one way or another is irrelevent because RAW has nothing to do with opinions and I choose to read it this way. Na na boo boo. Haha.

No, there is only one way to follow all the rules put in place.

Shooting more than 2 weapons on a GC breaks a rule and can not be the correct interpretation.

But why do you think we need to follow the MC rule of shooting 2 weapons? GC says that it lists exceptions to how it follows MC rules. Among those exceptions is the rule in question detailing how they can fire every weapon. If it is an exception to the MC rule, then whether or not it breaks the MC rule is irrelevant.

Bojazz wrote:
But why do you think we need to follow the MC rule of shooting 2 weapons? GC says that it lists exceptions to how it follows MC rules. Among those exceptions is the rule in question detailing how they can fire every weapon. If it is an exception to the MC rule, then whether or not it breaks the MC rule is irrelevant.

Read the two relevant rules together, as if they were sequentially following from each other.

"Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase - they must, of course, fire both at the same target. When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired."

Considering that we are told Gargantuan Creatures follow the rules for Monstrous Creatures with some modifiers we must keep MC rules in mind when reading GC rules. When read together the only express exception is that GCs may fire each of their weapons at different targets, but not that they may fire any more weapons than the MC rules they otherwise follow.

Bojazz wrote:
But why do you think we need to follow the MC rule of shooting 2 weapons? GC says that it lists exceptions to how it follows MC rules. Among those exceptions is the rule in question detailing how they can fire every weapon. If it is an exception to the MC rule, then whether or not it breaks the MC rule is irrelevant.

It doesn't detail how they can fire every weapon though. It details that each weapon they are eligible to fire can be fired at a different target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The MC rules tell us how many weapons the GMC can fire and nothing in the GMC rules change this.

If you added the word "and" in the GMC rules between "weapons" and "at" in the GMC shooting rules, it makes things a lot clearer. They really should fire their copy editor.

Considering GMCs in antiquity were firing every last weapon, and GMCs are the creature equivalent to Super Heavies which get to fire all their weapons, I think the intention is they get to fire all their weapons. So, HIWPI is shoot away.

I also think the RAW is clear this way. "Gargantuan Creatures are Monstrous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below." Then we're given two paragraphs later an entire section on how their shooting is different. That means you use how to shoot taken from GMC, which it then says "may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired."

Not just each of the weapons that it may fire, but each of its weapons. Combined with the sentence saying additional rules and exceptions, that meets the condition of being an additional/exceptional rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

No, there is only one way to follow all the rules put in place.

Shooting more than 2 weapons on a GC breaks a rule and can not be the correct interpretation.

An GC firing 4 weapons does not "break" the MC 2 weapons rule, it supersedes it.
Exactly like the MC 2 weapons rule supersedes the general 1 weapon rule, exactly like many other rules for different unit types modify the more general rules. That is how the rulebook works.

Monsterous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each shooting phase - they must, of course, fire both at the same target.
A wraith lord can fire up to two of its (up to four) weapons each shooting phase and must fire both at the same target.

A GC making a shooting attack may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired
A wraith knight making a shooting attack may fire each of its (up to four) weapons at a different target if desired.

Please explain how I can shoot four weapons at different targets without shooting four weapons.

Is there a rule allowing you to shoot four weapons at the same target?

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Is there a rule allowing you to shoot four weapons at the same target?

"if desired" makes different targets optional, no mandatory. Therefore you can rejoice, and the rule you are looking for is the one we are discussing!

People just to choose to understand "its weapons" as something else than "the models weapons" when parsing the rule.

Let me clarify:

A GC making a shooting attack may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired
A wraith knight making a shooting attack may fire each of its (up to four) weapons at a different target if desired.

Please explain how I can shoot four weapons at different targets without shooting four weapons.

Please explain how I can shoot four weapons (at different targets if desired) without shooting four weapons.
Better?

The whole problem is the word "each" in the GC rules. As I stated in the Eldar thread, it can literally mean "all" and "the two it is allowed to fire as a MC". So in order to bring this to an end, we would need to learn which "each" they were meaning.

If I am allowed to fire two guns and can fire each at a different target, I am right.

If I am allowed to fire each weapon on my model I am right.

So what does "each" mean? I believe it means the two allowed under the MC rules. YMMV. I also believe that this is why the WK is so cheap, and that other GC's just haven't caught up to it yet. Sure I could be wrong, just my opinion, based on what I read.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
The whole problem is the word "each" in the GC rules. As I stated in the Eldar thread, it can literally mean "all" and "the two it is allowed to fire as a MC". So in order to bring this to an end, we would need to learn which "each" they were meaning.

If I am allowed to fire two guns and can fire each at a different target, I am right.

If I am allowed to fire each weapon on my model I am right.

So what does "each" mean? I believe it means the two allowed under the MC rules. YMMV. I also believe that this is why the WK is so cheap, and that other GC's just haven't caught up to it yet. Sure I could be wrong, just my opinion, based on what I read.

Your conclusion would be correct, if the rule was: "A GC making a shooting attack may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired .
However, the crossed out bits are part of the rule, so the text states "each of the GC's weapons", not "each weapon".

 Stephanius wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Is there a rule allowing you to shoot four weapons at the same target?

"if desired" makes different targets optional, no mandatory. Therefore you can rejoice, and the rule you are looking for is the one we are discussing!

People just to choose to understand "its weapons" as something else than "the models weapons" when parsing the rule.

Let me clarify:

A GC making a shooting attack may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired
A wraith knight making a shooting attack may fire each of its (up to four) weapons at a different target if desired.

Please explain how I can shoot four weapons at different targets without shooting four weapons.

Please explain how I can shoot four weapons (at different targets if desired) without shooting four weapons.
Better?

If you are allowed to hold 4 Swords, but you only have 2 hands, how can you hold 4 swords?

Same here:
You are allowed to fire 4 weapons at different targets, but you can only fire 2 weapons. How can you fire 4 weapons?

I would repeat something you seem to miss from that rule:
having the permission to fire 4 weapons at different targets is not the same as permission to fire 4 weapons.
"it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired" = permission to fire 4 weapons at different targets.
but NOT permission to fire 4 weapons.

Yep the GC still only has permission to fire 2 weapons. The rules detailing how many weapons a GC/Superheavy may fire are already detailed in the MC/vehicle rules. The additional rules about each weapon being able to fire at different targets are as stated, additional to the existing rules. So of the 2 weapons that it can fire, the GC can then choose a different target for each if desired.

I've referenced Superheavies because the wording for firing at different targets in their rules is the same as those for GC, but the number of weapons they can fire is clearly covered already in the vehicle rules.

 Stephanius wrote:

Your conclusion would be correct, if the rule was: "A GC making a shooting attack may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired .
However, the crossed out bits are part of the rule, so the text states "each of the GC's weapons", not "each weapon".

Actually, this is right. Based on the English language rules, this specifically gives GCs permission to fire all of their weapons at different targets. There is now no confusion on the matter as long as you understand English Composition. That was well explained. Bravo.

The entire argument / confusion comes from 1 line:

"When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired"

I can try to break this down if it helps anyone to understand:

"When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack" <== Situation when the rule is followed.
"it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired"<== explicit permission.

Now we probably need to break down the exact nature of this permission:
What has the above given me permission to do?
"it may (...) if desired"<== this permission is a choice, not mandatory.
"fire each of its weapons" <== Is this the permission?
No, the permission is: "fire each of its weapons at a different target"

To the question: "what may you fire?"
The answer is "each of its weapons at a different target", NOT just "each of its weapons". Because it is a composite phrase, the perposition "at", from "at a different target" is detail about the subject of the phrase: "each of its weapons"
"each of its weapons" cannot exist without the "at a different target". You cannot separate them as 2 separate permission, because they are only 1 constructed sentence, and there is no conjunction (a word used to connect clauses or sentences or to coordinate words in the same clause (e.g. and, but, if ))

If the RaW was:
"When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons *and* at a different target if desired"
Then you have a conjunction, and 2 separate permissions.
But in the current writing, there is only 1 permission: choosing different targets. There is no 2nd permission to also fire all of your weapons.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

Your conclusion would be correct, if the rule was: "A GC making a shooting attack may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired .
However, the crossed out bits are part of the rule, so the text states "each of the GC's weapons", not "each weapon".

Actually, this is right. Based on the English language rules, this specifically gives GCs permission to fire all of their weapons at different targets. There is now no confusion on the matter as long as you understand English Composition. That was well explained. Bravo.

But it is not relevant. The fact that the rule refers to 1 or ALL of the weapons that the GCs has does not provide a permission to fire them.

It simply provides permission for you to choose different targets for ALL the weapons. You are still limited to firing 2 of them, maximum.

 BlackTalos wrote:
The entire argument / confusion comes from 1 line:

"When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired"

I can try to break this down if it helps anyone to understand:

"When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack" <== Situation when the rule is followed.
"it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired"<== explicit permission.

Now we probably need to break down the exact nature of this permission:
What has the above given me permission to do?
"it may (...) if desired"<== this permission is a choice, not mandatory.
"fire each of its weapons" <== Is this the permission?
No, the permission is: "fire each of its weapons at a different target"

To the question: "what may you fire?"
The answer is "each of its weapons at a different target", NOT just "each of its weapons". Because it is a composite phrase, the perposition "at", from "at a different target" is detail about the subject of the phrase: "each of its weapons"
"each of its weapons" cannot exist without the "at a different target". You cannot separate them as 2 separate permission, because they are only 1 constructed sentence, and there is no conjunction (a word used to connect clauses or sentences or to coordinate words in the same clause (e.g. and, but, if ))

If the RaW was:
"When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons *and* at a different target if desired"
Then you have a conjunction, and 2 separate permissions.
But in the current writing, there is only 1 permission: choosing different targets. There is no 2nd permission to also fire all of your weapons.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

Your conclusion would be correct, if the rule was: "A GC making a shooting attack may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired .
However, the crossed out bits are part of the rule, so the text states "each of the GC's weapons", not "each weapon".

Actually, this is right. Based on the English language rules, this specifically gives GCs permission to fire all of their weapons at different targets. There is now no confusion on the matter as long as you understand English Composition. That was well explained. Bravo.

But it is not relevant. The fact that the rule refers to 1 or ALL of the weapons that the GCs has does not provide a permission to fire them.

It simply provides permission for you to choose different targets for ALL the weapons. You are still limited to firing 2 of them, maximum.

I agree with your assessment. I also know that when you start arguing grammar and reading comprehension, the argument is circling the drain. No amount of logical reasoning will convince an adult forum poster that their understanding of grammatical minutiae is incorrect.

The standard outcome will apply... talk to your opponent, check with a TO, etc. GW will post an FAQ shortly after the heat death of the universe.

 Kriswall wrote:
I agree with your assessment. I also know that when you start arguing grammar and reading comprehension, the argument is circling the drain. No amount of logical reasoning will convince an adult forum poster that their understanding of grammatical minutiae is incorrect.

The standard outcome will apply... talk to your opponent, check with a TO, etc. GW will post an FAQ shortly after the heat death of the universe.

As a HIWPI though, i always assumed GCs had the full "all weapons", same as Vehicles..... From this discussion i changed my mind on the HIWPI front, but of course, getting agreement on it before a game.

My previous question still stands though: Do a lot of GCs have more than 2 "main" weapons, and feel very frustrated that they can't fire 3?
From memory: DreadKnight is 2, Riptide is 1+systems, Harridan is 2, Bio-Titan is 2 (or 1 TL?), Squiggoth is "passengers" ?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I agree with your assessment. I also know that when you start arguing grammar and reading comprehension, the argument is circling the drain. No amount of logical reasoning will convince an adult forum poster that their understanding of grammatical minutiae is incorrect.

The standard outcome will apply... talk to your opponent, check with a TO, etc. GW will post an FAQ shortly after the heat death of the universe.

As a HIWPI though, i always assumed GCs had the full "all weapons", same as Vehicles..... From this discussion i changed my mind on the HIWPI front, but of course, getting agreement on it before a game.

My previous question still stands though: Do a lot of GCs have more than 2 "main" weapons, and feel very frustrated that they can't fire 3?
From memory: DreadKnight is 2, Riptide is 1+systems, Harridan is 2, Bio-Titan is 2 (or 1 TL?), Squiggoth is "passengers" ?

The Riptide isn't a GC. It's an MC. It also has a multitracker, which allows it to fire an extra weapon, for a total of 3... although it can only ever be equipped with 2 weapons.