I'm thinking about building a new army, and leaving my necrons to rust for a while, but journeying into the realm of normal vehicles has given me a few problems. I've solved most of them, but I was wondering about this one:

Can I choose to not fire multiple weapons even if I have access to them? For example, I'd rather just shoot the demolisher cannon on my Leman Russ against a squad of MEQ rather than the cannon and three heavy bolters, as the squad being hit could potentially allocate the bolter hits and cannon shots to lose less models from the cannon wounds. RaW to back it up if you can please; I wasn't able to find it.

Kitzz wrote:I'm thinking about building a new army, and leaving my necrons to rust for a while, but journeying into the realm of normal vehicles has given me a few problems. I've solved most of them, but I was wondering about this one:

Can I choose to not fire multiple weapons even if I have access to them? For example, I'd rather just shoot the demolisher cannon on my Leman Russ against a squad of MEQ rather than the cannon and three heavy bolters, as the squad being hit could potentially allocate the bolter hits and cannon shots to lose less models from the cannon wounds. RaW to back it up if you can please; I wasn't able to find it.

Yes, you can. I'm gonna look deeper actually... this is a little worrying lol.

Normally a vehicle cannot fire an Ordnance weapon while firing its other weapons. I believe the Lumbering Behemoth rule allows any turret weapon, including Ordnance weapon, to fire in addition to any other weapons that the Leman Russ may be permitted to depending on its speed.

But you don't have to fire weapons if you don't want to. You can fire less than the full complement of available weapons.

The requirement is that if a weapon is fired, you must use all of its shots, i.e. a Heavy 3 weapon must fire 3 times, one may not elect to have it fire only one or two shots.

I'm certain there's a rule allowing units to allow fewer than all models to fire, I would think that either there's a similar rule for vehicles, or you can simply move the vehicle around a bit, or, since you're not explicitly required to fire all weapons, you just fire some weapons.

There is a rule saying:
"A player may choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers", but not Certain Weapons.

Vehicles state:
"Vehicles that remained stationary may fire all of their weapons" (i.e May Fire all their weapons or Not Fire at all as per Page 16)
"Vehicles that moved at combat speed may fire a
single weapon (and its defensive weapons)" (i.e 1+D or not at all)
etc etc.

Of Course I am most likely missing something, but on first glance it seems that vehicles must always fire as many weapons as possible.

Ignore

Different weapons on a vehicle are treated as separate models for the purposes of line of sight, range, and cover saves, p.58.

According to the normal shooting rules regarding "Which Models Can Fire", a player may choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers, although this must be declared before checking range, p.16.

For the Leman Russ, couldn't you shoot the Demolisher cannon normally (without the lumbering rule) and thereby avoid firing the defensive weapons?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch, it doesn't quite say to treat them as separate models for all purposes. It says to measure independently, and to treat them as separate models for cover saves.

Nurglitch wrote:Different weapons on a vehicle are treated as separate models for the purposes of line of sight, range, and cover saves, p.58.

Ah, I thought I was Missing something.

ajfirecracker:

I do believe that I pointed out which cases require that weapons count as separate models...

Since, as a player, you do not have to fire with certain models if you prefer not to, then you just have to declare which weapons are firing prior to measuring range.

The case of treating weapons as models where range is concerned is what generalizes the option not to fire with certain models in normal units to the option not to with certain weapons in vehicle units.

No, nurglitch. Per p. 58 they are only treated as separate models for purposes of cover saves. Otherwise you measure them separately, but with no special instruction to treat them as separate models.

And only then if some weapons would give cover and some would not.

ajfirecracker:

Yes:

Vehicle Weapons & Line of Sight, Vehicles, Rulebook, p.58 wrote:Just like infantry, vehicles need to be able to draw a line of sight to their targets in order to shoot at them. When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them against the target and then trace the line of sight from each weapons' mounting and along its barrel, to see if the shot is blocked by terrain or models. If the target unit happens to be in cover from only some of the vehicle's weapons, then work out if the target gets cover saves exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing model in a normal unit.

Line of sight is clearly treated on a per weapon basis, just as line of sight is normally treated on a per model basis. Likewise with cover. Range is not, so on closer inspection I should amend my statements to be that line of sight is what defines weapons as separate models.

This correction should make it clearer that a player may choose not to shoot with certain weapons on a vehicle if he prefer, and must declare this prior to checking range.

No, nurglitch. No mention of treating it as models is mentioned except for cover saves. While the method is similar to treating each weapon as a separate model, it is not the same because it does not say so.

ajfirecracker:

Yes, because cover is defined by line of sight. Likewise the rules say so because the method for determining line of sight and cover is the same, substituting weapons for model.

Nurglitch, even if that were the case, the rule about treating the weapons as models only applies when cover saves could be taken against some weapons but not all.

Furthermore, it is not the case. The rule is clearly limited to determining cover saves, which is not the same as LOS, although the method is similar.

ajfirecracker:

Exactly, this is the case because whether a model receives cover saves depends on the weapon's line of sight, just as when a model normally gets a cover save because a shooting model's line of sight to the target unit is partially obscured.

I realize they're analogues. What I'm saying is that "model" has a particular rules meaning, and being similar to a model in some way does not let you treat something as a model. Only a special rule or actually being a model does that. There is a special rule to treat weapons as models, but it only applies for cover saves, and only when some weapons would give cover saves and some would not.

That's where the "exactly as if" part of the rules comes in. The situations are not simply analogous, they are the same.

Here's how it works:

Are some weapons placed such that they would grant cover saves and some not?
If no, then you do not treat each weapon as a model.
If yes, continue:
Are you determining whether or not the unit gets cover saves?
If no, then you do not treat each weapon as a model.
If yes, then for the purposes of whether or not a cover save may be taken, treat each FIRING weapon as a model.

This means you must have already worked out which weapons are firing.

Nope, you work out which weapons can fire before checking line of sight, and which weapons you want to fire before checking range.

Better question, unless I miss something again.

Page 58, under Vehicles shooting, ends with "all its weapons must fire at a single target unit". It is easy enough to assume that this means it cannot split its fire, but also it is simple to infer this means. . . all its weapons must fire at a single target unit.
Is that incorrect?

Yes, you do. But at that stage you do not treat them as models. My little if-then diagram is based purely (and correctly) on RaW as given by p.58.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nice catch, kirsanth. Yes, it does.

Kirsanth and ajfirecracker are both echoing my thoughts. I only see references to cover; nothing that leads me to believe that a vehicle can choose how many weapons to fire. That sentence from Kirsanth is what originally got me worried. There are a lot of passages in the rulebook, though. Here's to hoping we've missed one.

@Nurglitch:
So you believe that inquisitorial orbital strikes ignore cover, even though the codecies don't say they do? I just used the same logic you did.

Doesn't the demolisher cannon and the heavy bolter happen at the same time because it comes from the same tank? As far as I knew, all the wounds are allocated all at once and casualities are taken enmasse.

Kreedos wrote:Doesn't the demolisher cannon and the heavy bolter happen at the same time because it comes from the same tank? As far as I knew, all the wounds are allocated all at once and casualities are taken enmasse.

0_0

My question has to do with whether or not firing all the weapons on the tank is optional or not. That is what we have been discussing. My original post even assumes this and states it at least implicitly, I would hope.

Kreedos, he wants to not give heavy bolter shots so that the models wounded cannot allocate such that the cannon kills fewer (i.e. stacking the armor-denying wounds).

Also, should you wish to fire a Leman Russ demolisher cannon by itself, I believe you may simply fire it rather than use lumbering. This would allow the ordnance restrictions to deny other shots.

Good point, AJ, but I have the same problem if I go with the 3 plasma cannon option (Executioner?).

ajfirecracker wrote:Kreedos, he wants to not give heavy bolter shots so that the models wounded cannot allocate such that the cannon kills fewer (i.e. stacking the armor-denying wounds).

Also, should you wish to fire a Leman Russ demolisher cannon by itself, I believe you may simply fire it rather than use lumbering. This would allow the ordnance restrictions to deny other shots.

I have never hear or see someone allowed to suddenly change a unit's special rule to have it not exist whether its beneficial to the player or not.

Should you choose the executioner, could you not equip it with plasma sponsons and not heavy bolters?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luna, the lumbering rule says you may choose to fire the turret regardless of other restrictions. It's my understanding that if you fire an ordnance turret first, you're not required to use the lumbering rule to fire additional weapons (as it is something you may do, unlike firing all weapons as discussed above)

This is simple, don't fire weapons you don't want to.

Illeix wrote:This is simple, don't fire weapons you don't want to.

Except, it isn't because the wording is terribly vague.

Gwar! wrote:Of Course I am most likely missing something, but on first glance it seems that vehicles must always fire as many weapons as possible.

Technically, that's not true either. As people are debating, the rule states that "all its weapons must fire at a single target unit."

The exceptions are if the vehicle moved or with ordnance weapons, as detailed in the Moving and Shooting Vehicle Weaponry section. The number of weapons that can fire is limited in this section. This section explicitly says that certain weapons may fire despite not firing all weapons. However, in the next section, Vehicle Weapons and Line of Sight, it doesn't. It covers line of sight and cover. However, no where does it say that if a weapon cannot fire because it can't draw line of sight that the vehicle can still fire. Oh, sure it implies as much, but anyone bringing this to the table isn't really worried about RaI. The only area that get's close to this is the chart on page 58 where the right sponson can't fire because it can't draw line of sight. It might imply that you can't fire with the left sponson and turret, but it doesn't say you can.

The truth is, if someone tried to pull this on me, I'd make sure they followed the rule as written, and if a weapon was unable to fire because of line of sight, I'd throw it back at them. The problem is that if this were true, a weapon on a vehicle that had limited shots (see Tau) would be negatively affected.

The phrase "all its weapons must fire at a single unit." merely restricts the vehicle to firing at a single unit.

With all respect, that is not at all what we are talking about either. We are discussing whether or not a vehicle MUST fire all of its weapons or none.

As I'm seeing the 'Musts and Mays', the context leads me to the following conclusions:

A stationary vehicle may fire all its weapons. Which sounds like some, none, or all to my thinking.

and

- all its weapons must fire at a single target unit. This would seem to contradict a vehicle that has moved at either combat or cruising speed, one of those 'Can't versus Must' fights. I don't think it unreasonable to think that this statement merely restating that all the firing from one unit can only be directed at the same target unit.

It's a sad day, though, when one must shoot less to be assured of killing more.

its simple.....even if you HAVE to fire all weapons against your will (which is just plain silly) just measure all your weaponsat the same time starting with the Cannon so you can get full hits, then roll to wound starting with the cannon first, then remind your opponate that he has to wait untill all of your shooting from that unit is done.... THEN he can spread the wounds around as he wishes........

or you could do like everyone else I have ever played with at my FLGS or any Tourny i have been to and just not shoot the weapons you dont want to shoot........

This is a bit off topic - sorry.

DJ - you're missing the point on the wound allocation. Let's say you get five battlecannon wounds on a five man squad - that's five dead marines, right?

Wrong. If you fire three heavy bolters as well then you might get (let's say) six heavy bolter wounds. Now your opponent can give three guys two HB wounds each and try for saves on them while only two marines get no armour save battlecannon wounds.

So, it can be worse to shoot more.

If you get 5 wounds from a weapon that has no save you should be required to give one wound to each model possible to wound before you do the armor saves per raw one wound per model before doubling up wounds.

You should but you don't.

There's nothing about distribution of armour save defeating wounds or instakill wounds so they can be stacked up if you get enough other wounds.

Having to fire all your weapons is silly. If it actually was RAW I'd probably house rule it. It would mean you'd be forced to fire, say a one-shot hunter-killer missile (which you were saving for some enemy vehicle) you had mounted on a Razorback, just because you wanted to fire its turret weapon at some nearby infantry first?

Scott-S6 wrote:This is a bit off topic - sorry.

DJ - you're missing the point on the wound allocation. Let's say you get five battlecannon wounds on a five man squad - that's five dead marines, right?

Wrong. If you fire three heavy bolters as well then you might get (let's say) six heavy bolter wounds. Now your opponent can give three guys two HB wounds each and try for saves on them while only two marines get no armour save battlecannon wounds.

So, it can be worse to shoot more.

No I saw the point, that is why I said second that maby he should just not fire the other guns so he doesnt have that issue.....

There is only going to be two options to his problem, one of them involves playing the game as 90% of us do and only shoot the cannon, Boom........ no more issue...

the other solution is assuming he never has control of his units shooting and must then suck it up and let the other player do his thing......

There is sooo much arguing back and forth when his options are so cut and dry at this point..........

Personaly I wouldnt make the other player fire weapons he didnt want to unless there was a rule that expressly said he must no matter what.

Illuminati, what we're arguing about is whether or not there is such a rule.

DJ Illuminati wrote:Personaly I wouldnt make the other player fire weapons he didnt want to unless there was a rule that expressly said he must no matter what.

There is a rule, it is on page 58: "When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units - all its weapons must fire at a single target unit." Emphasis Added.

Individual MODELS may choose to fire or not fire (Page 16), not Weapons. Thus, if a Vehicle (a Model) chooses to fire, it MUST fire all its weapons. Or it can Choose to Not Fire, as per page 16

Gwar, what's your interpretation of the lumbering rules, in terms of not using it to allow/disallow ordnance+others?

ajfirecracker wrote:Gwar, what's your interpretation of the lumbering rules, in terms of not using it to allow/disallow ordnance+others?

Lumbering says the Leman Russ "Can" fire, not "may", thus a Leman Russ that moves Combat Speed, if it chooses to fire, must fire its turret, 1 Main and all Defensive.

Then by RAW a vehicle with an ordnance barrage weapon may never fire while it has its full complement of weapons. The quoted rule requires all weapons to be fired and the ordnance rule says that no other weapons may fire.

It's the same in most cases where a vehicle moves at all. The quoted rule says that all weapons must be fired, but moving prohibits a vehicle from firing some or all of its weapons.

Perhaps there is something in the context of the original statement which is being implied...

solkan wrote:Then by RAW a vehicle with an ordnance barrage weapon may never fire while it has its full complement of weapons. The quoted rule requires all weapons to be fired and the ordnance rule says that no other weapons may fire.

No, you are wrong. The Ordnance barrage Rules are more Specific than the General Rules, so override them. A vehicle Firing Ordnance barrage can only Fire that and Nothing else because the rules say that instead of the normal shooting rules you can only fire that weapon.

As far as the wound allocation goes, it really won't help a squad of identical models.

Demolisher wounds five of five identical, heavybolter wounds three.

Allocate by stacking whatever you want, take your saves, even if you pass all the heavybolter wounds, you still remove five models.

If the models are not identical, you have to stack the wounds so that the the non-identical models ONLY have heavybolter wounds, then they have to pass their saves.

For reference, BRB pg 25 example box, specifically paragraphs 3 and 4.

Omega, consider a squad of 5 mega-armored nobz (2+, no invuln) hit with 3 melta wounds and 8 bolter wounds. If they're all equipped non-identically, you could place all 3 melta wounds on a single model, losing that model and 1 (expected) wound from another model. Total wounds: 3 lost. If instead you hit the same squad with just 3 melta wounds, you kill 3 MAN, for a total of 6 wounds.

So it's beneficial to restrict firing at least occasionally.

Gwar! wrote:

solkan wrote:Then by RAW a vehicle with an ordnance barrage weapon may never fire while it has its full complement of weapons. The quoted rule requires all weapons to be fired and the ordnance rule says that no other weapons may fire.

No, you are wrong. The Ordnance barrage Rules are more Specific than the General Rules, so override them. A vehicle Firing Ordnance barrage can only Fire that and Nothing else because the rules say that instead of the normal shooting rules you can only fire that weapon.

It all sounds like crooked logic to me. I mean, by that logic, wouldn't a multi-weapon vehicle with an Ordnance Barrage weapon among them not be able to fire the other weapons? What about weapon destroyed results? In both cases, it wouldn't be able to fire all of its weapons, would it? You'd also be force to always use all your one-shot weapons the first time you shoot.

I suppose we can mark it up to dodge rule writing again...

Yea, but usually the fun is when you have two special weapon troopers and a sgt, and then a handfull of mooks. The mooks get all the low AP fun, while you put the savable wounds on the valuable models. Mooks die, but the models you want are still around.

Wehrkind: You can limit the number of "mooks" that die if they're equipped differently, thus giving you the units you want for a higher number of turns.

yes, you can do this, but you can do this from any unit...

RAW, I can't really say, it seems the "...all it's weapons must fire..." quote rules specifically against targeting multiple units as it could be emphasized "...all it's weapons must fire at a SINGLE TARGET UNIT." just like any other unit (except special rules.)

Emphasis aside, a poll may be a better way to help more people come to their own conclusions as one sentence can be interpreted multiple ways by multiple people (we are only human after all, except Gwar!, he's really the emperor, who is really a C'Tan <insert long fluff discussion from other forums here> )

Mentioned before, but:

P. 27 "if a model does fire, it must do so at full effect and cannot reduce its weapon's firepower"

It then gives the example of being required to fire all three shots from a heavy weapon rather than just two. However, this passage is clear that each model must fire "at full effect". This is both RaW and evidence of intent (if you care about RaI much).

So the passage should be read as meaning that you must fire all weapons a model may fire in addition to firing each at full capacity.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Personaly I wouldnt make the other player fire weapons he didnt want to unless there was a rule that expressly said he must no matter what.

There is a rule, it is on page 58: "When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units - all its weapons must fire at a single target unit." Emphasis Added.

Individual MODELS may choose to fire or not fire (Page 16), not Weapons. Thus, if a Vehicle (a Model) chooses to fire, it MUST fire all its weapons. Or it can Choose to Not Fire, as per page 16

The true debate is if that is a rule ment for the phase of what weapons may/must shoot vs if the rule was about what they must target.

DJ Illuminati wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Personaly I wouldnt make the other player fire weapons he didnt want to unless there was a rule that expressly said he must no matter what.

There is a rule, it is on page 58: "When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units - all its weapons must fire at a single target unit." Emphasis Added.

Individual MODELS may choose to fire or not fire (Page 16), not Weapons. Thus, if a Vehicle (a Model) chooses to fire, it MUST fire all its weapons. Or it can Choose to Not Fire, as per page 16

The true debate is if that is a rule ment for the phase of what weapons may/must shoot vs if the rule was about what they must target.

Why do you assume it is only one?

Page 58

"- Vehicles that remained stationary MAY fire all of their weapons (remember that pivoting on the spot does not count as moving)."


by the logic you are claiming, it should be written as MUST and not MAY, but it says MAY. If I shoot at a target with only one of three weapons I am still obeying the rule as I was not forced to shoot all of them even though I had a choice.

The rule I quoted is under general rules for shooting, not vehicle-specific rules about who they can target.

"At full effect" should clearly be interpreted the same as the "no holding back" restrictions we see in the assault phase.

Bleh, I am drunk. AJ has what I meant to say!

No, Illuminati. It can still choose not to fire any. The argument is about whether or not it can choose to fire some weapons, but not all.

ajfirecracker wrote:No, Illuminati. It can still choose not to fire any. The argument is about whether or not it can choose to fire some weapons, but not all.

Correct. The Wording indicates that a Vehicle can choose to not fire, or it MUST fire as many weapons as permitted.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Personaly I wouldnt make the other player fire weapons he didnt want to unless there was a rule that expressly said he must no matter what.

There is a rule, it is on page 58: "When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units - all its weapons must fire at a single target unit." Emphasis Added.

Individual MODELS may choose to fire or not fire (Page 16), not Weapons. Thus, if a Vehicle (a Model) chooses to fire, it MUST fire all its weapons. Or it can Choose to Not Fire, as per page 16

The true debate is if that is a rule ment for the phase of what weapons may/must shoot vs if the rule was about what they must target.

Why do you assume it is only one?

Because it takes special wargear to target multiple models with a vehicle.....ie Tau Multi-trackers

DJ Illuminati wrote:Because it takes special wargear to target multiple models with a vehicle.....ie Tau Multi-trackers

I don't see your point? Also Special Rules can do it Ala Land Raider.

As We are saying, what it means is that a Vehicle can Choose to either Not fire, or Fire as Many Weapons as it can with no "I am only going to shoot one weapon" option.

Gwar! wrote:

ajfirecracker wrote:No, Illuminati. It can still choose not to fire any. The argument is about whether or not it can choose to fire some weapons, but not all.

Correct. The Wording indicates that a Vehicle can choose to not fire, or it MUST fire as many weapons as permitted.

It only says it MAY fire all weapons.... it doesnt say in that paragraph that if it chooses to fire it MUST fire everything.

The only sentence that says anything about MUST shoot all weapons is refering to how many targets they may fire at with those guns

DJ Illuminati wrote:It only says it MAY fire all weapons.... it doesnt say in that paragraph that if it chooses to fire it MUST fire everything.

The only sentence that says anything about MUST shoot all weapons is refering to how many targets they may fire at with those guns

No, it says they Must fire earlier. Also, nothing indicates that it is talking about Targeting, In Fact it doesn't even have a subheading, it is just a general; Shooting Rule.

It doesn't say that you can Turbo Boost in the Movement rules. Does that mean you cannot turbo boost? The rules are spread over the book you know.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:It only says it MAY fire all weapons.... it doesnt say in that paragraph that if it chooses to fire it MUST fire everything.

The only sentence that says anything about MUST shoot all weapons is refering to how many targets they may fire at with those guns

No, it says they Must fire earlier. Also, nothing indicates that it is talking about Targeting, In Fact it doesn't even have a subheading, it is just a general; Shooting Rule.

The only time it says that it must fire all weapons is when it says they must target one unit.............I would see that as a rule for how many targets they are allowed to target.

Why does the word MAY pop up so many other times if it it is a clear cut black and white rule that they must fire all weapons no matter what.

The HK missle is a great example........your rule would state that I would have to fire it at the first thing I shoot at even if I am waiting for a better target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

ajfirecracker wrote:No, Illuminati. It can still choose not to fire any. The argument is about whether or not it can choose to fire some weapons, but not all.

Correct. The Wording indicates that a Vehicle can choose to not fire, or it MUST fire as many weapons as permitted.

Your rule is proven wrong as the 3rd paragraph says that rapid fire/ heavy weapons "ALWAYS FIRE, regardless of whether it moves or not".......so that means I never get a choice to not shoot my weapons, and since some of my weapons fired I MUST fire all weapons......which contradicts the rule that says I MAY fire.......it doesnt say MUST

Yeah, they always fire, if you choose to fire. You don;t get it do you. We are not syaing you must always fire, we are saying you can choose to either not fire, or fire as many weapons as permitted by your movement. And yes, that means if you stay still and fire you must fire your HK missiles.

Gwar! wrote:Yeah, they always fire, if you choose to fire.

It says they always fire..... I wouldnt get a choice by your rule...... I also wont be able to fire Defensive weapons unless I move because it says I have to move at Combat speed to shoot them, by your system of logic, I can assume that because it didnt say I could shoot it if I stayed stationary, that means I have to move to shoot them

DJ Illuminati wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Yeah, they always fire, if you choose to fire.

It says they always fire..... I wouldnt get a choice by your rule...... I also wont be able to fire Defensive weapons unless I move because it says I have to move at Combat speed to shoot them, by your system of logic, I can assume that because it didnt say I could shoot it if I stayed stationary, that means I have to move to shoot them

Look, read the thread before spouting nonsense. You are wearing my patience and others very thin. We already covered that a Model may always choose not to fire (as per Page 16). This applies to Models only, not weapons. Thus if a Vehicle wishes to fire, it must fire as many weapons as permitted by its movement, or it can choose to not fire as per page 16.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Yeah, they always fire, if you choose to fire.

It says they always fire..... I wouldnt get a choice by your rule...... I also wont be able to fire Defensive weapons unless I move because it says I have to move at Combat speed to shoot them, by your system of logic, I can assume that because it didnt say I could shoot it if I stayed stationary, that means I have to move to shoot them

Look, read the thread before spouting nonsense. I am a patent man but you are wearing me thin. We already covered that a Model may always choose not to fire (as per Page 16). This applies to Models only, not weapons. Thus if a Vehicle wishes to fire, it must fire as many weapons as permitted by its movement, or it can choose to not fire as per page 16.

I am here to be the voice of the other side of this debate, if you cannot handle the fact that some of us do not believe in your style of rules reading then just call me a cheater like you have done to many of us in the past, and learn to live with those of us that play our game for (GASP) fun.

I saw no rule that said that a vehicle must shoot all or none of its weapons. I saw a rule that said all the weapons it shoots must be at one target, and another that said I MAY shoot all my weapons, but nothing that said I couldnt shoot just one.

DJ Illuminati wrote:I am here to be the voice of the other side of this debate, if you cannot handle the fact that some of us do not believe in your style of rules reading then just call me a cheater like you have done to many of us in the past, and learn to live with those of us that play our game for (GASP) fun.

I saw no rule that said that a vehicle must shoot all or none of its weapons. I saw a rule that said all the weapons it shoots must be at one target, and another that said I MAY shoot all my weapons, but nothing that said I couldnt shoot just one.

The problem is, you are not making any sort of argument. You are just going "lalalalalalalalalalalalalala I ignore you". Secondly, "It doesn't say I can't" is not a valid Argument. You need a rule letting you fire one weapon.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:I am here to be the voice of the other side of this debate, if you cannot handle the fact that some of us do not believe in your style of rules reading then just call me a cheater like you have done to many of us in the past, and learn to live with those of us that play our game for (GASP) fun.

I saw no rule that said that a vehicle must shoot all or none of its weapons. I saw a rule that said all the weapons it shoots must be at one target, and another that said I MAY shoot all my weapons, but nothing that said I couldnt shoot just one.

The problem is, you are not making any sort of argument. You are just going "lalalalalalalalalalalalalala I ignore you".

I notice you ignored my second point because (I assume) it kills your "argument"

Gwar! wrote:I notice you ignored my second point because (I assume) it kills your "argument"

Perhaps if you said all you needed to say instead of Editing it after I start to respond, I might see it

Also, under the rule for models choosing to fire (general shooting section, not vehicle specific), it says that models that choose to fire must fire "at full effect".

Is that unclear?

ajfirecracker wrote:Also, under the rule for models choosing to fire (general shooting section, not vehicle specific), it says that models that choose to fire must fire "at full effect".

Is that unclear?

Clearly Full Effect only means that when it is convenient. Duh!

@DJ: Why not respond now?

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:I am here to be the voice of the other side of this debate, if you cannot handle the fact that some of us do not believe in your style of rules reading then just call me a cheater like you have done to many of us in the past, and learn to live with those of us that play our game for (GASP) fun.

I saw no rule that said that a vehicle must shoot all or none of its weapons. I saw a rule that said all the weapons it shoots must be at one target, and another that said I MAY shoot all my weapons, but nothing that said I couldnt shoot just one.

The problem is, you are not making any sort of argument. You are just going "lalalalalalalalalalalalalala I ignore you". Secondly, "It doesn't say I can't" is not a valid Argument. You need a rule letting you fire one weapon.

Wouldnt that mean a SM must fire his bolter at a squad he wants to assualt instead of a pistol because there is no rule in the shooting section that says I may choose to shoot with a pistol as opposed to the Bolter???


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ajfirecracker wrote:Also, under the rule for models choosing to fire (general shooting section, not vehicle specific), it says that models that choose to fire must fire "at full effect".

Is that unclear?

Which page is that, I want to make sure I am looking at the same thing you are so I get your point.

DJ Illuminati wrote:Wouldnt that mean a SM must fire his bolter at a squad he wants to assualt instead of a pistol because there is no rule in the shooting section that says I may choose to shoot with a pistol as opposed to the Bolter???

Page 15: Normally each model in a firing unit can fire a single weapon.
Thus, if you choose to Fire your Pistol, you are prohibited from also firing your Bolter, just like how a Vehicle cannot fire more than one S5+ Gun if it Moves at Combat Speed.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Wouldnt that mean a SM must fire his bolter at a squad he wants to assualt instead of a pistol because there is no rule in the shooting section that says I may choose to shoot with a pistol as opposed to the Bolter???

Page 15: Normally each model in a firing unit can fire a single weapon.
Thus, if you choose to Fire your Pistol, you are prohibited from also firing your Bolter, just like how a Vehicle cannot fire more than one S5+ Gun if it Moves at Combat Speed.

It doesnt say they can shoot pistols......so your rule that it may say exactly what you can do would tell me that they can shoot a weapon, but since it doesnt say which one, than means none.

OOOOORRRRRRR you could say that because it doesnt say you cant shoot a pistol, you would be allowed to as it fits the one weapons rule.

A permisive approach to the rules just hinders everyones fun as we spend too much time debating rules that are poorly written

DJ Illuminati wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Wouldnt that mean a SM must fire his bolter at a squad he wants to assualt instead of a pistol because there is no rule in the shooting section that says I may choose to shoot with a pistol as opposed to the Bolter???

Page 15: Normally each model in a firing unit can fire a single weapon.
Thus, if you choose to Fire your Pistol, you are prohibited from also firing your Bolter, just like how a Vehicle cannot fire more than one S5+ Gun if it Moves at Combat Speed.

It doesnt say they can shoot pistols......so your rule that it may say exactly what you can do would tell me that they can shoot a weapon, but since it doesnt say which one, than means none.

OOOOORRRRRRR you could say that because it doesnt say you cant shoot a pistol, you would be allowed to as it fits the one weapons rule.

A permisive approach to the rules just hinders everyones fun as we spend too much time debating rules that are poorly written

No, There has to be a rule allowing you to fire. There does not have to be a rule saying "You may fire a Pistol".

If you are going to debate, please make some sort of logical sense (and type readable English that is run through a spell-checker).

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Wouldnt that mean a SM must fire his bolter at a squad he wants to assualt instead of a pistol because there is no rule in the shooting section that says I may choose to shoot with a pistol as opposed to the Bolter???

Page 15: Normally each model in a firing unit can fire a single weapon.
Thus, if you choose to Fire your Pistol, you are prohibited from also firing your Bolter, just like how a Vehicle cannot fire more than one S5+ Gun if it Moves at Combat Speed.

It doesnt say they can shoot pistols......so your rule that it may say exactly what you can do would tell me that they can shoot a weapon, but since it doesnt say which one, than means none.

OOOOORRRRRRR you could say that because it doesnt say you cant shoot a pistol, you would be allowed to as it fits the one weapons rule.

A permisive approach to the rules just hinders everyones fun as we spend too much time debating rules that are poorly written

No, There has to be a rule allowing you to fire. There does not have to be a rule saying "You may fire a Pistol".

If you are going to debate, please make some sort of logical sense (and type readable English that is run through a spell-checker).

At what point did you start allowing logical sense in this debate? If you can demand that rule book walk you hand and hand like a little schoolgirl through how the game is played and hold all the rules in the book as flawless then its silly that you can ignore parts of the rules and the way other sentences are worded if it contradicts your first impression.

And god forbid that maby we see the rules in a different way than you do.......lets just end the argument the way it always ends between us.......

I will insist that your ruling is flawed and based on hypocritical reading

You will ignore anything myself or anyone that agrees with me have to say.

We will point out that no one we know would ever play it with your restrictive viewpoint

You will call us all cheaters and quit posting for a few hours...

Sounds like a pattern that may not change anytime soon........


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For now lets just agree that the book is written like crap and no one is going to come to a universal agreement on this topic.........


I also no longer have any interest in this topic anymore as my point was made public, and I have things to do. I have a life outside of 40k and Dakka, may I suggest you do the same and broaden your interests beyond proving that the proofreader for GW is slightly over paid.

DJ Illumati, you have dragged this thread off-track a few times, and are making inflammatory posts that are not relevant to the rules discussions. You're letting frustration and emotion get the better of you in your posts; step back for a moment, compose your arguments by referencing rules and do so in a less combative tone.

Thank you.

When you have multiple weapons on a model, but can only fire some of them, you choose between them. For example, on a vehicle, you choose which gun to fire if you may only fire 1. The same principle applies to infantry.

Monstrous creatures would face a similar restriction to vehicles, since they may generally fire multiple weapons (if they have them).

In a squadron of vehicles, or an infantry unit, you're allowed to only fire with certain models. (Although squadrons do have another rule which should help make it clear that vehicles are supposed to fire with all available weapons). This is a separate ability.

In the example of a tactical squad, it would mean that the squad could fire their bolt pistols or bolters, but if they fired the bolters, they must fire 2 shots if within range, not one.

wtf are you talking about. Are you asking wether or not you can fire the ordnance weapon instead of the other ones? You can ALWAYS fire the ordnance weapon. Even when you move. The New lumbering behemoth lets you fire another one. So what are you talking about? Why on earth would you NOT fire the big gun? If your trying to take out infantry. Infact why would you not fire EVERYTHING you can. There are very few situations where you would not want to like if you wanted to assault the unit which you were shooting at, which guard never do.

In addition you do NOT HAVE TO take sponsons. So why do that to yourself if you are gonna worry about it.

smart_alex wrote:So what are you talking about? Why on earth would you NOT fire the big gun? If your trying to take out infantry.

The big guns is what is fired, the OP wanted to ask if it's OK to not shoot the smaller guns. Why? Because sometimes that infantry is something like Ork Nobs with all mixed weapons and wargear. Suddenly firing everything means that fewer Nobz die due to the defender stacking Instant Death wounds as the rules allow him to do.

Gwar! wrote:There is a rule, it is on page 58: "When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units - all its weapons must fire at a single target unit." Emphasis Added.

Individual MODELS may choose to fire or not fire (Page 16), not Weapons. Thus, if a Vehicle (a Model) chooses to fire, it MUST fire all its weapons. Or it can Choose to Not Fire, as per page 16

I would disagree quite strongly with this interpretation. I would argue that "must" refers to the "at a single unit" rather than requiring you to fire all weapons.

Your interpretation breaks when a vehicle is unable to fire all weapons, e.g. after moving. Now you cannot fire all weapons so are unable to follow this rule.

Your argument is that the rule actually says: all a vehicles weapons which are available to fire must fire at a single target unit.
I would argue that the rule actually says: all of a vehicles weapons which are being fired must fire at a single target unit.

As for the fire at full effect rule - this is specifically about firing less shots than maximum from a multi-shot weapon. There are many examples of GW rules that are written for standard infantry and fail to apply properly for other things (like the targetting rules).


How are we going to apply this rule to flyers with bombs or missile racks - must fire all of them the first time it shoots?


So, how are people planning on playing this?
1. Must fire all weapons including one-shot bolt-ons.
2. Must fire all weapons excluding one-shot bolt-ons which are optional.
3. Can fire whatever the hell you want up to the maximum allowed.

Why not just move the tank and not worry about it?

Nurgleboy77 wrote:Why not just move the tank and not worry about it?

Due to Lumbering Behemoth, he'd still be able to fire 2 weapons.

Maybe four (co-ax weapon and pintle weapon)

True. I don't use sponsons anyway.

Read the squadron rules if you think it violates intent for vehicles to be required to fire all weapons. Go on, do it.

And the "full effect" rule is for models, not infantry. Requiring to fire all shots is an example of the rule; it is not listed as the only instance.

So, you think that hunter killer missiles are required to be fired the first time the vehicle is stationary and shoots?

What about flyers with six HKs on racks? They should be required to fire all of them at a single target the first time they shoot?

Scott-S6 wrote:So, you think that hunter killer missiles are required to be fired the first time the vehicle is stationary and shoots?

What about flyers with six HKs on racks? They should be required to fire all of them at a single target the first time they shoot?

You still don't get what we are saying. They do not have to fire. However, if they choose to fire, they must fire as many weapons as permitted as the rules do not allow a single model to voluntarily shoot only some of the weapons it is permitted to shoot.

In this case, they can choose to not fire or fire as many weapons as possible, which would be all the HK as they count as Stationary.

You are not REQUIRED to fire, but if you do fire, you must fire to full effect.

Gwar! wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:So, you think that hunter killer missiles are required to be fired the first time the vehicle is stationary and shoots?

What about flyers with six HKs on racks? They should be required to fire all of them at a single target the first time they shoot?

You still don't get what we are saying. They do not have to fire. However, if they choose to fire, they must fire as many weapons as permitted as the rules do not allow a single model to voluntarily shoot only some of the weapons it is permitted to shoot.

In this case, they can choose to not fire or fire as many weapons as possible, which would be all the HK as they count as Stationary.

You are not REQUIRED to fire, but if you do fire, you must fire to full effect.

Youre not required to fire.

-page 16=> fire or not fire
-page 27=> fire all shots of A weapon, not fire all weapons
-page 58 => focus all fired weapons at the same target. Fire as many weapons as permitted if you wish.

Where is your nicely added requirement?

1hadhq wrote:Where is your nicely added requirement?

There is a rule, it is on page 58: "When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units - all its weapons must fire at a single target unit." Emphasis Added.

Also, it fires just like other units. Other units can choose to fire or not fire. They cannot choose to fire 1 weapon if they are able to fire 2.

Gwar! wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Where is your nicely added requirement?

There is a rule, it is on page 58: "When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units - all its weapons must fire at a single target unit." Emphasis Added.

Is it possible to ignore context more?

And maybe more capitalization to be more correct also?

It stays:

aim all weapons = one target

it is not "fire all weapons".

If you're arguing intent, which I think you are, then please read the squadrons rules on shooting. It says that firing vehicles must fire "all available weaponry".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the argument I would make if I were Gwar, and which I think he may be making already, is that you read the whole rule. So you must fire the weapons at a single target unit. That's true. But the rule also says you fire all of them.

Kitzz wrote:With all respect, that is not at all what we are talking about either. We are discussing whether or not a vehicle MUST fire all of its weapons or none.

That's what I was talking about, too. You just didn't read past the first line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gonna just say this again: RaW, if a weapon on a vehicle can't draw LOS to the target unit, it cannot fire at the unit with any weapon. The rule we are debating "all its weapons must fire at a single target unit" is the next rule that applies, meaning you can't fire. Their is no exception to this like there is with the vehicle moving rule. The Intent might be to fire all weapons that can, but I couldn't find something saying that specifically. And since this appears to be about specifics, well, you get the idea.

I don't actually think this is as intended, but the whole thread is talking about specifics, and well, this is rather specific.

I think the problem here is that the two statements 'all its weapons must fire' and 'may fire all of their weapons' are understood by many people to mean '[any of] its weapons may fire' and 'may fire [any] of their weapons' since the statements may be equivalent in common usage.

If someone says 'You can have all of the candy', are you going to get yelled at if you only take half?

solkan wrote:If someone says 'You can have all of the candy', are you going to get yelled at if you only take half?

No, but it we are not saying "You can have all of the candy", we are saying "You can choose, Take no Candy or Take All of the Candy."

jasonlotito wrote:
Gonna just say this again: RaW, if a weapon on a vehicle can't draw LOS to the target unit, it cannot fire at the unit with any weapon.

So what is the point of a turret/sponson weapons on a vehicle if it can turn and shoot at a target that the hullmounted weapon cant turn to face.....sooooo a Landraider cant fire any weapons if 1 las-cannon cant draw LOS because its on the side of a huge model .

DJ Illuminati wrote:

jasonlotito wrote:
Gonna just say this again: RaW, if a weapon on a vehicle can't draw LOS to the target unit, it cannot fire at the unit with any weapon.

So what is the point of a turret/sponson weapons on a vehicle if it can turn and shoot at a target that the hullmounted weapon cant turn to face.....sooooo a Landraider cant fire any weapons if 1 las-cannon cant draw LOS because its on the side of a huge model .

Say the Vehicle moved 6". Thus it could only fire 1 Main Weapon, which you pick to be the turret.

Gwar! wrote:

solkan wrote:If someone says 'You can have all of the candy', are you going to get yelled at if you only take half?

No, but it we are not saying "You can have all of the candy", we are saying "You can choose, Take no Candy or Take All of the Candy."

Right. 'A vehicle may fire all of its weapons'. Compared to 'You may have all of the candy,' and 'You can have all of the candy.' The permission in each case is ambiguous as to whether it is 'all or nothing' or if fractional amounts are allowed.

There is nothing suggesting it can fire a fraction of its weapons.

The Tank can choose to not fire (as per page 16) or it may "fire all its weapons". It cannot choose to not fire some.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:

jasonlotito wrote:
Gonna just say this again: RaW, if a weapon on a vehicle can't draw LOS to the target unit, it cannot fire at the unit with any weapon.

So what is the point of a turret/sponson weapons on a vehicle if it can turn and shoot at a target that the hullmounted weapon cant turn to face.....sooooo a Landraider cant fire any weapons if 1 las-cannon cant draw LOS because its on the side of a huge model .

Say the Vehicle moved 6". Thus it could only fire 1 Main Weapon, which you pick to be the turret.

What I am disagreeing with in this case is the statement that if one weapon cannot draw LOS than NO guns may fire.....

Gwar! wrote:There is nothing suggesting it can fire a fraction of its weapons.

The Tank can choose to not fire (as per page 16) or it may "fire all its weapons". It cannot choose to not fire some.

There is no evidence to support either interpretation to the exclusion of the other. Because the rules are written in common language either or both usage is valid.

Repeating:

"all available weaponry" under Squadrons should be all the proof you need for RaI.

"at full effect" under models shooting should be all the proof you RaW-but-read-"fire all weapons"-differently folks need. (Note: firing less than the maximum number of shots is only an example of what it means not to fire at full effect, and even if it weren't, firing fewer available weapons results in fewer total shots)

Enjoy?

ajfirecracker wrote:If you're arguing intent, which I think you are, then please read the squadrons rules on shooting. It says that firing vehicles must fire "all available weaponry".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the argument I would make if I were Gwar, and which I think he m

ay be making already, is that you read the whole rule. So you must fire the weapons at a single target unit. That's true. But the rule also says you fire all of them.

True, but I think the context is getting messed up. Just like the context of a text message across a cell phone. I don't think the book is saying, "ALL its weapons MUST fire." Hence -All- and -Must-. Rather, it is saying, "all its weapons must fire AT A SINGLE TARGET UNIT." I think the problem is taking the rule out of context. I don't think the rule would just be glazed over in a small foreward under Vehicles Shooting. I think, what it means to say is, "Just like all other shooting, all its weapons must fire at a single target unit." The context is not about how many weapons must be fired, but what they can be fired at.

I mean, I think it makes the rule even clearer further down under Defensive Weapons. It says, ". . .that moved at combat speed -can- fire all of its defensive weapons in addition. . .". If we're arguing the specifics of a word from -can- to -may-, wouldn't the rule be specific enough to say -must- rather than -can-?

There are a few arguments for the ability to choose which weapons you'd like to fire and which ones you wouldn't. And one of the ones that jasonlotito above is pointing out is the picture on page 58 of the rulebook. Now, the Predator on the page is firing at the Trukk. Let's say that Predator had remained stationary and, therefore, must fire all of its weapons (per what everyone is saying). That means that the lascannon on the right side of the tank wouldn't be able to fire because it doesn't have LOS (per the picture). Therefore, since that lascannon cannot fire and you must fire all of your weapons or none, you cannot fire any at the Trukk, because your lascannon not being able to fire precludes the fact that none of the others can fire either. That just doesn't make sense (and the picture says that the Predator is, in fact, firing at the Trukk).

Seems like a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. I think the contexts are out of place and that people are reading too much into the contexts they're interpreting.

The rule doesn't say that if you're unable to fire some you may not fire any.

What it does say, like the "full effect" and "all available weaponry" rules, is that you can't hold back. Given that this requirement appears in at least 3 places, it's hardly glazed over.

And the proper reading of the rule is to place emphasis on both parts. Thus: ALL ITS WEAPONS MUST FIRE AT A SINGLE TARGET UNIT. Otherwise, you're using emphasis to try to ignore part of the written rules. This interpretation says you must both A) Target 0-1 units and B) Fire all weapons at any unit targeted

Gwar! wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Where is your nicely added requirement?

There is a rule, it is on page 58: "When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units - all its weapons must fire at a single target unit." Emphasis Added.

Also, it fires just like other units. Other units can choose to fire or not fire. They cannot choose to fire 1 weapon if they are able to fire 2.

Pg. 16: A player may choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers (as some models may have one-shot weapons, for example.)

puma, vehicles are models. If you choose not to fire with a vehicle, that's fine.

ajfirecracker wrote:puma, vehicles are models. If you choose not to fire with a vehicle, that's fine.

No, that's not what I was getting at. I was getting at the fact that Gwar! related the issue to a unit of models and said that they cannot choose to fire 1 weapon if they can fire 2, where the rulebook states that they can. Still up in the air about the vehicle thing. Reading over some other rules.

Edit: Where are the "no holding back" rules? I remember them from 4th, but I can't find that statement in 5th.

"all available weaponry" is under squadrons.
"at full effect" is under weapon types.
"fire all weapons" is under vehicles shooting.

ajfirecracker wrote:The rule doesn't say that if you're unable to fire some you may not fire any.

No, it doesn't say that, but what jason is getting at (and I'm starting to see his point) is that you're saying that by firing at full effect, no holding back, etc. etc. that you MUST fire ALL of your weapons at a SINGLE UNIT. So, by reverse logic, if you cannot fire one of your weapons, you cannot fire any of them. Why? Because that would mean you're choosing to fire some and not all. If you're saying that I don't have to live by this rule, that I can fire the two weapons that have LOS and not fire the one that doesn't, then the rule has contradicted itself and said well, you can fire all of them if you have LOS.

Breaking it down simply:

You MUST fire ALL weapons.

You CANNOT fire ALL weapons at a SINGLE UNIT. (no LOS for your right sponson).

Therefore, you CANNOT fire ANY because you MUST fire ALL. You CANNOT fire ALL, therefore. . .

That's the point Jason was making, I believe. I'm still up in the air though.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

ajfirecracker wrote:"all available weaponry" is under squadrons.
"at full effect" is under weapon types.
"fire all weapons" is under vehicles shooting.

I'm not trying to be offensive here, but can you be more specific? For instance, Squadrons don't apply to normal vehicles. It says that they follow all the rules for normal units with the following EXCEPTIONS. Meaning, the squadrons firing ALL AVAILABLE WEAPONRY is an EXCEPTION to normal unit firing, of which vehicles are a part of.

At Full effect is describing the number of shots. For instance Assault 3. For firing "at full effect" you must fire all 3 Assault shots. It's not saying that all weapons must be fired. It's saying that you must fire all of the rounds.

And I can't find Fire All Weapons. The only time it says that a vehicle MUST fire at a single target unit is describing the fact that you can't separate shots. Others are arguing that that one "must" is describing the fact that you must fire all of your weapons. I just don't get it.

The number of shots is given explicitly as an example of the "at full effect" rule, not as the only application. Furthermore, it says it must fire at full effect and may not reduce the number of shots, not it must fire at full effect therefore/so may not reduce the number of shots. Two conditions are given, and an example for the second (lowering shots) is given.

The RaW, I think are clear (if possibly unintended) just from the main quote being debated here.

I'm attempting to show that the rule is consistent across the book, and that it is intended.

ajfirecracker wrote:The number of shots is given explicitly as an example of the "at full effect" rule, not as the only application. Furthermore, it says it must fire at full effect and may not reduce the number of shots, not it must fire at full effect therefore/so may not reduce the number of shots. Two conditions are given, and an example for the second (lowering shots) is given.

Are you kidding? It never says anything about everyone having to fire all of their weapons. In fact, it explicitly says that they do not a line above that. It says that a model can decide not to fire a weapon, but if they do, they cannot reduce the firepower of their weapon. Never once does it say anything about firing all of their weapons. You're extrapolating what you want to read out of that statement. That "firing at full effect" is an esoteric idea of something that is not outlined anywhere in the rules. The only example it gives is lowering the firepower. If it meant not firing all of its weapons, it would say that. It says they can choose not to fire some if they wish.

EDIT: Okay, now I do get it. It's not talking about a vehicle shooting all of its weaponry. Why? Because of the grammar of the book. A dash indicates a relevant statement meant to clarify the statement made before it, sort of like a semicolon. Hence, what that part of Vehicle Shooting is saying is "and shoots like other units - all its weapons must fire at a single target unit." Using our powers of deduction - we're all smart kids here - we know that it is not talking about a unit firing all of its weapons. It simply doesn't have to (page 16). So, if it's not talking about firing all of its weapons, it must be talking about not separating shots between multiple units. If the sentence had been: ". . .and shoots like other units. All its weapons must fire at a single target unit." Then the argument would be valid because the period creates two separate statements and. But the statement is referring to the sentence prior - saying that vehicles fire just like units in that they must fire all of their weapons at a single target unit. It's about the target choice, not about having to fire every weapon, because units don't have to fire every weapon (page 16).

No, it says certain models may choose not to fire. Models with multiple weapons capable of firing them all are required to do so. (This is by the "full effect" rule for non-vehicles, and the above rules for vehicles.)

P. 16 means your vehicle can choose not to fire. It does nothing for allowing it to pick and choose which weapons to fire.

Please note also that the initial example here, a Leman Russ, would be bound by the "must fire all available weaponry" in squadrons, since that is how you take them these days.

ajfirecracker wrote:No, it says certain models may choose not to fire. Models with multiple weapons capable of firing them all are required to do so. (This is by the "full effect" rule for non-vehicles, and the above rules for vehicles.)

P. 16 means your vehicle can choose not to fire. It does nothing for allowing it to pick and choose which weapons to fire.

Please note also that the initial example here, a Leman Russ, would be bound by the "must fire all available weaponry" in squadrons, since that is how you take them these days.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I just don't see the logic. The "full effect rule" isn't a "rule" at all. It's an esoteric idea that you're assuming the meaning of. Heck, it's not even -IN- an area dealing with shooting. The part of the rulebook where it discusses something about the "full effect" is in the Weapons area, where it is talking about WEAPONS and their effects, not the effects of those shooting them - that is covered in "Who Can Shoot?". The only example it gives you of "full effect" is not reducing firepower. They're just assuming you'll discern the other meaning of it? How? Because "models with multiple weapons capable of firing them all are required to do so"? Where is that written? As far as I know, unless you're a Monstrous Creature, then you cannot fire more than one weapon per turn as a regular model (therefore, there's no need to write a "full effect rule"). Secondly, the monstrous creature rule is very similar to this vehicle rule in that it says:

INSTEAD of firing a single weapon, a monstrous creature CAN fire two weapons. They must, of course, fire both of them at the enemy target."

So, what you're saying is since the second sentence says "must of course fire both of them at the enemy target" that the context you're going to take out of it is that the must fire both, not that it must be at the same enemy target. But, in the sentence prior, it said INSTEAD of firing a single weapon, a creature CAN fire two. That indicates that it doesn't have to. The same logic stands for vehicles. But you're not seeing that. So. . ./shrug. . .we're at an impasse. It's the same theory that was written above that Gwar! nonchalantly dismissed: You "can" have all the candy. Gwar simply stated that it was a choice - but the rulebook doesn't say you can or you cannot. It says "you can fire all of your defensive weapons". When someone says, "you can have all the candy." It doesn't mean you can have all or none. It means take what you want. You CAN have all of it (you CAN fire all of your weapons) or, you can have some of it or you can have none of it.

So, if there's a squad bearing down on me, 12" away and surrounded on all sides by my troops, my Griffon Heavy Mortar MUST fire its Ordnance Barrage at the squad, endangering my units, possibly my own tank and whatever else in the process? It cannot fire its heavy bolter to stay safer? If you fire an ordnance barrage, you cannot fire your other weapons. But, according to this thread, you must fire all weapons available, so, therefore, I must try to fire both. I can't - and posters in this thread indicate that you cannot choose which ones to fire and which ones not to, so you cannot choose to fire your heavy bolter rather than the ordnance barrage? That doesn't make sense.


EDIT: I think the problem with this whole debate is context of the rulebook. You're reading it in the context you'd like to and so is everyone else. You're saying that since the rulebook says, "it must fire all of its weapons at the same enemy unit." That it means every word in the same context. But that's not how people communicate and that's not how texts are written. Take this English example:

They didn't want it.

They didn't want it.

They didn't want it.

Out of context, those three sentences mean the same thing. But, when adding context:

THEY didn't want it - means it was them that didn't want the thing.

They didn't WANT it - means they may have needed it, or they didn't care for it at all.

They didn't want IT - meaning it was the thing that was the problem.

Out of context they're all the same sentence. In context, they have three separate meanings. Just like you're saying that "must fire all of their weapons at the same enemy unit." has no context. I am saying that "must fire all of the weapons AT THE SAME ENEMY UNIT." -IS- the context.

SECOND EDIT: Jason's argument still holds water. You and Gwar! have stated that if you can fire all, then you must. An Immobilized tank can fire all, therefore it must. It cannot draw LOS to a target from its right, therefore it cannot fire its right sponson. Since it cannot fire ALL of its weapons, and it CANNOT fire ONLY SOME of its weapons, it CANNOT FIRE its weapons. Which contradicts the Predator's example on page 58.

The problem is there are lots and lots and lots of contradictory examples, but only one fleeting passage where it mentions that a vehicle must fire all of its weapons at a single unit - and that is taken out of context (which we discussed earlier in the grammar lesson above).

puma713 wrote:SECOND EDIT: Jason's argument still holds water. You and Gwar! have stated that if you can fire all, then you must. An Immobilized tank can fire all, therefore it must. It cannot draw LOS to a target from its right, therefore it cannot fire its right sponson. Since it cannot fire ALL of its weapons, and it CANNOT fire ONLY SOME of its weapons, it CANNOT FIRE its weapons. Which contradicts the Predator's example on page 58.

If you had bothered to read our arguments, you would see that we have said the rulebook tells you to fire all available weapons. If a Weapon cannot fire (because of distance moved, Weapon Destroyed, cannot get los ETC) it attempts to fire but fails.

The statement in regards to the squadron is designed to ensure all models (all) fire upon the same target with the weapons they choose to fire.

The statement in regards an individual vehicle firing is designed to include all weapons the player has decided to fire (all) on the vehicle at the same target.

There is indeed consistancy here inthat the weapons must be fired on the same target.

The right to reframe from taking an action is proven by the existance in the rules of compulsory actions, the firing of all weapons at once is not stated as a compulsory action. The controlling player may simply therefore, not fire with any of the weapons on the vehicle he/she decides not to fire (for example a weapon that cannot harm the target) and may not fire a weapon on the vehicle that does not have LOS to the target.

So, one target only, with any or all of the weapons on the vehicle, at the controlling player's discretion, in accordance with LOS.

My guess is that for RAW it probably can be read either way. My personal opinion is more in the 'not having to fire all weapons' camp.

However, for the RAI, I think that puma713's explanation just makes a lot more sense. One for the FAQ's I guess.

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:SECOND EDIT: Jason's argument still holds water. You and Gwar! have stated that if you can fire all, then you must. An Immobilized tank can fire all, therefore it must. It cannot draw LOS to a target from its right, therefore it cannot fire its right sponson. Since it cannot fire ALL of its weapons, and it CANNOT fire ONLY SOME of its weapons, it CANNOT FIRE its weapons. Which contradicts the Predator's example on page 58.

If you had bothered to read our arguments, you would see that we have said the rulebook tells you to fire all available weapons. If a Weapon cannot fire (because of distance moved, Weapon Destroyed, cannot get los ETC) it attempts to fire but fails.

I like how it degrades into personal attacks when you're confronted with an equally valid argument. Don't be simple - of course I "bothered to read your arguments". You think I just came up with all of this on a whim? I just posted time after time without reading anything?

You captured the point in your statement above - "you would see that we have said the rulebook tells you to fire all available weapons."

That's my problem. You have said. Not the rulebook. The only time I see where it tells you to fire all available weapons is when it is talking about not separating shots. And "it attempts to fire but fails?" Everywhere I see, it says "cannot fire". It doesn't say "attempts to fire but fails". Once again you've made up your own interpretation of the rules and then posted them as fact. If you move Flat Out, you don't "attempt to fire your weapons but fail". You simply cannot fire. So, when the predator on page 58 fires its left sponson and turret at the Trukk, it is only firing SOME of its weapons. Hence, you've CHOSEN to fire SOME of your weapons. Therefore, a choice can be made.

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:SECOND EDIT: Jason's argument still holds water. You and Gwar! have stated that if you can fire all, then you must. An Immobilized tank can fire all, therefore it must. It cannot draw LOS to a target from its right, therefore it cannot fire its right sponson. Since it cannot fire ALL of its weapons, and it CANNOT fire ONLY SOME of its weapons, it CANNOT FIRE its weapons. Which contradicts the Predator's example on page 58.

If you had bothered to read our arguments, you would see that we have said the rulebook tells you to fire all available weapons. If a Weapon cannot fire (because of distance moved, Weapon Destroyed, cannot get los ETC) it attempts to fire but fails.

Technically, it doesn't say that. Reread the section on moving. It provides an explicit exception to the rule that you do not have to fire with all available weapons. It limits you to certain weapons. The line of sight section doesn't provide this exception. You are inferring that a weapon that can't get LOS on the unit attempts to fire but it fails. Even the Line of Sight section doesn't make this clear. "If the target unit happens to be in cover from only some of the vehicles weapons, then work out if the target gets cover saves exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing model in a normal unit." There are many ways to approach this. First, they say "firing weapon" implying that not all weapons will fire. Whether this is because of moving or ordinance or because you can elect to not fire with all weapons or because of Line of Sight issues isn't clear (see this thread). Furthermore, the sentence only applies to cover, which doesn't mean the weapon is out of line of sight.

Either way, the rule book says that all weapons must fire at a single unit. They give explicit exceptions for moving and ordnance weapons. Where does it say if you cannot fire a weapon because of line of sight that the vehicle may still fire it's remaining weapons (the same way it provides the exception in the moving and ordnance section).

I'm not really preaching this idea. Rather, I'd be surprised if you were forced to fire all available weapons. After all, limited fire weapons would be dramatically hindered. Tau are a prime example with a missile system that would be seriously hampered if they had to fire it as soon as their tank fire the first time.

Edit: I'd just like to point out that I have read all your arguments, and you've made several statements that directly conflict with anything I've found in the BRB, at least as far as the Written rule goes.

Wow, so by RAW logic a Skyray would have to launch every available seeker missle (all 6 at once) the first time it shoots?

So I guess mounting a HK missle on an anti-infantry vehicle as a backup tank hunter is a moot point because first time it shoots at an infantry squad it must launch the HK. That's just some convoluted logic.

I see the context of that statement implying if you fire any vehicle weapon that all weapons you choose to fire MUST fire at the same target, PoTMS not withstanding of course.

I mean, an M1A1 is not going to fire it's MG at a tank that it's firing it's main cannon at as it's a waste of ammo and would most likely result in the tanks gunner getting reprimanded for shooting hundreds of rounds at a target it can't hurt. LOL.

Fateweaver wrote:Wow, so by RAW logic a Skyray would have to launch every available seeker missle (all 6 at once) the first time it shoots?

Errrm... You do know how seeker missiles work right? You need a markerlight for each one fired?

-Ignores rest of post after epic failure-

Should we also ignore youre posts after youre epic failure at the subject of this thread?

Or is it possible for you to accept a different opinion ?

1hadhq wrote:Should we also ignore youre posts after youre epic failure at the subject of this thread?

Or is it possible for you to accept a different opinion ?

Ignore my posts all you want. I have no problem with it

Now I admit I could have made my point there better, but if someone is trying to refute my argument, at least try and make it one that works.

Just trying to work through the rules in the book which pertain to how many weapons a vehicle may fire, let's see what the are.

First, we find the general rule on page 15, "Normally each model in a firing unit can fire a single weapon. Some models, including vehicles, may be able to fire more than one weapon, as detailed later."
Later, on page 58, we find the rule which Gwar! has fixated on, "When a vehicle fires, ... all its weapons must fire at a single target unit." just under the VEHICLE SHOOTING heading.
Just below that, we find the rules for moving and shooting vehicles. The MOVING AND SHOOTING VEHICLE WEAPONRY exhaustively covers how many weapons a vehicle may fire based on how far the vehicle moved, and whether or not an ordnance weapon is being fired.

The most specific rule which appears to apply to a stationary vehicle firing at a target are the MOVING AND SHOOTING VEHICLE WEAPONRY rules. In other words, "may fire all of their weapons" is more specific than "all its weapons must fire" which is more specific than "can fire a single weapon." Note that the "all its weapons must fire" rule can't override the vehicle shooting rules because it would come into direct conflict with the "may fire a single weapon" clause under MOVING AND SHOOTING.

So, first the "Your understanding of English differs from my understanding" argument.

The difference between "You must X all the Y" and "You may X all the Y" according to my understanding of English is that "You may X all the Y" is equivalent to "You may X any of the Y", while "You must X all the Y" instead is at best all or nothing. Should we have a poll to discover what the common understanding of the phrase "You may X all the Y" means, or would that be too off topic?

Second, is the original rule on page 15 ever explicitly invalidated? Page 15 says that the general case is that a unit can fire a single weapon, and some units can fire more than one weapon. Where is this statement overridden by the vehicle rules? It can't be overridden by the first statement on page 58 because every other rule on page 58 limits the effective scope of that statement to "all its weapons [which are fired] must fire at a single target". So that means that the general rule which applies to a stationary vehicle without ordnance weapons is that it can fire a single weapon, and the specific rule is that it can in addition fire all of its weapons. Or is there some formal rule of RAW which this construction oversteps?

Gwar! wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Should we also ignore youre posts after youre epic failure at the subject of this thread?

Or is it possible for you to accept a different opinion ?

Ignore my posts all you want. I have no problem with it

How ironic.

jasonlotito wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:SECOND EDIT: Jason's argument still holds water. You and Gwar! have stated that if you can fire all, then you must. An Immobilized tank can fire all, therefore it must. It cannot draw LOS to a target from its right, therefore it cannot fire its right sponson. Since it cannot fire ALL of its weapons, and it CANNOT fire ONLY SOME of its weapons, it CANNOT FIRE its weapons. Which contradicts the Predator's example on page 58.

If you had bothered to read our arguments, you would see that we have said the rulebook tells you to fire all available weapons. If a Weapon cannot fire (because of distance moved, Weapon Destroyed, cannot get los ETC) it attempts to fire but fails.

Technically, it doesn't say that. Reread the section on moving. It provides an explicit exception to the rule that you do not have to fire with all available weapons. It limits you to certain weapons. The line of sight section doesn't provide this exception. You are inferring that a weapon that can't get LOS on the unit attempts to fire but it fails. Even the Line of Sight section doesn't make this clear. "If the target unit happens to be in cover from only some of the vehicles weapons, then work out if the target gets cover saves exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing model in a normal unit." There are many ways to approach this. First, they say "firing weapon" implying that not all weapons will fire. Whether this is because of moving or ordinance or because you can elect to not fire with all weapons or because of Line of Sight issues isn't clear (see this thread). Furthermore, the sentence only applies to cover, which doesn't mean the weapon is out of line of sight.

Either way, the rule book says that all weapons must fire at a single unit. They give explicit exceptions for moving and ordnance weapons. Where does it say if you cannot fire a weapon because of line of sight that the vehicle may still fire it's remaining weapons (the same way it provides the exception in the moving and ordnance section).

I'm not really preaching this idea. Rather, I'd be surprised if you were forced to fire all available weapons. After all, limited fire weapons would be dramatically hindered. Tau are a prime example with a missile system that would be seriously hampered if they had to fire it as soon as their tank fire the first time.

Edit: I'd just like to point out that I have read all your arguments, and you've made several statements that directly conflict with anything I've found in the BRB, at least as far as the Written rule goes.

Interesting read.

However, just to get this out there, gw does not use precedents (or if they do, it's very inconsistent) on how rules interact. Taking rules from one section discussing one thing and trying to apply that to a similar situation is...well...moot in most instances.

GW does not set or use precedents for the most part. Period.

imweasel wrote:However, just to get this out there, gw does not use precedents (or if they do, it's very inconsistent) on how rules interact. Taking rules from one section discussing one thing and trying to apply that to a similar situation is...well...moot in most instances.

GW does not set or use precedents for the most part. Period.

Except I'm only looking at one section. These different rules are all under the same basic section.

Again, for me, it's not so much arguing a side as much as looking at the extreme ways rules can be interpreted. In my case, I'm merely taking the rules as written, no further.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Should we also ignore youre posts after youre epic failure at the subject of this thread?

Or is it possible for you to accept a different opinion ?

Ignore my posts all you want. I have no problem with it

Now I admit I could have made my point there better, but if someone is trying to refute my argument, at least try and make it one that works.

I've done that already. The rule book says that all weapons must fire at a single unit. They give explicit exceptions for moving and ordnance weapons. Where does it say if you cannot fire a weapon because of line of sight that the vehicle may still fire it's remaining weapons (the same way it provides the exception in the moving and ordnance section)? I've looked and haven't found it. Maybe I missed it.

I'm pretty sure you can always elect not to fire a weapon. If you told me I had to fire my Battle Cannon at a Terminator squad deep striking 3" in front of my line because I declared I was firing the 3 heavy bolters at it, you wouldn't see another game with me. The "must fire" sentence is intended to prevent splitting fire, not to say that your crew is a bunch of blundering idiots and can't make tactical decisions for themselves.

"All weapons must fire at a single target" - Can't split fire
"Vehicles that remained stationary may fire all of their weapons" - You MAY fire all of your weapons. You don't have to.

Prod wrote:I'm pretty sure you can always elect not to fire a weapon. If you told me I had to fire my Battle Cannon at a Terminator squad deep striking 3" in front of my line because I declared I was firing the 3 heavy bolters at it, you wouldn't see another game with me.

With that Attitude, I would be glad of it

The "must fire" sentence is intended to prevent splitting fire, not to say that your crew is a bunch of blundering idiots and can't make tactical decisions for themselves.

So, did you write the rulebook? I mean, if you know what they intended you must have written it, yes?

"All weapons must fire at a single target" - Can't split fire
"Vehicles that remained stationary may fire all of their weapons" - You MAY fire all of your weapons. You don't have to.

The old dozer blade re-rolling the difficult terrain test for super-charged engines made more sense than what you are proposing.

Prod wrote:"All weapons must fire at a single target" - Can't split fire
"Vehicles that remained stationary may fire all of their weapons" - You MAY fire all of your weapons. You don't have to.

Yes, may fire. As in, if one weapon has been destroyed, or you moved 6", you may fire, because you cannot fire all your weapons.

Again, please provide credentials if you are going to argue intent. I argue the rules.

Ok, how about this. "When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units - all its weapons must fire at a single target unit."

Now, go to shooting for all units, as referenced above:

"A player may choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers (as some models may have one-shot weapons, for example). This must be declared before checking range, as all of the models in the unit fire at the same time."

Case in point.

Prod wrote:Ok, how about this. "When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units - all its weapons must fire at a single target unit."

Now, go to shooting for all units, as referenced above:

"A player may choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers (as some models may have one-shot weapons, for example). This must be declared before checking range, as all of the models in the unit fire at the same time."

Case in point.

A Vehicle can have 9001 Guns, but it is still one model. Thank you for proving my point. Nothing there suggests you may choose to fire only 1 weapon. All it says is that MODELS can choose to not fire. The Vehicle rules state that "All weapons must fire". So it is an All or nothing situation, RaW.

It specifies that you may not want to fire a model with a one-shot weapon. Define model. I could argue that I have a heavy bolter model mounted on my Leman Russ.


Perhaps this may clear something up:

Em dash

The em dash (—), or m dash, m-rule, etc., often demarcates a parenthetical thought—like this one—or some similar interpolation.

When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units (all its weapons must fire at a single target unit).

Hmm. I don't really see proof from either side on this one.

"All its weapons must fire at a single target" doesn't really work, "all its weapons" makes more sense in reference to all of the weapons firing than it does for all of the weapons mounted on the vehicle. And the "must" in "must fire at a single target" seems to compel the weapons to fire at a single target, not to fire period.

"Must fire to full effect and cannot reduce its weapon's firepower" only refers to a single weapon being reduced in firepower, not the full capabilities of the model. That just leaves "full effect", which is difficult to use as a requirement, if you're talking about a situation where firing an additional weapon would cause less damage to the enemy unit (reducing the effect of the model's firing).

Really it just seems to come down to whether "may fire all of its weapons" is using "all" inclusively or exclusively.

Prod wrote:It specifies that you may not want to fire a model with a one-shot weapon. Define model. I could argue that I have a heavy bolter model mounted on my Leman Russ.


Perhaps this may clear something up:

Em dash

The em dash (—), or m dash, m-rule, etc., often demarcates a parenthetical thought—like this one—or some similar interpolation.

When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units (all its weapons must fire at a single target unit).

Please read the rules of YMTC, especially the bit about dictionaries. GW can hardly write English, they most certainly wouldn't use Em Dashes.

The dictionary meaning of the m dash happens to be relevant. Even so, show me how may = must.

"Vehicles that remained stationary may fire all of their weapons" Sure, if a weapon is destroyed, or not within LOS, I'm not going to fire it. But if I didn't want to fire it, that's also exercising the "may", is it not? We can go back and forth all day, I don't think either of us can win this argument on RAW, because it's too ambiguous.

Chimera, ML/HB and a HK missile, stationary. Squad of Orks is the target. Show me how "may fire all my weapons" forces me to fire the HK missile.

Prod wrote:Chimera, ML/HB and a HK missile, stationary. Squad of Orks is the target. Show me how "may fire all my weapons" forces me to fire the HK missile.

You may fire all your weapons, or you may fire none of your weapons. There are no rules to say you may fire some of your weapons. Permissive rule-set and all that jazz.

"A vehicle that moved at combat speed can fire all of its defensive weapons in addition to the single weapon it is usually allowed to fire."

Now, defensive weapons, are, by definition, weapons. "Can" implies that the player has the option of firing them or not. A direct contradiction to "must fire" in the context that you are suggesting. So I'm pretty sure "must fire" doesn't apply as you are suggesting.

So why is it that your "Can" is better than "Must"?

And again, you Can fire them in addition to the single weapon, or you can choose to not fire at all.

Do you understand now?

What is not clear about "can fire in addition to"?

You're taking small bits of text out of context, and arranging them contrary to what is absolutely common sense. There's enough to support my position as valid per RAW. You can argue your position until you're blue in the face, but that won't make you right. Nor can I declare you wrong. I've never seen a rulebook or codex from GW that is 100% clear all the way through. This matter is too ambiguous for a clear cut ruling. So the best solution is to come to an agreement with your opponent and decide which interpretation you want to use before the game begins.

Yeah, it can fire IN ADDITION TO the Single Weapon you pick because you moved. It does not say you may fire the defensive weapons and not the main. The rules say all weapons must fire, thus all weapons able to fire must fire.

Or, you can choose to not fire, as per page 16.

I can choose to fire defensive weapons in addition to the main weapon, or I can choose not to fire the defensive weapons. But I may fire a main weapon. That's exactly RAW.

When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units (all its weapons must fire at a single target unit).

I have nothing further.

Prod wrote:I can choose to fire defensive weapons in addition to the main weapon, or I can choose not to fire the defensive weapons. But I may fire a main weapon. That's exactly RAW.

When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units (all its weapons must fire at a single target unit).

I have nothing further.

Well, if you want to play the "all other units" card, All other units cannot move and fire Heavy Weapons. Nor can All units fire more than 1 weapon.

So which one takes precedence?
You have yet to show me a rule that says "You may fire 1 weapon". It says you may fire all your weapons. This is not the same as you may fire any number of weapons.

An interesting example is the diagram on page 58, where the caption reads "The Predator is firing at the Trukk. The weapn the right spons cannot draw a line of sight to the chosen target, and so it cannot be fired."

So, does the Predator get to fire the other weapons? Lack of line of sight in previous sections means "unable to fire" instead of "automatically misses", so in this case the conclusion would be "The Predator tries to fire at the Trukk, but is unable to do so because one of the weapons is blocked."

Turn your tank backwards and none of the heavy bolters can shoot but your turret still can

Gwar! wrote:This is not the same as you may fire any number of weapons.

Vehicles may fire all of their weapons. . ."

To me, being an intelligent human, this says, "vehicles may fire any number of weapons." Why? Because "may" fire "all" is equal to "can choose to fire as many or as few as you'd like.".

^This is my line of thinking. If someone told me I may eat all of the Doritos in a bag, I would assume I could eat any amount of Doritos up to the entire bag.

Prod wrote:^This is my line of thinking. If someone told me I may eat all of the Doritos in a bag, I would assume I could eat any amount of Doritos up to the entire bag.

But in the far future there is only Lays Potato Chips

And, according to some (wrong) people, Lays is also the manufacturer of much of the Imperial Guard's weaponry.

Why is this even being debated?

Let's look at how the rules progress through page 58 of the rulebook.

First you have this:

When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units - all its weapons must fire at a single target unit.

This reiterates that vehicles fire just like normal units. All weapons fire at the same target and can't split fire.

Then you have this:

The number of weapons a vehicle can fire in the Shooting phase depends on how fast it has moved in that turn's movement phase, as detailed below.

This tells you that the following defines even further how many weapons can fire.

Under this you have this:

Vehicles that remained stationary may fire all of their weapons.

And thus you come to this which tells a vehicle MAY fire all of their weapons. It doesn't say you must.

I thought it was obvious that you never had to fire all your weapons. It never even crossed my mind that anyone would think any different until I came here. But you found the sentence that I think seals the deal on this one:

"The number of weapons a vehicle can fire in the Shooting phase depends on how fast it has moved in that turn's movement phase, as detailed below."

Note that "can" is used rather than "may" or "must". This would suggest that it's a choice up to a maximum number of weapons specified.

Ironhide wrote:Under this you have this:

Vehicles that remained stationary may fire all of their weapons.

And thus you come to this which tells a vehicle MAY fire all of their weapons. It doesn't say you must.

We have a winner.
The use of all is in application to the number that may be fired, player choice, in addition to the hard rule ability of the specific weaponry to fire due to LOS, allow up to all but the discretion to refrain from any, of the weapons to fire.

The existance in the ruleset of compulsory rules and the fact that no such rule is listed anywhere in relation to this, proves that the number of weapons allowed to fire ie not bound by LOS restriction, that actually fire, is the choice of the controlling player.

Pointlessly stupid debate.
Of course you may shoot between 0 and as many weapons you are normally allowed to shoot.
Whilst certain people seem to be fond of applying incorrect emphasis to certain parts of sentences and pulling their meaning completely out of context, that is not the way the rules work.
I agree with Ironhide's opinion, and disagree with Gwar!'s opinion.

Trasvi wrote:Pointlessly stupid debate.
Of course you may shoot between 0 and as many weapons you are normally allowed to shoot.

So you just ignore the rules that say you must fire then eh?

Gwar! wrote:

Trasvi wrote:Pointlessly stupid debate.
Of course you may shoot between 0 and as many weapons you are normally allowed to shoot.

So you just ignore the rules that say you must fire then eh?

When it is taken out of context as you so adamantly continue to do, yes.

puma713 wrote:When it is taken out of context as you so adamantly continue to do, yes.

Except it is not just me. And anyway, I can prove it without needing the "must fire rule" (though why you would ignore it is beyond me).

It says you may fire all of your weapons. It does not say "You may Fire 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 weapons." nor does it say "You may fire Up to all your weapons". It says you may fire ALL your weapons.

If someone waves a wad of $100 bills in front of you and says "You may take all the money", you may take all the money, or none of it. There is provision to take some of the money.

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:When it is taken out of context as you so adamantly continue to do, yes.

Except it is not just me. And anyway, I can prove it without needing the "must fire rule" (though why you would ignore it is beyond me).

It says you may fire all of your weapons. It does not say "You may Fire 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 weapons." nor does it say "You may fire Up to all your weapons". It says you may fire ALL your weapons.

If someone waves a wad of $100 bills in front of you and says "You may take all the money", you may take all the money, or none of it. There is provision to take some of the money.

I haven't been ignoring your posts. See my post a page or two back. The big one. It explains the idea of "context".

And it's not the ALL I'm arguing. It's the MAY. Anyway, you still haven't answered the example on page 58 of the predator not being able to fire its right sponson. You said that "it tries to fire but fails", which is not what the book says to begin with. It says it cannot draw LOS therefore it cannot fire. Since you must choose all or none, as you have pointed out incessantly, then the predator cannot fire, even though the book shows its left sponson and turret firing. Therefore, it fired SOME of its weapons. I mean, that point is there in black and white.

Let's at least agree on one thing. Is the predator on page 58 firing some of its weapons?

Out of range/sight weapons can fire, they just miss automatically.

shrug

kirsanth wrote:Out of range/sight weapons can fire, they just miss automatically.

shrug

Page 58 says "cannot be fired". There is a unit of orks in front of the right sponson. If the right sponson fired, it would hit them.

I am reading from "The Shooting Phase", Pg 14+.

/cheer GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another diagram that causes problems with the text.

LOL

kirsanth wrote:I am reading from "The Shooting Phase", Pg 14+.

/cheer GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another diagram that causes problems with the text.

LOL

Well, if we're reading the RAW, as we both know Gwar! is, then the predator is, indeed, firing some of its weapons.

puma713 wrote:Well, if we're reading the RAW,

So what are you reading?

kirsanth wrote:

puma713 wrote:Well, if we're reading the RAW,

So what are you reading?

Page 58, the text on the paper. The same book you're reading. That example is an example of the RAW. It says "Cannot be fired." The only time I see "target unit misses automatically" is when it is talking about range.

Oh I see you words too.

I am just wondering what you think RAW is about if you think playing by the words on the page is different than what Gwar! refers to.

And as for LOS/cover (for vehicles), each weapon counts as a model.
100% cover = no shot.
Same page as that diagram.

Or did I miss something again?

Edited for vehicles. ^^

kirsanth wrote:Oh I see you words too.

I am just wondering what you think RAW is about if you think playing by the words on the page is different than what Gwar! refers to.

And as for LOS/cover (for vehicles), each weapon counts as a model.
100% cover = no shot.
Same page as that diagram.

Or did I miss something again?

Edited for vehicles. ^^

That's exactly my point. You cannot shoot with the predator's right sponson. Hence, you have shot with -some- of the vehicles weapons, no?

Note: I play Tyranids and miss more about vehicles than anything else.

To sum up, as I read it:

The vehicle declares fire. So it must fire as much as possible.
Every weapon is checked, since it is one model firing.
Lack of LOS allows weapons to not fire (or rather auto-miss).
Cover allows weapons on a vehicle not to fire, if they give 100% cover, as they are counted as seperate models at this stage.

All legally fired weapons in range and LOS must fire, if the vehicle is declared to fire.

(end questionable summary of that side)

kirsanth wrote:Note: I play Tyranids and miss more about vehicles than anything else.

To sum up, as I read it:

The vehicle declares fire. So it must fire as much as possible.
Every weapon is checked, since it is one model firing.
Lack of LOS allows weapons to not fire (or rather auto-miss).
Cover allows weapons on a vehicle not to fire, if they give 100% cover, as they are counted as seperate models at this stage.

All legally fired weapons in range and LOS must fire, if the vehicle is declared to fire.

(end questionable summary of that side)

Yes or no. Is the predator firing some of its weapons?

puma713 wrote:Yes or no. Is the predator firing some of its weapons?

No, it is firing all of its weapons. The LOS rules provide for a weapon being forced to not fire. You still cannot optionally choose to not fire it.

kirsanth wrote:To sum up, as I read it:

The vehicle declares fire. So it must fire as much as possible.
Every weapon is checked, since it is one model firing.
Lack of LOS allows weapons to not fire (or rather auto-miss).

There is absolutely nothing in the rulebook about an 'auto-miss', weapons that cannot fire are not fired.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the rulebook that states every weapon of the vehicle must be fired. The use of the word 'All' is in relation to targeting allocation.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:There is absolutely nothing in the rulebook about an 'auto-miss', weapons that cannot fire are not fired.

Wrong again, see page 17.

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:Yes or no. Is the predator firing some of its weapons?

No, it is firing all of its weapons. The LOS rules provide for a weapon being forced to not fire. You still cannot optionally choose to not fire it.

So, when a weapon "cannot be fired", it is firing? . . . It doesn't shoot, then check LOS then say, "Whoops, that weapon cannot be fired." Because that's what you're suggesting. Instead, the weapons check LOS and find that one cannot shoot. Hence, it doesn't fire it. You don't shoot first, check LOS later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:There is absolutely nothing in the rulebook about an 'auto-miss', weapons that cannot fire are not fired.

Wrong again, see page 17.

Under the RANGE heading? We're not talking about RANGE, we're talking about LOS. If you don't have LOS, you don't shoot - page 16.

STATE WHAT IT SAYS

puma713 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:Yes or no. Is the predator firing some of its weapons?

No, it is firing all of its weapons. The LOS rules provide for a weapon being forced to not fire. You still cannot optionally choose to not fire it.

So, when a weapon "cannot be fired", it is firing? . . . It doesn't shoot, then check LOS then say, "Whoops, that weapon cannot be fired." Because that's what you're suggesting. Instead, the weapons check LOS and find that one cannot shoot. Hence, it doesn't fire it. You don't shoot first, check LOS later.

No, you Declare Shooting first, then check LOS. Declaring Shooting is the key. You must declare all your weapons are firing at the target, you check LOS. If some do not have LOS, then they are forced to not fire.

puma713 wrote:Under the RANGE heading?

Why would I do that, if you read my post I was not refering to range in that line. The rest dealt with range.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:STATE WHAT IT SAYS

"If a target is beyond this maximum range, the shot misses automatically." Page 17, Main Rule Book.

Gwar! wrote:No, you Declare Shooting first, then check LOS. Declaring Shooting is the key. You must declare all your weapons are firing at the target, you check LOS. If some do not have LOS, then they are forced to not fire.

So they are not firing.

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:Yes or no. Is the predator firing some of its weapons?

No, it is firing all of its weapons. The LOS rules provide for a weapon being forced to not fire. You still cannot optionally choose to not fire it.

So, when a weapon "cannot be fired", it is firing? . . . It doesn't shoot, then check LOS then say, "Whoops, that weapon cannot be fired." Because that's what you're suggesting. Instead, the weapons check LOS and find that one cannot shoot. Hence, it doesn't fire it. You don't shoot first, check LOS later.

No, you Declare Shooting first, then check LOS. Declaring Shooting is the key. You must declare all your weapons are firing at the target, you check LOS. If some do not have LOS, then they are forced to not fire.

Great. So in being forced not to fire, you're firing some of the predator's weapons - whether it's a choice or not. Earlier you said that you must fire all or none. Since you're being FORCED to NOT fire the right sponson, and you CANNOT fire SOME of your weapons, the tank cannot fire ANY weapons.

kirsanth wrote:

puma713 wrote:Under the RANGE heading?

Why would I do that, if you read my post I was not refering to range in that line. The rest dealt with range.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:STATE WHAT IT SAYS

"If a target is beyond this maximum range, the shot misses automatically." Page 17, Main Rule Book.

This entire quote is out of context and you well know it.

kirsanth wrote:

puma713 wrote:Under the RANGE heading?

Why would I do that, if you read my post I was not refering to range in that line. The rest dealt with range.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:STATE WHAT IT SAYS

"If a target is beyond this maximum range, the shot misses automatically." Page 17, Main Rule Book.

Right, RANGE has nothing to do with LOS.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, you Declare Shooting first, then check LOS. Declaring Shooting is the key. You must declare all your weapons are firing at the target, you check LOS. If some do not have LOS, then they are forced to not fire.

So they are not firing.

But you are attempting to fire. Thus, you have fired, but it cannot do anything because LOS is blocked. You cannot Declare "I am only shooting with one gun" with a stationary vehicle, because the rules do not say you can.

Gwar! wrote:No, you Declare Shooting first, then check LOS. Declaring Shooting is the key. You must declare all your weapons are firing at the target, you check LOS. If some do not have LOS, then they are forced to not fire.

I know I can't measure range before declaring shooting (unless I have wargear that lets me ala Targeter) but this is the first time anyone has even suggested you can't check LOS before declaring.

So what... I can't stoop over and see what my model can see before declaring shooting?

[quote=GwarBut you are attempting to fire. Thus, you have fired, but it cannot do anything because LOS is blocked.

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, you Declare Shooting first, then check LOS. Declaring Shooting is the key. You must declare all your weapons are firing at the target, you check LOS. If some do not have LOS, then they are forced to not fire.

So they are not firing.

But you are attempting to fire. Thus, you have fired, but it cannot do anything because LOS is blocked. You cannot Declare "I am only shooting with one gun" with a stationary vehicle, because the rules do not say you can.

No, you haven't "fired". You may have attempted to fire, but you haven't fired. You can't. Therefore, you did shoot some of your weapons. I'm not even discussing the issue at hand anymore. I think your assertion is ridiculous and the way you pull everything in your defense out of context, I don't think it has much validity. Now I'm trying to prove that you're stating two separate things. On the one hand, you've said you must fire all or none. On the other hand, the book says a weapon without LOS cannot be fired. You said you must declare that you're firing, then check LOS. Once you find that you don't have LOS, you don't fire. You may attempt to fire, but you do not fire. Therefore, according to you, you cannot fire any weapons, because it is all or none.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

kirsanth wrote:
Lack of LOS allows weapons to not fire (or rather auto-miss).

There is absolutely nothing in the rulebook about an 'auto-miss', weapons that cannot fire are not fired.

kirsanth wrote:Wrong again, see page 17.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:STATE WHAT IT SAYS

kirsanth wrote:"If a target is beyond this maximum range, the shot misses automatically." Page 17, Main Rule Book.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
This entire quote is out of context and you well know it.

Really?
I wrote the context that time.

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:When it is taken out of context as you so adamantly continue to do, yes.

Except it is not just me.

But is just you. So bored that you need this debate?

Gwar! wrote:
And anyway, I can prove it without needing the "must fire rule" (though why you would ignore it is beyond me).

It says you may fire all of your weapons. It does not say "You may Fire 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 weapons." nor does it say "You may fire Up to all your weapons". It says you may fire all your weapons.

If someone waves a wad of $100 bills in front of you and says "You may take all the money", you may take all the money, or none of it. There is provision to take some of the money.

Execpt your "must fire rule" doesnt exist.
Except that this thread has enough disproval of your theory.
Except selective quoting doesnt help.

Target selction isnt weapon selection.

It not impossible to run in circles for the rest of this year.
Why not accept it as it is?

If youre so interested in a different RAW, there is the option to join GW ( they recrut a lot today ) and move up through the ranks until
youre the one that writes the Book.

7 pages in, tons of Mod Alerts...

Must be time to lock it up!

If anyone disagrees, or if anyone can think of a reason why this should continue, please let me know, or post a new thread.