What is instinctive fire? And can it shoot all 5 times? I came up against this in a game yesterday and didn't have time to question it, but i was taking 5 blasts from 3 Tyrannocites each turn. Am curious.
Homeskillet wrote: What is instinctive fire? And can it shoot all 5 times? I came up against this in a game yesterday and didn't have time to question it, but i was taking 5 blasts from 3 Tyrannocites each turn. Am curious.
Homeskillet wrote: What is instinctive fire? And can it shoot all 5 times? I came up against this in a game yesterday and didn't have time to question it, but i was taking 5 blasts from 3 Tyrannocites each turn. Am curious.
Instinctive Fire: Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit with in range and line of sight. The shots are resolved at the end of the Shootingphase before Moralechecks are taken.
Homeskillet wrote: What is instinctive fire? And can it shoot all 5 times? I came up against this in a game yesterday and didn't have time to question it, but i was taking 5 blasts from 3 Tyrannocites each turn. Am curious.
The Designer's Note from the White Dwarf is what holds part of the answer: It states that you measure from the 'muzzle' of each 'gun' (they're bio-weapons /shrug) in order to determine what the nearest target is. Another important part is in the pdf linked above: 'Each weapon can fire at a different target unit'. So, it can fire up to 5 times, at different targets.
The NEXT problem is determining the 'firing arc' for each weapon: Monstrous Creatures do not have a 'facing' (i.e. they can shoot behind themselves--another fun Tyranid/Daemon trick, no?). This would mean that a Tyrannocite, cleverly placed, could have only 1 target as the closest. Should it then get to fire all five weapons at it? Short answer is, 'I don't see why not,' but the longer answer is, 'no': The Tyrannocite's guns are the equivalent of Hull Mounted weapons on a vehicle. They have a limited firing arc.
Good to see you again--glad you're still trying to make pure Grey Knights work! Embrace the struggle!
It is against board rules to post rules as a replacement for someone owning them. YMDC is a place to discuss rules if you are stuck on the wording on them. Not a replacement for owning the relevant rulebook, codex or supplement.
FlingitNow wrote: It is against board rules to post rules as a replacement for someone owning them. YMDC is a place to discuss rules if you are stuck on the wording on them. Not a replacement for owning the relevant rulebook, codex or supplement.
Homeskillet wrote: What is instinctive fire? And can it shoot all 5 times? I came up against this in a game yesterday and didn't have time to question it, but i was taking 5 blasts from 3 Tyrannocites each turn. Am curious.
Instinctive Fire:
Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit with in range and line of sight. The shots are resolved at the end of the Shootingphase before Moralechecks are taken.
I couldn't actually load the page at work(PDFs are blocked) so I couldn't get to the rule so I did the next best thing.
Indeed, if the Rules are available, then here's the whole thing:
Instinctive Fire: "Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight. The shots are resolved at the end of the Shooting phase before Morale checks are taken. Each weapon can fire at a different target unit, but they cannot be fired in any other way or at any other time."
-These shots are "compulsory" -They are after you have fired everything else
Emphasis of the last part: -They cannot fire Overwatch
Gragga Da Krumpa wrote: I regularly play against Tyrannocytes with 5 ridiculous blast templates...
Can the weapons on it all fire in the same direction, or not?
The long answer is no. I'll go dig up the logic later today, but like I posted earlier: The 'guns' on a Tyrannocyte are the equivalent of hull-mounted weapons on a vehicle. As such, they have a fixed firing arc. The Tyrannocyte is not a 'true' Monstrous Creature, it has some of the qualities, but not all.
Gragga Da Krumpa wrote: I regularly play against Tyrannocytes with 5 ridiculous blast templates...
Can the weapons on it all fire in the same direction, or not?
The long answer is no. I'll go dig up the logic later today, but like I posted earlier: The 'guns' on a Tyrannocyte are the equivalent of hull-mounted weapons on a vehicle. As such, they have a fixed firing arc. The Tyrannocyte is not a 'true' Monstrous Creature, it has some of the qualities, but not all.
I think your right but for the wrong reasons.
It's simply all about the 'Instinctive Fire' special rule.
Each weapon shoots separately at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight and can shoot at a different target.
So you measure from each gun towards the closest unit within line of sight. You can use any part of the gun because theirs nothing mentioning a fixed firing arc, but you still need line of sight.
Its still a MC but it has his own rules like many other MC's. I think the instinctive fire rule beats the 360 arc MC shooting rule (codex>rulebook).
Gragga Da Krumpa wrote: I regularly play against Tyrannocytes with 5 ridiculous blast templates...
Can the weapons on it all fire in the same direction, or not?
The long answer is no. I'll go dig up the logic later today, but like I posted earlier: The 'guns' on a Tyrannocyte are the equivalent of hull-mounted weapons on a vehicle. As such, they have a fixed firing arc. The Tyrannocyte is not a 'true' Monstrous Creature, it has some of the qualities, but not all.
Well the actual rules for instinctive fire and that little blurb in the margins of the White Dwarf are not the same. With that being said, i go by the rules actually printed on the datasheet for the unit, which are reprinted in the Shield of Baal: Leviathan book.
It is a MC, MCs have no facing requirements for guns, so this will most likely lead to situations where it is indeed firing all five guns at the same target. There is no where in the actual rules for the Tyrannocyte/sporocyst that says you treat them like a vehicle with facings and the guns only fire on those facings.
Gragga Da Krumpa wrote: I regularly play against Tyrannocytes with 5 ridiculous blast templates...
Can the weapons on it all fire in the same direction, or not?
The long answer is no. I'll go dig up the logic later today, but like I posted earlier: The 'guns' on a Tyrannocyte are the equivalent of hull-mounted weapons on a vehicle. As such, they have a fixed firing arc. The Tyrannocyte is not a 'true' Monstrous Creature, it has some of the qualities, but not all.
Unfortunately, while there is a designer's note, that is not rules as written. The actual rule does not specify measuring distances from the gun barrels, so you have to follow the normal rules for shooting with an MC. "Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight". Line of sight and range are measured from the base of Monstrous creatures, not the weapons. As written, the last line about being able to fire at separate targets would only come in to play if two or more units were equidistant from the Tyrannocyte. If these were hull mounted weapons, they would have a firing arc and only be able to fire in that arc. They are not specified as so, and therefore will again follow the normal rules for MCs and therefore have a 360 degree firing arc.
RaW: Yes, all 5 weapons can fire at the closest Unit. MC have no arc or issues with LoS through themselves.
Fluff/Hiwpi: Th model is made to look like it would fire in all directions, so firing through itself would be strange indeed.
But that's not the rules unfortunately, so most players would go by RaW.
Gragga Da Krumpa wrote: I regularly play against Tyrannocytes with 5 ridiculous blast templates...
Can the weapons on it all fire in the same direction, or not?
The long answer is no. I'll go dig up the logic later today, but like I posted earlier: The 'guns' on a Tyrannocyte are the equivalent of hull-mounted weapons on a vehicle. As such, they have a fixed firing arc. The Tyrannocyte is not a 'true' Monstrous Creature, it has some of the qualities, but not all.
It might be your logic. But that isn't how the rules work.
you can in some instances use this against the tyrranocyte.
the player doesnt have the option to fire or not, it says the weapons are auto fired at the end of the shooting phase.
if you move something near the tyrranocyte that the guns cannot hurt, ie vehicles usually, the tyrranocyte is still forced to fire and most likely will hit itself as well.
in the case of the barbed stranglers, they are only S4, so even a Rhino could pull this off.
Where do you get that the guns are equal to a hull mounted weapon? It's an MC.
Just because I build my Hive Tyrant with his guns pointing in different directions or pointed in the air, or pointed at the ground, he is still about to shoot them in a 360 arc.
Iechine wrote: Where do you get that the guns are equal to a hull mounted weapon? It's an MC.
Just because I build my Hive Tyrant with his guns pointing in different directions or pointed in the air, or pointed at the ground, he is still about to shoot them in a 360 arc.
It comes from the White Dwarf where it was introduced and the designers talked about how it should be played, measuring the arc for each gun. The problem is the rules writers can't translate intent into rules.
So RAW is all the guns can shoot in the same direction, while RAI is they should count as hull mounted.
Exactly. The rules are horribly written, and not everybody will have read White Dwarf.
I agree that you fire them in all 5 directions, treated as hull mounted. If they could fire in any direction (as per normal MC rules) then they would ALWAYS all fire at the same target, as there would only ever be one target "closest" to the guns, as it would be the one closest to the MC.
And since you resolve all of the same weapons in the shooting phase at the same time, you would only ever fire at one target. I would love this to be the rule, as it would make the Tyrannocyte that much better, but I really don't think that was the intent.
In fact, why would the rule specify that they weapons can fire at different targets if they would ALWAYS fire at the nearest unit.
So RAW is awesome, but RAI seems to be obvious if you have all of the details.
That still doesn't answer questions like the firing arc of each weapon, although as a house rule we will treat them as hull mounted.
miniwargaming wrote: Exactly. The rules are horribly written, and not everybody will have read White Dwarf.
I agree that you fire them in all 5 directions, treated as hull mounted. If they could fire in any direction (as per normal MC rules) then they would ALWAYS all fire at the same target, as there would only ever be one target "closest" to the guns, as it would be the one closest to the MC.
And since you resolve all of the same weapons in the shooting phase at the same time, you would only ever fire at one target. I would love this to be the rule, as it would make the Tyrannocyte that much better, but I really don't think that was the intent.
In fact, why would the rule specify that they weapons can fire at different targets if they would ALWAYS fire at the nearest unit.
So RAW is awesome, but RAI seems to be obvious if you have all of the details.
That still doesn't answer questions like the firing arc of each weapon, although as a house rule we will treat them as hull mounted.
There is the possibility of multiple units being equidistant (especially given the size of the base, and the ability of the model to move). This would allow you to fire at multiple targets. Agreed that it's not what was intended based on the white dwarf blurb, but the written rules simply don't have an exception to normal line of sight/range/firing arc rules for an MC.
However, what we're really doing now is having a RAW vs RAI discussion. Games Workshop is not good at writing rules so airtight that RAW will always be correct, so I prefer to go RAI whenever it is clear what the intent was, or where RAW just doesn't quite work.
Having said that, if you are a RAW-only type person, that is fine too, in which case you can fire all 5 weapons at the same target. Just be prepared to have this argument with people over and over again...
The issue I have with playing by "the RaI" is that "the RaI" isn't clear. Yes they are clearly intended to fire in separate directions but how is entirely unclear and in no way even hinted at in the rules. Hence any RaI interpretation you come up with is your guess and based on nothing we have to go on. This is why I suggest playing by RaW in this incidence as there is no other way to come to a consistent interpretation. If you have a regular playing group then creating your own houserule to govern this is probably best as RaW is clearly not the actual rule here.
However, what we're really doing now is having a RAW vs RAI discussion. Games Workshop is not good at writing rules so airtight that RAW will always be correct, so I prefer to go RAI whenever it is clear what the intent was, or where RAW just doesn't quite work.
Having said that, if you are a RAW-only type person, that is fine too, in which case you can fire all 5 weapons at the same target. Just be prepared to have this argument with people over and over again...
I'm all about house ruling this with people you play regularly, and ruling it to the effect of hull mounted weapons makes sense. The problem arises when you play a pickup game against a stranger or enter a tournament setting. This isn't a case of the wording being murky and it could be interpreted either way. They simply don't address a special mechanic for line of sight/range/arc of fire at all, so we're left with the default rules for a monstrous creature. This is one of those issues that will cause argument no matter which way you go because both ways have significant advantages and disadvantages.
All 5 weapons shooting at the same target provides concentrated fire on one target making it much more likely to significantly damage/destroy that target, but also makes the Pod that much easier to lock down with one vehicle/super tough unit being parked close by.
If all five weapons fired based on range and line of sight to the weapon itself, you would have the ability to hit multiple targets, potentially making multiple vehicles jink (with Venom and Deathspitters you can threaten multiple light vehicles, and even flyers with the number of deathspitter shots), or locking down multiple infantry squads with pinning checks from barbed stranglers. You also reduce the chance of one unit locking down the pod if you start getting in to hull mounted weapon firing arcs.
RAI is great for friendly games with casual opponents, but it simply doesn't work everywhere. Even if they had made a poorly worded attempt at modifying the LoS/range/arc requirements it would be better than where we are left as is.
Maybe we are going to have a new edition very soon.
I mean Gargoyles got Objective Secured with no explanations as to why and a lot of people got their knickers in a knot. Now we have a new rule. So who knows, maybe with a new rule set this will make sense in a few months from now and people wills top having their knickers in a knot just like with OS did.
Homeskillet wrote: What is instinctive fire? And can it shoot all 5 times? I came up against this in a game yesterday and didn't have time to question it, but i was taking 5 blasts from 3 Tyrannocites each turn. Am curious.
Really wish they wouldn't have been as lazy as they were and just added it to both of the, especially because see opposite on a web document may be confusing to someone who doesn't have white dwarf, and means you need both rule pages with you to play 1 unit.
I like how miniwargamming is using the rules it seems fine probably what I will go with, but i will discuss it with local players and TOs to determine what they think the best way to play it is until GWFAQs it(probably by Christmas of 2017).
FlingitNow wrote: The issue I have with playing by "the RaI" is that "the RaI" isn't clear. Yes they are clearly intended to fire in separate directions but how is entirely unclear and in no way even hinted at in the rules. Hence any RaI interpretation you come up with is your guess and based on nothing we have to go on. This is why I suggest playing by RaW in this incidence as there is no other way to come to a consistent interpretation. If you have a regular playing group then creating your own houserule to govern this is probably best as RaW is clearly not the actual rule here.
except that in the white dwarf, the guys that actually designed the model tell us how it should be played...
When it comes to using them in the game, it couldn’t be easier: each of the guns on these models automatically fires at the nearest visible enemy model. This is as simple as measuring from the muzzle of each gun to the nearest enemy units and finding out which is closest. If it’s in range, just take the shot as normal.
seems pretty clear to me...
EDIT:
by the way, read the rule with the quote in mind:
"Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."
it specifically says: each weapon fires. not the model fires at the nearest target, EACH WEAPON does. this does overule the normal MC's fireing "restrictions" as stated in the 7th edition rulebook
FlingitNow wrote: The issue I have with playing by "the RaI" is that "the RaI" isn't clear. Yes they are clearly intended to fire in separate directions but how is entirely unclear and in no way even hinted at in the rules. Hence any RaI interpretation you come up with is your guess and based on nothing we have to go on. This is why I suggest playing by RaW in this incidence as there is no other way to come to a consistent interpretation. If you have a regular playing group then creating your own houserule to govern this is probably best as RaW is clearly not the actual rule here.
except that in the white dwarf, the guys that actually designed the model tell us how it should be played...
When it comes to using them in the game, it couldn’t be easier: each of the guns on these models automatically fires at the nearest visible enemy model. This is as simple as measuring from the muzzle of each gun to the nearest enemy units and finding out which is closest. If it’s in range, just take the shot as normal.
seems pretty clear to me...
If only they had put that clarity into the rule it self and not a small blurb in an article in a weekly publication that no one will be able to get a hold of in 2-3 months. If you had a dispute with a player in a pickup/tournament setting, the rules don't even remotely address the mechanic described in that article. What happens if a player starts Tyranids 2 months from now and doesn't know of the article's existence?
That blurb also doesn't even address the firing arc of the guns, if we are measuring line of sight from the barrel, can it shoot straight through the model itself to an enemy on the opposite side? Monstrous creatures can do that, but they measure range from the base, not their guns. The rule isn't just poorly worded, it's has no possible interpretation to play it how the article describes. Without a tournament FAQ or friendly agreement ahead of time you're getting into this argument every game.
That blurb also doesn't even address the firing arc of the guns, if we are measuring line of sight from the barrel, can it shoot straight through the model itself to an enemy on the opposite side? Monstrous creatures can do that, but they measure range from the base, not their guns. The rule isn't just poorly worded, it's has no possible interpretation to play it how the article describes. Without a tournament FAQ or friendly agreement ahead of time you're getting into this argument every game.
well not a single vehicle mounted gun in the ork codex has its firing arc described. does this mean we dont know how to treat em?
of course not. look at the model and figure out the arc for yourself, it isnt that hard.
p.s. i think you missed my edit:#
Spoiler:
by the way, read the rule with the quote in mind:
"Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."
it specifically says: each weapon fires. not the model fires at the nearest target, EACH WEAPON does.
this does overule the normal MC's fireing "restrictions" as stated in the 7th edition rulebook
but yeah, i totally agree that the new trend to release rules in a total clusterfukk of datasheets, supplements, codicies, rulebooks, faq's and digital releases is just plain stupid and confusing as hell.
When it comes to using them in the game, it couldn’t be easier: each of the guns on these models automatically fires at the nearest visible enemy model. This is as simple as measuring from the muzzle of each gun to the nearest enemy units and finding out which is closest. If it’s in range, just take the shot as normal.
seems pretty clear to me...
EDIT:
by the way, read the rule with the quote in mind:
"Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."
it specifically says: each weapon fires. not the model fires at the nearest target, EACH WEAPON does.
this does overule the normal MC's fireing "restrictions" as stated in the 7th edition rulebook
It's quite simple:
You measure Gun A from both targets, which is closer? It fires at marine 1.
You measure Gun C from both targets, which is closer? It fires at marine 2.
You measure Gun B from both targets, which is closer? It fires at marine 1.
Gun B is at more than 90 degrees from Marine 1, but nothing is stopping it from firing at him.
If Marine 2 is 20" away and Marine 1 is 2" away, then Gun C would fire at Marine 1 too....
That blurb also doesn't even address the firing arc of the guns, if we are measuring line of sight from the barrel, can it shoot straight through the model itself to an enemy on the opposite side? Monstrous creatures can do that, but they measure range from the base, not their guns. The rule isn't just poorly worded, it's has no possible interpretation to play it how the article describes. Without a tournament FAQ or friendly agreement ahead of time you're getting into this argument every game.
well not a single vehicle mounted gun in the ork codex has its firing arc described. does this mean we dont know how to treat em?
of course not. look at the model and figure out the arc for yourself, it isnt that hard.
p.s. i think you missed my edit:#
Spoiler:
by the way, read the rule with the quote in mind:
"Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."
it specifically says: each weapon fires. not the model fires at the nearest target, EACH WEAPON does.
this does overule the normal MC's fireing "restrictions" as stated in the 7th edition rulebook
but yeah, i totally agree that the new trend to release rules in a total clusterfukk of datasheets, supplements, codicies, rulebooks, faq's and digital releases is just plain stupid and confusing as hell.
Right - because the Ork Vehicle mounted guns are described as hull mounted (45 degree), turret mounted/pintle mounted (360 degree), or sponsoon mounted (arc varies based on model) that have specific rules in the main rule book on arc of fire and measuring range. The Tyrannocyte/Sporocyst weapons are not defined as any of those.
Yes the rule does provide a split-fire-esque mechanic for the model, but does not modify the requirements for measuring range to the weapons (instead of to the base as the rules indicate for an MC). Per the rules as written this would come in to play if you had multiple models at the same distance from the base of the Tyrannocyte/Sporocyst, you could split which weapon fires at which model.
In no way do I think house ruling like a hull mounted weapon isn't a good solution. By all means do it with whoever will allow. The problem is not casual play, it's tournament/random pickups which can easily devolve into an argument about RAW/RAI. It's frustrating as a Tyranid player that we will have to have these arguments due to the rule not being defined at all in the manner they describe in the article. Look at the argument here on a neutral ground.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
grendel083 wrote: Since WD is available digitally, it very much will be available for years to come.
Finding Digital Content on the fly in a tournament/pickup setting when you're trying to enjoy a game/fit it in under a time limit is a pretty poor solution. Arguing someone that the article applies even though the mechanic isn't included in the rule set is going to be another hassle in those settings. Hopefully a tournament would FAQ it, hopefully a pickup player would be agreeable to your point of view, but the rule isn't ambiguous on a new mechanic for firing with an MC, it's non existent.
Someone who starts Tyranids down the road, and buys all of the actual rules won't have a clue that the white dwarf exists. Imagine you are that Tyranid player's opponent, and your particular house rule in your area is to play it as prescribed in that white dwarf. Are you now going to argue that new tyranid player on rules as intended based on an article in an obscure weekly periodical that isn't listed anywhere as an official rule?
By all means, house rule it with your local gaming buddies, but sadly this is a debate that will occur over and over due to RAW being woefully inadequate. I wish it was easy squash the argument, but as with many other rules, it's going to come down to arguments/people not enjoying their games.
When it comes to using them in the game, it couldn’t be easier: each of the guns on these models automatically fires at the nearest visible enemy model. This is as simple as measuring from the muzzle of each gun to the nearest enemy units and finding out which is closest. If it’s in range, just take the shot as normal.
seems pretty clear to me...
EDIT:
by the way, read the rule with the quote in mind:
"Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."
it specifically says: each weapon fires. not the model fires at the nearest target, EACH WEAPON does.
this does overule the normal MC's fireing "restrictions" as stated in the 7th edition rulebook
It's quite simple:
You measure Gun A from both targets, which is closer? It fires at marine 1.
You measure Gun C from both targets, which is closer? It fires at marine 2.
You measure Gun B from both targets, which is closer? It fires at marine 1.
Gun B is at more than 90 degrees from Marine 1, but nothing is stopping it from firing at him.
If Marine 2 is 20" away and Marine 1 is 2" away, then Gun C would fire at Marine 1 too....
This really isn't difficult to work out. I'm genuinely finding it difficult to see why anyone is struggling with this.
Fluff or an Article, even one written by the Emperor does NOT == Rules.
A Tyrannocyte/Sporocyst is a Monstrous Creature with Five [Weapon Choice] on it's profile. The rules for Instinctive Fire read clearly, "each weapon fires at", which as stated previously takes priority on how this Monstrous Creature fires. The arc of fire on a Monstrous Creature is written plain as day in the rule book. 360 Degrees.
A Tyrannocyte IS a Monstrous Creature, as such it can fire it's weapons in 360 degrees. It is NOT a Vehicle and it's weapons do NOT have an Arc of Fire. And Instinctive Fire says Each weapon. Plain as day.
Yes. Tyranids got a Christmas gift. We got a 75 point Drop Pod with BS2 Weapons that have just as much of a chance of scattering onto our own models as they do onto enemy models. With five blasts, which can be very, very good. In a world where Tyranids have been bending over for a year, seeing this even complained about feels like people crying that their friends just got a better army and they can't deal with losing to a 75pt T5 slow moving Balloon with a 4+ Sv, no Invul, that's BS2 with 6 Wounds. If THIS is what needs to be complained about to no end, argued about and house ruled, goodness gracious do I feel bad for that LGS.
notbriang wrote: This really isn't difficult to work out. I'm genuinely finding it difficult to see why anyone is struggling with this.
I always find it interesting when people say that about any rule discussion. If you see a lot of people going back and forth about reasons why the rules should be worked one way or another, then it is clearly not clear.
In fact, I don't even agree with your interpretation, even though it could be right (with a combination of RAW and RAI no less).
GW rules are often this way - their intent and their rules often don't match up. As Warhammer players we have to accept that fact, have a good discussion on how we think it should work, and then just house rule it the way we think makes most sense.
If the response to that is "Well it CLEARLY states that..." then it will be very hard to come to an agreement with anybody.
miniwargaming wrote: I always find it interesting when people say that about any rule discussion. If you see a lot of people going back and forth about reasons why the rules should be worked one way or another, then it is clearly not clear.
Whereas I agree rules discussion is important in certain cases (eg. Is a Wolf Lord on a Thunderwolf armed with a Thunderhammer/Power Fist S10 or S9?). I'm going to part ways on this particular case, Matt. As a player, I see this particular discussion and discussions in this vain, where the rules are written plain as day in the Datasheets & Rule books, as damaging to the spirit of the game.
If we are remaining consistent with how we interpret rules for the sake of the game, and not the sake of the argument. That meaning Specific Example > General Rule Book. Then broken down factually this boils down to a few black & white terms:
In the Rule Book
The rules for Monstrous Creatures state they can fire their weapons in a 360 degree arc.
The rules for Monstrous Creatures state they can fire two weapons per turn.
In the Codex/Dataslate/White Dwarf Rules Instinctive Fire states: "Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight. The shots are resolved at the end of the Shooting Phase before Morale checks are taken. Each weapon can fire at a different unit, but they cannot be fired in any other way or at any other time."
Specifically: Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight. Each weapon - five shots at the closest target within line of sight.
Again - I don't see how this isn't cut and dry. And in the prior discussion in this thread, I don't see how a discussion of nerfing its ability is anything more than whining about something that's arguably good, NOT great, just good, in which case it simply looks like someone doesn't understand how to play around a slow moving, not that tough model with decent close ranged shooting, ie. a Tyranid.
i really dont see the point here. yes, 40k rules more than often have some ambiguity about em and i understand the idea behind the ideology of RaW.
but this is really rediculous. the guys who DESIGNED the model and WRITTEN the rules, clearly says hows its supposed to be done:
When it comes to using them in the game, it couldn’t be easier: each of the guns on these models automatically fires at the nearest visible enemy model. This is as simple as measuring from the muzzle of each gun to the nearest enemy units and finding out which is closest. If it’s in range, just take the shot as normal.
even in RaW the intend of the above mentioned quote is applicable.
you pick a gun, measure from its muzzle and figure out which unit is the nearest, rinse and repeat for each gun.
[Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight.]
if you wanna houserule it, do it.
if tournaments wanna do it otherwise, let em... its their right to do so.
Right - because the Ork Vehicle mounted guns are described as hull mounted (45 degree), turret mounted/pintle mounted (360 degree), or sponsoon mounted (arc varies based on model) that have specific rules in the main rule book on arc of fire and measuring range.
ehmm nope. check the ork codex.
example battlewagon:
May take up to four of the following weapons in any combination:
- Big shoota…x pts each
- Rokkit launcha…x pts each
The rules for Monstrous Creatures state they can fire their weapons in a 360 degree arc.
The rules for Monstrous Creatures state they can fire two weapons per turn.
In the Codex/Dataslate/White Dwarf Rules Instinctive Fire states: "Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight. The shots are resolved at the end of the Shooting Phase before Morale checks are taken. Each weapon can fire at a different unit, but they cannot be fired in any other way or at any other time."
Specifically: Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight. Each weapon - five shots at the closest target within line of sight.
Again - I don't see how this isn't cut and dry. And in the prior discussion in this thread, I don't see how a discussion of nerfing its ability is anything more than whining about something that's arguably good, NOT great, just good, in which case it simply looks like someone doesn't understand how to play around a slow moving, not that tough model with decent close ranged shooting, ie. a Tyranid.
I would normally agree, but in the same White Dwarf the designers talk about how to do it, which is different than the specific RAW. That's the real problem here.
I agree that RAW it is quite clear, and would work exactly as you state. But then the designers come in and talk about how they would do it, and it doesn't even follow their own rules.
So the question is, do you leave it RAW, or do you go with RAI and do it the way they describe it outside the rules.
It's totally horrible rule writing, which is why this discussion happens.
Well, let's consider what's simply in the books & put it to rest. Because in this case that is literally all that matters, given the available source materials.
Where can an average player find the rules? Either in Shield of Baal: Leviathan (Print or Digital), On the Black Library website in the free to download pages, or in a White Dwarf that was out months ago and is likely difficult to find.
If a player picks up any of these sources and looks simply at the rules page, where the rules are, the way in which this model behaves is as I've previously stated.
As I said earlier, it doesn't matter if the model's Designer said this thing must physically spin like a top at 360 degrees for it to fire each of it's weapons. The rules pages in the majority of the resources available for the models rules line up seamlessly. I don't think the designers thoughts on how this is imagined this has any bearing on RAI or RAW. There's simply the rules, and then a passing note on how the designer imagined this could possibly work.
I don't think it has any bearing on the model & the game and it shouldn't have any bearing on it. Just my last thought there. And thanks for entertaining me. Love watching those MWG reps, keep repping those Nidz!
The rules for Monstrous Creatures state they can fire their weapons in a 360 degree arc.
The rules for Monstrous Creatures state they can fire two weapons per turn.
In the Codex/Dataslate/White Dwarf Rules Instinctive Fire states: "Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight. The shots are resolved at the end of the Shooting Phase before Morale checks are taken. Each weapon can fire at a different unit, but they cannot be fired in any other way or at any other time."
Specifically: Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight. Each weapon - five shots at the closest target within line of sight.
Again - I don't see how this isn't cut and dry. And in the prior discussion in this thread, I don't see how a discussion of nerfing its ability is anything more than whining about something that's arguably good, NOT great, just good, in which case it simply looks like someone doesn't understand how to play around a slow moving, not that tough model with decent close ranged shooting, ie. a Tyranid.
I would normally agree, but in the same White Dwarf the designers talk about how to do it, which is different than the specific RAW. That's the real problem here.
I agree that RAW it is quite clear, and would work exactly as you state. But then the designers come in and talk about how they would do it, and it doesn't even follow their own rules.
So the question is, do you leave it RAW, or do you go with RAI and do it the way they describe it outside the rules.
It's totally horrible rule writing, which is why this discussion happens.
Spot on Matt. This is certainly not a cut and dry issue as either side of the argument would like it to be. Where it really becomes frustrating is when you don't just play competitively or just casually. I go to the occasional tournament to see all the pretty armies and play against different armies/lists (code words for I lose a good amount lol). Say I play it RAI for the 6 months to a year between tournaments I go to, now I'm trying to unlearn it and play strategically with RAW instead the day of. Or I try to play it RAI, bring my handy white dwarf article, and I'm having a rules debate with my opponent during the limited time we have to play and enjoy the game. Clear rules benefit both sides, but sadly this is one of those "crapped the bed" type rules.
[ Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight. ]
so, each weapon fires INDIVIDUALLY their shots at the closest target within line of sight.
You're adding implied information based on the white dwarf blurb that simply isn't in the rule as written. If it had said "Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight OF THE WEAPON", then no problem. However, the basic rule book is clear that range and line of sight are measured from the base (NOT the weapon) for MCs. The rule doesn't provide a provision for measuring it from the gun. Again, I'm all for RAI, but that only works in friendly games. It's not cut and dry.
FlingitNow wrote: The issue I have with playing by "the RaI" is that "the RaI" isn't clear. Yes they are clearly intended to fire in separate directions but how is entirely unclear and in no way even hinted at in the rules. Hence any RaI interpretation you come up with is your guess and based on nothing we have to go on. This is why I suggest playing by RaW in this incidence as there is no other way to come to a consistent interpretation. If you have a regular playing group then creating your own houserule to govern this is probably best as RaW is clearly not the actual rule here.
except that in the white dwarf, the guys that actually designed the model tell us how it should be played...
When it comes to using them in the game, it couldn’t be easier: each of the guns on these models automatically fires at the nearest visible enemy model. This is as simple as measuring from the muzzle of each gun to the nearest enemy units and finding out which is closest. If it’s in range, just take the shot as normal.
seems pretty clear to me...
EDIT:
by the way, read the rule with the quote in mind:
"Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."
it specifically says: each weapon fires. not the model fires at the nearest target, EACH WEAPON does.
this does overule the normal MC's fireing "restrictions" as stated in the 7th edition rulebook
So I'm guessing we still determine LoS as usual as nothing in that WD article mentions LoS which still means in most incidences the Tyrannocytes will shoot all their guns at the same unit. To be honest that interpretation seems a little too strong with nothing in the rules I own even suggesting that.
Maybe we are going to have a new edition very soon.
My money's on a new Tyranid codex shortly as some of these rules and unit's they've given us are either poorly written, like this, or just bad like the maleceptor.
And how long have unit's without a codex actually been without a codex for? They need to clean this mess up and soon.
As for the Tyrannocyte i just won't be getting one till it get's it's rule's fixed. I just can't be bothered with the argument's that will inevitably follow.
But if anyone ask's me It's a MC and follow's the rules for them but can fire all 5. Thank's to really poor rule writing.
I agree that RAW it is quite clear, and would work exactly as you state. But then the designers come in and talk about how they would do it, and it doesn't even follow their own rules.
Here's the problem with the sides on this discussion.
RAW it's clear as day. These are the rules as they are written. Rules writers, editors, no doubt a QA of some type say to follow these and do this.
The designer of the model says he does it this way, this is not RAI, this is just a guy who said this is how I *would* play it ... guess who I'm going to listen to? The guy who sculpted a model, or the guys who wrote, checked, and published the rules?
I really like the blithe explanation that somehow the MC is a vehicle with firing arcs. If you can't win an argument just make stuff up, right? All monstrous creatures explicitly have 360 degree firing arcs, regardless of facing and measured from the base. Elsewhere in the BRB it states that a unit never obstructs its own LOS. Ergo after measuring to the closest model, all 5 weapons will fire at their respective closest targets in range, per the instinctive fire rule (overriding the usual restriction on number of weapons fired by a MC, and also imposing the restrictions that they must fire at the closest target at end of shooting phase). Apart from the measuring from all five weapons being somewhat tedious, this is a very straightforward process.
If the developers had intended the tyrranocyte to operate as a vehicle with defined firing arcs, there would be a corresponding rule to define that behavior. There quite clearly is not a rule stating that we treat the MC as a vehicle with a certain set of firing arcs, so we use the rules that are present.
Fachxphyre wrote: Ergo after measuring to the closest model, all 5 weapons will fire at their respective closest targets in range, per the instinctive fire rule (overriding the usual restriction on number of weapons fired by a MC, and also imposing the restrictions that they must fire at the closest target at end of shooting phase).
The part in the rule specifically allowing for the weapons to fire at different targets is in there because...? If you are to measure from the base as for a normal Monstrous Creature, you will never have multiple targets to fire at. Or do you also take the position that the part of the rule allowing for a version of split fire is written specifically for the entirely possible, but astronomically unlikely situation where you have multiple enemy units at the exact same distance? Blithe much?
i dont get why firing each weapon individually at the their respective nearest target doesnt comply with raw...
yes, there are rule for MC's in the rulebook, but these are overidden by the "instictive fire" rule.
specifically by:
"Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."
it doesnt say, the model fires at the nearest target, each weapon does.
and i concur with DCannon4Life. why does it (again) specifically say:
"Each weapon can fire at a different target unit, but they cannot fired in any other way or at any other time."
if you would measure the distance and LoS from the model itself (as you would do normally for MC's) this part of the rule wouldnt make any sense, because all weapons would always fire at the same target.
the only thing that is open to debate is, if the model itself blocks LoS and since this has no exception in the "instinctive fire" rule,, you have two options:
RaW: the model is a MC, nothing said in the rule points to something else, so the model itself doesnt block LoS.
RAI, keeping in mind the designers words: the normal rules for shooting with MC's are clearly abolished by the "instinctive fire" rule. so if the weapon itself cant draw a LoS (even throught the model itself) it cant shoot at that target and so chooses another unit to shoot at (nearest unit within range and LoS of the weapon)
Dcannon, you straight up quoted the portion of my post where I stated that the weapons (is not measuring from the base, measuring from each weapon as detailed in the next sentence) fire at their closest targets per the instinctive fire rule. I find your lack of reading comprehension disturbing.
As for Rednoaks point about LOS, the BRB states quite clearly that a unit does not obstruct its own LOS. Nothing in the special instinctive fire rule contradicts this rule. Obviously if LOS to the closest target is obstructed by terrain or something the weapon in question will fire at the next closest target, one which it can draw LOS to (again, disregarding the model which is doing the firing). The only models to have defined firing arcs (which naturally restrict LOS) per the BRB are vehicles, and there is no definition of firing arcs to be found anywhere in the rules for tyrranocytes. If the intention was to have them behave in the manner you clearly want them to, the writers did a piss poor job since there is no written rule to back that up (which I readily admit is a possibility, however unlikely).
yes, thats why i said if you go strictly RaW, the model istself doesnt obstruct LoS. nonetheless the LoS and (more importantly) the distance is measured from the weapon itself.
also i never said that the weapons itself would have an arc of fire. only if you go RAI the model itself would "dictate" where you can draw the LoS to.
so to summarize things, in my opinion:
at the end of the shooting phase the tyrannocite makes its shooting attacks according to the "instinctive fire" rules, which means:
1. select a single weapon
2. draw a LoS (RaW or RaI wise) and measure the distance from the muzzle of the weapon and determine which enemy unit is visible and the closest.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Actually it does not state that distance is drawn from the weapon. As such nothing overrides measuring distances in the rule book.
I was about to chime in again to say i also realised the above.
As such, this is incorrect:
You measure Gun A from both targets, which is closer? It fires at marine 1.
You measure Gun C from both targets, which is closer? It fires at marine 2.
You measure Gun B from both targets, which is closer? It fires at marine 1.
Gun B is at more than 90 degrees from Marine 1, but nothing is stopping it from firing at him.
If Marine 2 is 20" away and Marine 1 is 2" away, then Gun C would fire at Marine 1 too....
Very simple indeed =)
I would correct my post by saying the above is HIWPI, taken from the intent of "every weapon fires separately".
As for RaW, yes, it's a simple: MC fires 5 weapons, resolve all 5 at closest.
And by Raw, the "Each weapon can fire at a different target unit" makes absolutely no sense...
RedNoak wrote: i dont get why firing each weapon individually at the their respective nearest target doesnt comply with raw...
yes, there are rule for MC's in the rulebook, but these are overidden by the "instictive fire" rule.
specifically by:
"Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."
it doesnt say, the model fires at the nearest target, each weapon does.
and i concur with DCannon4Life. why does it (again) specifically say:
"Each weapon can fire at a different target unit, but they cannot fired in any other way or at any other time."
if you would measure the distance and LoS from the model itself (as you would do normally for MC's) this part of the rule wouldnt make any sense, because all weapons would always fire at the same target.
the only thing that is open to debate is, if the model itself blocks LoS and since this has no exception in the "instinctive fire" rule,, you have two options:
RaW:
the model is a MC, nothing said in the rule points to something else, so the model itself doesnt block LoS.
RAI, keeping in mind the designers words:
the normal rules for shooting with MC's are clearly abolished by the "instinctive fire" rule. so if the weapon itself cant draw a LoS (even throught the model itself) it cant shoot at that target and so chooses another unit to shoot at (nearest unit within range and LoS of the weapon)
Again, you're adding inferred rules without anything allowing you to do so. "Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight." Range and Line of sight are NOT measured from the weapon of an MC. Nothing in that sentence indicates it violates normal rules for either range or line of sight. Which also negates your assertion that there is a debate going over whether the line of sight through the model would block it self. Nothing indicates it does, but we have basic rule book rules that the model itself doesn't block it's own line of sight. Just because the rule modifies the number of weapons you can fire and makes the target automatic, does not mean it "abolishes" the rest of the rules that apply to MC shooting. Also, if you had more than one unit at the same distance away from the base of the tyrannocyte, you could fire at more than one of them by rules as written, that last part about splitting fire does not cause any sort of rules collapse.
but the rule is not talking about the model. normally you would be right, but if you look up the rules for shooting and measuring in the rulebook it always says "the model may". however here it specifically says "each weapon".
this special rule overwrites some aspects of the shooting procedure of MC's, why shouldnt it be able to overwrite how range and LoS is measured?
especially when the rule states that each Weapon fires at the nearest unit within range and LoS.
maybe im reading this wrong, but for me the rule talks specifcally about the weapons, not the model.
it doesnt say the model may fire its weapons at the nearest unit, Each Weapon does. if you go with RaW which means you do it exactly as the rules tell u, i dont understand how one can argue that the normal rules of shooting with MC's still apply?
It only overrides when it specifically states it does. What this gives you is an allowance to check each weapon individually, BUT at no point changes how you actually measure.
The rule is missing "instead of measuring to the base of the model, measure from each weapon"
RedNoak wrote: but the rule is not talking about the model. normally you would be right, but if you look up the rules for shooting and measuring in the rulebook it always says "the model may". however here it specifically says "each weapon".
this special rule overwrites some aspects of the shooting procedure of MC's, why shouldnt it be able to overwrite how range and LoS is measured?
especially when the rule states that each Weapon fires at the nearest unit within range and LoS.
maybe im reading this wrong, but for me the rule talks specifcally about the weapons, not the model.
it doesnt say the model may fire its weapons at the nearest unit, Each Weapon does. if you go with RaW which means you do it exactly as the rules tell u, i dont understand how one can argue that the normal rules of shooting with MC's still apply?
I totally understand where you're coming from with subject/verb agreement in the sentence, but they do that stuff a lot. Check out the wording on the 'check range' rule:
"Check Range
All weapons have a maximum range, which is the furthest distance they can shoot. A weapon
must be in range of the target unit to shoot. Here are examples of weapon ranges:
Weapon - Maximum Range
Laspistol - 12"
Boltgun - 24"
Autocannon - 48"
When checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the
target unit. Any weapon that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the
target unit cannot shoot."
They describe range from the weapon throughout the rule, but also clearly state that you measure from model to model for range. This is why they need something explicit in the 'instinctive fire' rule, otherwise we're left with confusion and arguments on Dakka/on the table top.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The rule is missing "instead of measuring to the base of the model, measure from each weapon"
but is says exactly that: "Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."
again, it doesnt say the model fires its weapon at the nearest target, EACH WEAPON DOES.
Again, I do not disagree about it specifying weapon.
What it does not do is specify that it is the WEAPONS LINE OF SIGHT AND RANGE. It does NOT override the basic rules as it is missing "OF THE WEAPON" at the end of the rule.
You are reading an implication - a perfectly valid one, as in a vacuum, with no other information, they would indeed be talking about the weapons range and LOS. Unfortunately it is not permissible to read such a rule in a vacuum, as to do so is impossible - you do not know how to measure range or line of sight for a non-vehicle mounted weapon.
As such you MUST bing in the basic definitions of range and LOS, and these refer to the model.
Again, I 100% understand where you misunderstanding comes from, but it remains an error. The rule, as written, in no way shape or form overrides the basic rules.
I think these are written cleanly enough that the extra language is deemed as not required, sometimes. But that introduces nuances of grammar, etc.
It clearly is written that each WEAPON fires at the closest model. That is clearly telling us the model closest to the WEAPON not the model itself. I don't think we need the rest (or at least, I think whoever wrote it thought they didn't need it). Especially with the Editor's Note. (And I can tell you as a person who lays out books like the GW ones, and looking at that PDF...they were hurting for space and trimmed for that reason, not for anything else. I am almost sure the text box in InDesign would have overflowed and ended with "of the weapon" and the editor/writer deciding "well i guess we don't really need that part"and just cut it and put in a period).
Obnoxiously there is no exception anywhere to shooting through itself (though I personally think the normal line of sight rules do this indirectly, most won't agree). So fine, whatever, let's say it can see through itself.
A gun on the back of the pod will still be clearly further away from a target than a gun on another facing.
So by this logic I don't think it can shoot all five at one target. Maybe a lot of them, but all 5 would be pretty rare (like, nothing else is near the model anywhere but the one target).
If you claim it is self contained, please give a reference to how you go about measuring range from a weapon mounted on a non vehicle model. Page and graph will suffice.
As you cannot do so, that mean the context of the rules "range" and "line of sight" must be included. This is absolutely positively 100% clearly the model in both case, unless *specifically* and *explicitly* overridden.
I know layout is causing them some issues - apparnetly it was only recently that the layout guys have understood that the "datasheet" format isnt gospel - i.e. it can be over 2 pages, that the proportion of flavour to rules text to pictures can be varied, etc. This wasnt the case previously.
I think these are written cleanly enough that the extra language is deemed as not required, sometimes. But that introduces nuances of grammar, etc.
It clearly is written that each WEAPON fires at the closest model. That is clearly telling us the model closest to the WEAPON not the model itself. I don't think we need the rest (or at least, I think whoever wrote it thought they didn't need it). Especially with the Editor's Note. (And I can tell you as a person who lays out books like the GW ones, and looking at that PDF...they were hurting for space and trimmed for that reason, not for anything else. I am almost sure the text box in InDesign would have overflowed and ended with "of the weapon" and the editor/writer deciding "well i guess we don't really need that part"and just cut it and put in a period).
Obnoxiously there is no exception anywhere to shooting through itself (though I personally think the normal line of sight rules do this indirectly, most won't agree). So fine, whatever, let's say it can see through itself.
A gun on the back of the pod will still be clearly further away from a target than a gun on another facing.
So by this logic I don't think it can shoot all five at one target. Maybe a lot of them, but all 5 would be pretty rare (like, nothing else is near the model anywhere but the one target).
a) So despite the fact that the wording is demonstrably the same as the normal shooting rules, you're going to say this is different?
b) It's not going to be at all rare based on how measuring is done for non-vehicle models/weapons.
I think these are written cleanly enough that the extra language is deemed as not required, sometimes. But that introduces nuances of grammar, etc.
It clearly is written that each WEAPON fires at the closest model. That is clearly telling us the model closest to the WEAPON not the model itself. I don't think we need the rest (or at least, I think whoever wrote it thought they didn't need it). Especially with the Editor's Note. (And I can tell you as a person who lays out books like the GW ones, and looking at that PDF...they were hurting for space and trimmed for that reason, not for anything else. I am almost sure the text box in InDesign would have overflowed and ended with "of the weapon" and the editor/writer deciding "well i guess we don't really need that part"and just cut it and put in a period).
Obnoxiously there is no exception anywhere to shooting through itself (though I personally think the normal line of sight rules do this indirectly, most won't agree). So fine, whatever, let's say it can see through itself.
A gun on the back of the pod will still be clearly further away from a target than a gun on another facing.
So by this logic I don't think it can shoot all five at one target. Maybe a lot of them, but all 5 would be pretty rare (like, nothing else is near the model anywhere but the one target).
I posted a few back, but check out how they word the "check range" rule under shooting in the basic rule book:
"Check Range
All weapons have a maximum range, which is the furthest distance they can shoot.A weapon
must be in range of the target unit to shoot. Here are examples of weapon ranges:
Weapon - Maximum Range
Laspistol - 12"
Boltgun - 24"
Autocannon - 48"
When checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the
target unit. Any weapon that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the
target unit cannot shoot."
They use wording for range from the weapon in all but one sentence - but that one sentence explicitly tells you to measure from model to model. The instinctive fire rule uses the same wording. It does not specify that you measure from the barrel of the weapon, so we can't reasonably assume that this is the case.
I'm not saying it's clear, I'm saying the intent of the edit was probably along those lines.
In plain english, "the weapon" is the subject of that sentence. No one here is going to accept that as Tyranid players will cling desperately to their easter egg, but if I were an editor or a layout person who was not 10000% on the game itself, I would consider that sentence to say what the designer's meant.
In game terms, however, there are mechanisms for range and line of sight for an MC and all that.
Also I mean...this board and others love to crap on the alleged questionable truths of RAI...but we literally have instructions from the people who created the unit on how they meant it to be done, and the only discredit anyone can give to that is that it's not in the part of the writing we deemed "rules."
To be clear my points above are from the perspective of editing. You hardcore RAW guys (and of course the endless parade of "I need every advantage in the game I can possibly have" guys who want to just be like "Nope I hit you 5x 38 wounds roll your saves" and act like they are some kind of tactical geniuses.
I see all this as desperate clinging to an easter egg error in the rules editing. They clearly explained in White Dwarf how it is supposed to work. Why does no one have to refute that? I mean, people say "oh it's not in the rules part" but
A.) nowhere in the rulebook does it say "sometimes there are rules and other times it's just words you can ignore"...that is a meta construct of us learning to differentiate fluff from the text that tells us mechanics, and
B.) it is literally as legit as an errata. You can't say "oh but some people might not have seen the White Dwarf so it doesn't count" without also saying the same of any FAQ.
I mean, let me put it to you: what exactly makes the literal step by step instructions in the White Dwarf from the designers themselves so irrelevant?
Fenris Frost wrote: I'm not saying it's clear, I'm saying the intent of the edit was probably along those lines.
In plain english, "the weapon" is the subject of that sentence. No one here is going to accept that as Tyranid players will cling desperately to their easter egg, but if I were an editor or a layout person who was not 10000% on the game itself, I would consider that sentence to say what the designer's meant.
In game terms, however, there are mechanisms for range and line of sight for an MC and all that.
Also I mean...this board and others love to crap on the alleged questionable truths of RAI...but we literally have instructions from the people who created the unit on how they meant it to be done, and the only discredit anyone can give to that is that it's not in the part of the writing we deemed "rules."
To be clear my points above are from the perspective of editing. You hardcore RAW guys (and of course the endless parade of "I need every advantage in the game I can possibly have" guys who want to just be like "Nope I hit you 5x 38 wounds roll your saves" and act like they are some kind of tactical geniuses.
I see all this as desperate clinging to an easter egg error in the rules editing. They clearly explained in White Dwarf how it is supposed to work. Why does no one have to refute that? I mean, people say "oh it's not in the rules part" but
A.) nowhere in the rulebook does it say "sometimes there are rules and other times it's just words you can ignore"...that is a meta construct of us learning to differentiate fluff from the text that tells us mechanics, and
B.) it is literally as legit as an errata. You can't say "oh but some people might not have seen the White Dwarf so it doesn't count" without also saying the same of any FAQ.
I mean, let me put it to you: what exactly makes the literal step by step instructions in the White Dwarf from the designers themselves so irrelevant?
It's not that they are irrelevant, I agree that designer notes are a good guide to playing with the rules. What make this case difficult, is that the mechanics they describe in that article aren't even remotely close to what is in the instinctive fire rule. You can't reasonably interpret that rule in the manner they prescribe. The manner they prescribe doesn't even address the mechanic fully (what happens if a model is on the opposite side of the tyrannocyte but closer than one on the same side as the gun?). I'm not a "hardcore RAW" guy, but this one isn't even close enough that two reasonable people playing a game for the first time against each other could come to a quick conclusion (pickups/tournaments/etc). Having to whip out an article from a white dwarf would hardly suffice in most cases. Ambiguous (or non existent) rules only reduce the enjoyment for the game in these scenarios for both players.
As to your point about players who "need every advantage in the game I can possibly have", this is also a case where both RAW and the RAI in the designers note both have distinct pros and cons. Neither one wins out. RAI can threaten multiple targets, and a pod can't as easily be locked down by one rhino/heavy vehicle. RAW is more deadly to one target, but also more susceptible to being locked down.
They may have distinct pros and cons, but don't act like it is seen that way. People are salivating for 5 free blasts on a target and aren't seeing past that. They will hate it when I drive a vehicle up to the thing and it does nothing every turn. I'm sure the first time I do that to a guy at the table he is gonna whip out the rule, re-read it, and reinterpret it.
People always cling to easter eggs.
If you go through this entire thread and replace "White Dwarf" with "FAQ" and "Designer's Note" with "FAQ answer" you will better understand why I see it how I do. The same arguments will all still apply, but make no sense. "But it's written in the [White Dwarf/FAQ], not in the rules!"
Also, the fantasy rulebook has designer notes all over it's margins that are considered as sacrosanct as the rules themselves in most cases. I hardly would consider it a universal thing that designer notes are not to be trusted.
We have confusion about how the standard rules interact with this, and we have a designer's note clarifying it. NUMEROUS times in the decade-plus that I've played this game, a designer saying something took plenty of precedent. This ONE time people want to ignore it to keep their pods super because Nid players think their army is weak. That's all it is, same as the stupid Thunderwolf Str10/9 debate. I barely care as a Wolves player but there are guys out there building their whole strategy around it who desperately need it to stay one way or the other. This is no different.
Fenris Frost wrote: They may have distinct pros and cons, but don't act like it is seen that way. People are salivating for 5 free blasts on a target and aren't seeing past that. They will hate it when I drive a vehicle up to the thing and it does nothing every turn. I'm sure the first time I do that to a guy at the table he is gonna whip out the rule, re-read it, and reinterpret it.
People always cling to easter eggs.
If you go through this entire thread and replace "White Dwarf" with "FAQ" and "Designer's Note" with "FAQ answer" you will better understand why I see it how I do. The same arguments will all still apply, but make no sense. "But it's written in the [White Dwarf/FAQ], not in the rules!"
Also, the fantasy rulebook has designer notes all over it's margins that are considered as sacrosanct as the rules themselves in most cases. I hardly would consider it a universal thing that designer notes are not to be trusted.
We have confusion about how the standard rules interact with this, and we have a designer's note clarifying it. NUMEROUS times in the decade-plus that I've played this game, a designer saying something took plenty of precedent. This ONE time people want to ignore it to keep their pods super because Nid players think their army is weak. That's all it is, same as the stupid Thunderwolf Str10/9 debate. I barely care as a Wolves player but there are guys out there building their whole strategy around it who desperately need it to stay one way or the other. This is no different.
Designer's notes in the actual rulebook itself are a little different animal, wouldn't you agree? They are guidelines INSIDE or the rules they apply to. But i will concede your point that the designer's notes are helpful guides to interpreting rules. There are very few cut and dry rules as you are getting at. In these cases, the notes in a white dwarf article are great to give indication one way or the other (when there are more than one valid interpretations). What makes this case difficult is that there isn't confusion about the RAW, it's clearly not written as described in that article. I don't know if there is precedent for RAW being so far off before, but this isn't a case of a little clarification needed. The article still doesn't address the mechanic entirely (LoS through the model being the biggest issue). The mechanic isn't even touched in the RAW.
You've perfectly described the pros AND cons of the RAW method. Now look at the rule as interpreted from the article, still no clarification on line of sight through the model, so we're left with 360 degree arc and not blocking line of sight to itself. Even if a unit is on the opposite side from a gun, but still the closest thing to each gun, you still fire everything at it. Since you deep strike the pod, and can move it, the tyranid player can easily deploy on a flank to shoot all of the guns at one target, and you can still easily lock it down with a single vehicle parked close.
I consider the designer's word to matter regardless of where it happens to exist.
I forget the exact circumstances but once back in 5th someone answered something in a Q&A and it was considered gospel. I don't see why this is any different.
Fenris Frost wrote: I consider the designer's word to matter regardless of where it happens to exist.
I forget the exact circumstances but once back in 5th someone answered something in a Q&A and it was considered gospel. I don't see why this is any different.
So how do we address the line of sight thing? Play it that you measure from the guns, but can fire through the model? This will result in the exact same thing as RAW in many cases.
I mean, let me put it to you: what exactly makes the literal step by step instructions in the White Dwarf from the designers themselves so irrelevant?
Those instructions do not appear anywhere in the publication that contains the rules. Trust me I've searched Shield of Baal: Leviathan and consulted the FAQ and there is literally nothing in there with regards to a designers note.
As for easter egging even using that designers note and measuring from the guns will still allow you to mostly get to shoot at the same target as nothing in that note mentions anything about LoS if anything that interpretation is favourable to Nids as it allows you to move to concentrate on a unit if you want or spread fire if necessary. So the claim of easter egging by apply less preferable rules is frankly baffling.
I mean, let me put it to you: what exactly makes the literal step by step instructions in the White Dwarf from the designers themselves so irrelevant?
Those instructions do not appear anywhere in the publication that contains the rules. Trust me I've searched Shield of Baal: Leviathan and consulted the FAQ and there is literally nothing in there with regards to a designers note.
As for easter egging even using that designers note and measuring from the guns will still allow you to mostly get to shoot at the same target as nothing in that note mentions anything about LoS if anything that interpretation is favourable to Nids as it allows you to move to concentrate on a unit if you want or spread fire if necessary. So the claim of easter egging by apply less preferable rules is frankly baffling.
Fenris Frost wrote: I consider the designer's word to matter regardless of where it happens to exist.
I forget the exact circumstances but once back in 5th someone answered something in a Q&A and it was considered gospel. I don't see why this is any different.
So how do we address the line of sight thing? Play it that you measure from the guns, but can fire through the model? This will result in the exact same thing as RAW in many cases.
You're referring to a Q&A with Phil Kelly if I'm not mistaken. Which makes sense - he actually wrote the rules. We're not given any indication of who wrote the white dwarf article, but it's pretty clear that it was the white dwarf magazine team. They get rules wrong all the time in their battle reports/make up rules/add extra force org slots in those things. This is all the white dwarf says about who wrote it:
"This week the triumvirate of Tyrannocyte, Sporocyst and Mucolid Spore Cluster give Tyranid players some wonderful new options for their games. We examine their rules, and look at how you can use them to rain death from above."
I'm all about using it for direction, but if we use it, it still doesn't describe the mechanic fully when it comes to firing arcs (specifically it would have to add them, as MCs have 360 degree arcs and don't block line of sight to themselves).
Fenris Frost wrote: They may have distinct pros and cons, but don't act like it is seen that way. People are salivating for 5 free blasts on a target and aren't seeing past that. They will hate it when I drive a vehicle up to the thing and it does nothing every turn. I'm sure the first time I do that to a guy at the table he is gonna whip out the rule, re-read it, and reinterpret it.
Then call that person out. I wouldn't do that because that's not what the rule says.
People always cling to easter eggs.
Inserting bias where there is none is rude.
If you go through this entire thread and replace "White Dwarf" with "FAQ" and "Designer's Note" with "FAQ answer" you will better understand why I see it how I do. The same arguments will all still apply, but make no sense. "But it's written in the [White Dwarf/FAQ], not in the rules!"
Except it's *not* an FAQ. At all. A large majority of people with access to the rules for the Tyrannocyte don't have access to the Designer's Note. They may not even know it exists. Why are you insisting that people should play by a rule they don't know exists?
Also, the fantasy rulebook has designer notes all over it's margins that are considered as sacrosanct as the rules themselves in most cases. I hardly would consider it a universal thing that designer notes are not to be trusted.
Most of the designers notes aren't absolutely contrary to the actual rules (from the 40k rulebook anyway). And they're still demonstrations of intent, not written rules.
We have confusion about how the standard rules interact with this, and we have a designer's note clarifying it. NUMEROUS times in the decade-plus that I've played this game, a designer saying something took plenty of precedent. This ONE time people want to ignore it to keep their pods super because Nid players think their army is weak. That's all it is, same as the stupid Thunderwolf Str10/9 debate. I barely care as a Wolves player but there are guys out there building their whole strategy around it who desperately need it to stay one way or the other. This is no different.
Again, stop insisting there's a bias. I couldn't care less either way it gets played when I field them. But the only rules I have for them are from Black Library's website and there is no Designer's Note there. Stop pretending there is.
Fenris Frost wrote: They may have distinct pros and cons, but don't act like it is seen that way. People are salivating for 5 free blasts on a target and aren't seeing past that. They will hate it when I drive a vehicle up to the thing and it does nothing every turn. I'm sure the first time I do that to a guy at the table he is gonna whip out the rule, re-read it, and reinterpret it.
Then call that person out. I wouldn't do that because that's not what the rule says.
People always cling to easter eggs.
Inserting bias where there is none is rude.
If you go through this entire thread and replace "White Dwarf" with "FAQ" and "Designer's Note" with "FAQ answer" you will better understand why I see it how I do. The same arguments will all still apply, but make no sense. "But it's written in the [White Dwarf/FAQ], not in the rules!"
Except it's *not* an FAQ. At all. A large majority of people with access to the rules for the Tyrannocyte don't have access to the Designer's Note. They may not even know it exists. Why are you insisting that people should play by a rule they don't know exists?
Also, the fantasy rulebook has designer notes all over it's margins that are considered as sacrosanct as the rules themselves in most cases. I hardly would consider it a universal thing that designer notes are not to be trusted.
Most of the designers notes aren't absolutely contrary to the actual rules (from the 40k rulebook anyway). And they're still demonstrations of intent, not written rules.
We have confusion about how the standard rules interact with this, and we have a designer's note clarifying it. NUMEROUS times in the decade-plus that I've played this game, a designer saying something took plenty of precedent. This ONE time people want to ignore it to keep their pods super because Nid players think their army is weak. That's all it is, same as the stupid Thunderwolf Str10/9 debate. I barely care as a Wolves player but there are guys out there building their whole strategy around it who desperately need it to stay one way or the other. This is no different.
Again, stop insisting there's a bias. I couldn't care less either way it gets played when I field them. But the only rules I have for them are from Black Library's website and there is no Designer's Note there. Stop pretending there is.
+1. It's also not clear if that's a designer note or just a random article from a writer for the white dwarf team.
That is probably because they read these rules and didn't micro-analyze them to death first and just played the game how it made the most sense instead of being ridiculously literal about it.
Listen, no one in this thread has had any answer at all for the following glaring fact:
If you apply the rules as standard, sans Designer's Note-style liberal interpretation, the thing always shoots all of its' weapons at the single target nearest to it. There is literally no possible way it wouldn't do this, because the target would always be "the nearest target in range and line of sight."
So...
...why give it a rule telling us it targets multiple sources, if the very same rule ensures it never will be able to in literally no situation?
It is just a poorly written Rule....
There is enough evidence to show the intent of 'fire each weapon in a different arc' is very likely correct, but that doesn't mean the Rule was written to correctly fit that intent.
I agree, but it is still possible to use it that way by what is written there. It is clearly an exception to the normal shooting rules, and there is no reason to apply any additional rules to the situation other than what it specifies. That is hardcore playerbase hole-plugging that doesn't need to be there. We know how to draw LOS to a thing, we know how to check range from a thing, and in this case the thing is "the weapon" as clearly stated. So to me this is definitely badly worded but still applicable as intended.
I mean, it says "Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight." The normal shooting rules have us check Range and LOS from a model to another model, but this sentence -- grammatically -- is telling us to use each weapon as the reference instead of the model. That's why it doesn't say something more related to normal shooting, like "In the shooting phase this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."
Frankly, as it gives instructions for what each WEAPON does, it seems pretty clear to me that they are each intended to be resolved separately.
My point is, the rules as written can 100% be applied the way the designer's note states. The idea that it is completely alien is foolish. It is clearly stated that these weapons do not work like a normal shooting attack. We know how to draw range to a thing, we know how to draw LOS to a thing, we know how to roll to hit and wound with things that have shooting profiles...all of this is easily applied to the weapon itself on the model. There is no reason to think the normal rules apply when we literally have instructions that don't follow almost any of them acting as an exception.
You can say all you want that the designer's note is not relevant because it's not in the PDF but it absolutely CAN be played as the designer's note implies just fine (if you are not skimming books looking for reasons to make sure the back two large blasts can hit the same stuff your front three can and that and I maintain that is the only reason this is a debate at all).
The word Weapon has been used far to often in conjunction with 'Shoot' or 'Fire,' and with far to many different outcomes as to how we resolve it, to reach to the conclusion that this specific instance is resolved differently. No... not only does it grant permission to resolve differently by that interpretation, it also does so without specifically mentioning that it is resolved differently. That is the problem with the Rule at it's core: It does not tell us to resolve the attacks differently, it only implies it through common sense, so we do not have permission to Resolve the rule differently... but that isn't why I am posting, I am more concerned about the accusations you continue to throw against posters in this forum.
Please stop implying the only reason to ever debate a Rule is to exploit it! The primary reason to debate this Rule has always been to better understand the Rule, identify flaws in our logic or spots where we have applied the Rule incorrectly due to mis-reading or mis-remembering what was written. That is the point of this whole forum and the only reason posters like me continue to come back to it... we have no invested interest past the painful sensations that come from trying to understand Game Workshop Rules. The vast majority of the posters here will honestly and openly debate anything, even arguments over the meaning of individual words will occur within this site, simply for the sake of the debate itself. While I wouldn't normally speak on the behalf of other posters, I can think of easily two dozen names that fall into the same category of arguing Rules for the sake of Arguing Rules.
Simply put, we are just argumentative ***** and have chosen Warhammer 40k to argue over instead of the Bible or many other poorly written systems that normally serve this purpose.
Simply put, we are just argumentative ***** and have chosen Warhammer 40k to argue over instead of the Bible or many other poorly written systems that normally serve this purpose.
Well, sorry if it came off as such, but I don't think the people debating the rules are all looking for perceived advantages. Rather, I think that the initial questioning of rules always comes from this at the initial level, before it ever reaches the people who enjoy discussing the nuances of the rules and sorting them out.
To cite an example, when the Storm Shield first came out forums had numerous discussions of possible reasons that it must be wrong, some people even tried to reason that it MUST be a typo because the Terminators didn't even cost a different amount at the time. I just have seen it so many times with rules that HAVE been clear, that it's now my default assumption as a point of origin, even if the rules legitimately aren't (which I freely admit is true in this case. There are a million better ways to have worded it... "Each weapon fires independently at the target closest to its' barrel" BAM done. That is part of what makes these so frustrating...).
Fenris Frost wrote: That is probably because they read these rules and didn't micro-analyze them to death first and just played the game how it made the most sense instead of being ridiculously literal about it.
Listen, no one in this thread has had any answer at all for the following glaring fact:
If you apply the rules as standard, sans Designer's Note-style liberal interpretation, the thing always shoots all of its' weapons at the single target nearest to it. There is literally no possible way it wouldn't do this, because the target would always be "the nearest target in range and line of sight."
So...
...why give it a rule telling us it targets multiple sources, if the very same rule ensures it never will be able to in literally no situation?
Except I encounter that problem a lot of having 2 or more units at an equi-distants from a firing unit. Fail IB:Hunt enough and you realize how often this can actually happen in game.
Fenris Frost wrote:People are salivating for 5 free blasts on a target and aren't seeing past that. They will hate it when I drive a vehicle up to the thing and it does nothing every turn. I'm sure the first time I do that to a guy at the table he is gonna whip out the rule, re-read it, and reinterpret it.
People always cling to easter eggs.
This ONE time people want to ignore it to keep their pods super because Nid players think their army is weak.
Fenris Frost wrote: (if you are not skimming books looking for reasons to make sure the back two large blasts can hit the same stuff your front three can and that and I maintain that is the only reason this is a debate at all).
Fenris Frost wrote:Well, sorry if it came off as such, but I don't think the people debating the rules are all looking for perceived advantages.
Really? Your approach to this debate says otherwise.
;quote] Rather, I think that the initial questioning of rules always comes from this at the initial level, before it ever reaches the people who enjoy discussing the nuances of the rules and sorting them out.
Yeah, it can't be because the wording of the rule as printed doesn't make sense given the rest of the rules in existence.
To cite an example, when the Storm Shield first came out forums had numerous discussions of possible reasons that it must be wrong, some people even tried to reason that it MUST be a typo because the Terminators didn't even cost a different amount at the time. I just have seen it so many times with rules that HAVE been clear, that it's now my default assumption as a point of origin, even if the rules legitimately aren't (which I freely admit is true in this case. There are a million better ways to have worded it... "Each weapon fires independently at the target closest to its' barrel" BAM done. That is part of what makes these so frustrating...).
Please, could you show me a copy of the Designer's Note? The only copy of the rules I have doesn't have one. And your wording is still confusing, but it is better and gets the designer's note intent across.
The main problem I have with your argument is it (literally) forces people to play two different ways and will (not might) cause an argument at tables around the world. How? Because the only people who have access to the Designer's Note are people who bought the White Dwarf. People who use the freely downloaded rules have no idea any Designer's Note actually exists.
the wording still says: fire each weapon at nearest target. the wording explicitly talks about the weapon and not the model, thous overrides the rulebook's rules for MC's.
it doesnt say fire all weapons at the nearest target, it doesnt say the model fires. it sepcifically mentions EACH WEAPON.
The main problem I have with your argument is it (literally) forces people to play two different ways and will (not might) cause an argument at tables around the world. How? Because the only people who have access to the Designer's Note are people who bought the White Dwarf. People who use the freely downloaded rules have no idea any Designer's Note actually exists.
no it doesnt. its a point to FURTHER reinforce the rule. RAI is pretty clear in this one. there is NO DEBATE over RAI. as far as RaW goes, i can understand the confusion, still the first time i read the rule, without knowledge of the designers words, i still read it in the way that each weapon fires at the nearest target, why? because the rule says: each weapon fires at the nearest target. again. not the model does, the weapon does.
btw... try fielding a looted wagon. guess what? its a white dwarf exclusive, but still a normal model even IF it rules can only be obtained (well, legally -.-) by owning a white dwarf.
but anyway. i cant really stress this point enough... the rule ACTUALLY talks about EACH WEAPON firing at the nearest target.
and yes, i played tyranids more than only once and played countless time against them througth the last 5 editions... the probabiltiy for multiple units beeing in the same range is pretty non existant. and not nearly as common as to justify a special rule to compensate for this remote possibility.
RedNoak wrote: the wording still says: fire each weapon at nearest target. the wording explicitly talks about the weapon and not the model, thous overrides the rulebook's rules for MC's.
it doesnt say fire all weapons at the nearest target, it doesnt say the model fires. it sepcifically mentions EACH WEAPON.
So you;re just going to ignore the rest of the thread that has pointed out how weapon and model are used interchangeably in the rules? Awesome.
The main problem I have with your argument is it (literally) forces people to play two different ways and will (not might) cause an argument at tables around the world. How? Because the only people who have access to the Designer's Note are people who bought the White Dwarf. People who use the freely downloaded rules have no idea any Designer's Note actually exists.
no it doesnt. its a point to FURTHER reinforce the rule. RAI is pretty clear in this one. there is NO DEBATE over RAI. as far as RaW goes, i can understand the confusion, still the first time i read the rule, without knowledge of the designers words, i still read it in the way that each weapon fires at the nearest target, why? because the rule says: each weapon fires at the nearest target. again. not the model does, the weapon does.
Please, show me rules on measuring range and LoS from a weapon that isn't on a vehicle. I'll wait.
And there is debate over RAI - the "designer" in the White Dwarf might not actually have been the designer of the unit based on how the rule conflicts with the base rulebook rules.
btw... try fielding a looted wagon. guess what? its a white dwarf exclusive, but still a normal model even IF it rules can only be obtained (well, legally -.-) by owning a white dwarf.
Relevance? There's more than one way to field the Tyrannocyte, but only one which gets you a copy of the Designer's Note.
but anyway. i cant really stress this point enough... the rule ACTUALLY talks about EACH WEAPON firing at the nearest target.
Great. Now how does that work? The pod isn't a vehicle - you understand that, right? So what rules do we use?
and yes, i played tyranids more than only once and played countless time against them througth the last 5 editions... the probabiltiy for multiple units beeing in the same range is pretty non existant. and not nearly as common as to justify a special rule to compensate for this remote possibility.
Except it can happen, and does quite often. Not that it's relevant at all.
please stop using excessive quotes broken up by your own comments, it make it hard to read and even harder to edit a reply =)
ok, so first off i added the thing about the looted wagon because someone specifically asked about rules beeing avaible exclusivly to white dwarf owners.
and for the beeing in the same range argument: i dont know how you play it, but unless you only measure in whole inches, there are nearly an infinitive number of steps between an inch and another... even if you only use 1mm (normally beeing the smallest unit of measurement on a ruler) there are 25 steps between em, before two units can be announced as beeing in the same range.
seconldy, about the ambiguity of the word weapon, i guess you are referring to this post:
I totally understand where you're coming from with subject/verb agreement in the sentence, but they do that stuff a lot. Check out the wording on the 'check range' rule:
"Check Range All weapons have a maximum range, which is the furthest distance they can shoot. A weapon must be in range of the target unit to shoot. Here are examples of weapon ranges: Weapon - Maximum Range Laspistol - 12" Boltgun - 24" Autocannon - 48" When checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit. Any weapon that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the target unit cannot shoot."
well i dont know if you reading the same as i do, but here it clearly states "simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit"
yes, it talks about ranges of weapons, which they normally have btw... and when it specifies how to shoot with em it talks about the firing model, i.e.: the "firer".
so yes it does mention that you measure from the model, and doesnt use the term weapon as a synomym for the model firing.
however in the insticive fire rule it is stated: Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight.
i for my part, can see the difference in the wording. do you? and if not, why?
RedNoak wrote: please stop using excessive quotes broken up by your own comments, it make it hard to read and even harder to edit a reply =)
Its easier to respond directly to your comments than to try and throw paragraphs at each other.
ok, so first off i added the thing about the looted wagon because someone specifically asked about rules beeing avaible exclusivly to white dwarf owners.
The rules aren't exclusive to WD owners. Only the designer's note is.
and for the beeing in the same range: i dont know how you play it, but unless you only measure in whole inches, there are nearly an infinitive number of steps between an inch and another... even if you only use 1mm (normally beeing the smallest unit of measurement on a ruler) there are 25 steps between em, before two units can be announced as beeing in the same range.
I often have multiple units at the same range. And that's without trying. Again, however, it's irrelevant.
seconldy, about the ambiguity of the word weapon, i guess you are referring to this post:
Spoiler:
I totally understand where you're coming from with subject/verb agreement in the sentence, but they do that stuff a lot. Check out the wording on the 'check range' rule:
"Check Range
All weapons have a maximum range, which is the furthest distance they can shoot. A weapon
must be in range of the target unit to shoot. Here are examples of weapon ranges:
Weapon - Maximum Range
Laspistol - 12"
Boltgun - 24"
Autocannon - 48"
When checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the
target unit. Any weapon that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the
target unit cannot shoot."
well i dont know if you reading the same as i do, but here it clearly states
"simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the
target unit"
yes, it talks about ranges of weapons, which they normally have btw... and when it specifies how to shoot with em it talks about the firing model, i.e.: the "firer".
so yes it does mention that you measure from the model, and doesnt use the term weapon as a synomym for the model firing.
It does in that the weapon and firer are the same point to measure from. Nothing in the Instinctive Fire rule changes that at all.
So how do we measure ranges for weapons for non-vehicle units? Not from the weapon, but from the firer.
however in the insticive fire rule it is stated:
Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight.
i for my part, cann see the difference in the wording. do you? and if not, why?
How do you measure range for weapons? How do you check line of sight for weapons? The only rules we have for either on non-vehicle units are from the firer. You're making up rules to suit the Designer's Note and asserting that the Note doesn't matter and the current rules cover it.
Demonstrably wrong.
because the insictive firing rule specifically says each weapon fires, not the model.
Which doesn't work with the rest of the rules as they actually exist. Unless you'd like to cite some evidence? That'd be great.
It does in that the weapon and firer are the same point to measure from.
exactly, in the rulebook weapons fired (by models which dont have the vehicle type) use the model as its point of measurement. this is how its described in the "checkin range" quote taken from the rulebook.
Which [measuring form the weapon itself] doesn't work with the rest of the rules as they actually exist. Unless you'd like to cite some evidence? That'd be great.
exactly, and thats why we have "special rules" (like the rule instinctive fire) which tells us how to do stuff which is different from the normal rules. thats why the wording says: Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight. to cleary state that normal firing rules are beeing overwritten at this very moment.
if its supposed to act like you interpret it, the sentence is obsolete. a simply: can fire all of it's weapons at the and of the shooting face, ...would have sufficed. but this last part is RAI, so to stay with RaW: the sentence still says each weapon fires at the nearest target. again. not the model, the weapon.
It does in that the weapon and firer are the same point to measure from. Nothing in the Instinctive Fire rule changes that at all.
yes it does. it clearly says each weapon fires, where the rulebook says each firer does.
unless you still cling to the notion that the terms weapon and model are interchangeable, this is cleary a difference.
weapon =/= firer
therefore you measure from the weapon not the model.
It does in that the weapon and firer are the same point to measure from.
exactly, in the rulebook weapons fired (by models which dont have the vehicle type) use the model as its point of measurement. this is how its described in the "checkin range" quote taken from the rulebook.
So you agree that all 5 weapons will have the same closest target?
Which [measuring form the weapon itself] doesn't work with the rest of the rules as they actually exist. Unless you'd like to cite some evidence? That'd be great.
exactly, and thats why we have "special rules" (like the rule instinctive fire) which tells us how to do stuff which is different from the normal rules. thats why the wording says:
Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight. to cleary state that normal firing rules are beeing overwritten at this very moment.
It's not "clearly stated". Using all provided rules there's only one way to measure range for weapons fired by models without the vehicle type.
And Instinctive Fire doesn't add any rules on how to measure range. Agreed?
if its supposed to act like you interpret it, the sentence is obsolete. a simply: can fire all of it's weapons at the and of the shooting face, ...would have sufficed. but this last part is RAI, so to stay with RaW: the sentence still says each weapon fires at the nearest target. again. not the model, the weapon.
And you've, again, failed to cite evidence allowing you to measure range and LoS from a weapon.
It does in that the weapon and firer are the same point to measure from. Nothing in the Instinctive Fire rule changes that at all.
yes it does. it clearly says each weapon fires, where the rulebook says each firer does.
Let's be real clear because you're actually making up rules here.
Spoiler:
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot.
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines what it must roll in order to hit the target.
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
7. Select Another Weapon. After resolving all shots from the currently selected weapon, if the firing unit is equipped with differently named weapons that have yet to fire, select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6.
Step 1 is handled by Instinctive Fire. Step 2 you're forced to fire at the closest target, so - because of Instinctive Fire it's conflated with Step 3. So let's look at those rules in more detail.
Spoiler:
CHOOSE A TARGET
Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a single enemy unit for them to shoot at. To do so, you must check the range and line of sight from your unit to the enemy unit you are targeting. Note that you may check the range and line of sight to multiple enemy units before deciding which one to shoot at and declaring it to your opponent. You cannot target a unit that is locked in combat.
Line of Sight
To target an enemy unit, at least one model must have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit. If no model has line of sight, then a different target must be chosen.
Nothing in IF tells me to check LoS from the weapon, so we use the rules from the rulebook. This uses the model to determine LoS.
Spoiler:
SELECT A WEAPON
Whilst some units are comprised entirely of models with the same weaponry, many units are equipped with a variety of different weapons or contain models that are themselves equipped with more than one gun. When firing with a unit, completely resolve all attacks from the same weapons at the same time before moving onto any differently named weapons (see Select Another Weapon, below).
First, select a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with. <snip>
All weapons have a maximum range, which is the furthest distance they can shoot. A weapon must be in range of the target unit to shoot. Here are examples of weapon ranges:
Weapon - Maximum Range
Laspistol - 12"
Boltgun - 24"
Autocannon - 48"
When checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit. Any weapon that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the target unit cannot shoot.
Which Models Can Fire?
Any model that has line of sight to at least one enemy model in the target unit and is found to be in range of that model can shoot.
All models in the unit must shoot at the same target unit. If a model cannot shoot at the same target as the other models in its unit then it cannot shoot at all in that phase.
Typically, a model can only fire a single shooting weapon in the same phase, although some models, such as vehicles or monstrous creatures, can shoot two or more. Once a model has fired its maximum number of weapons, it cannot fire again that phase.
So we know the weapon has a maximum range. We have rules on how to measure.
Please quote and underline the rules on measuring range from a weapon (the base of the weapon? The end of the barrel?) that is on a non-vehicle unit. They aren't in the Instinctive Fire rule, so don't bother posting that.
therefore you measure from the weapon not the model.
You are literally making up rules and asserting them as RAW. Please stop doing so.
therefore you measure from the weapon not the model.
You are literally making up rules and asserting them as RAW. Please stop doing so.
i am not making up rules. the instictive fire tule states:
Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight.
the subject of that sentence is the weapon. therefore the range and line of sight is applied to the weapon. not the model.
you fail to deny me that interpration. please tell me how this is making up rules.
anyway, this argument is going in cycles. so i will try to make myself clear one last time.
1. like i said, the rule explicitly mentions the weapon beeing used as a point of reference for range and LoS, due to the fact that the rule states each weapon fires at the nearest, visible unit.
2. since weapons =/= model, you measure from the weapon not the model because the rule says EACH WEAPON.
3. this is a special rule, so it overrides any generic rule found in the rulebook.
in the rulebook its worded that you measure from the "model". in this case however the special rule overrides that notion by saying that each weapon fires at the nearest target.
4. to further implicate the importance of specific terms (which is a great deal when dealing with rules in a 100% RaW way)
look at the table you posted. i will mark every instance the word model is used as a reference to where you measure/shoot from, when making a ranged shooting attack.
not once is the term weapon used when its determined from where you measure the range and LoS from.
and not once is the term weapon used in an interchangable way for the term model.
in the special rule for the tyrannocite however it does use the term weapon. and therefore you should measure from the weapon, not the model.
Spoiler:
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with.All models equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the target. Every modelthat wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot.
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines what it must roll in order to hit the target.
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
7. Select Another Weapon. After resolving all shots from the currently selected weapon, if the firing unit is equipped with differently named weapons that have yet to fire, select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6.
CHOOSE A TARGET
Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a single enemy unit for them to shoot at. To do so, you must check the range and line of sight from your unit to the enemy unit you are targeting. Note that you may check the range and line of sight to multiple enemy units before deciding which one to shoot at and declaring it to your opponent. You cannot target a unit that is locked in combat.
Line of Sight
To target an enemy unit, at least one model must have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit. If no model has line of sight, then a different target must be chosen.
SELECT A WEAPON
Whilst some units are comprised entirely models with the same weaponry, many units are equipped with a variety of different weapons or contain models that are themselves equipped with more than one gun. When firing with a unit, completely resolve all attacks from the same weapons at the same time before moving onto any differently named weapons (see Select Another Weapon, below).
First, select a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with. <snip>
All weapons have a maximum range, which is the furthest distance they can shoot. A weapon must be in range of the target unit to shoot. Here are examples of weapon ranges:
Weapon - Maximum Range
Laspistol - 12"
Boltgun - 24"
Autocannon - 48"
When checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit. Any weapon that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the target unit cannot shoot. Which Models Can Fire?
Any model that has line of sight to at least one enemy model in the target unit and is found to be in range of that model can shoot.
All models in the unit must shoot at the same target unit. If a model cannot shoot at the same target as the other models in its unit then it cannot shoot at all in that phase.
Typically, a model can only fire a single shooting weapon in the same phase, although some models, such as vehicles or monstrous creatures, can shoot two or more. Once a model has fired its maximum number of weapons, it cannot fire again that phase.
therefore you measure from the weapon not the model.
You are literally making up rules and asserting them as RAW. Please stop doing so.
i am not making up rules. the instictive fire tule states:
Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight.
the subject of that sentence is the weapon. therefore the range and line of sight is applied to the weapon. not the model.
Incorrect. If the sentence said "its" then you'd be correct.
As it is, it doesn't contradict the basic rulebook and so we use those rules.
2. since weapons =/= model, you measure from the weapon not the model because the rule says EACH WEAPON.
Quote the rule that tells you how to do so. Where on the weapon? How do I determine LoS - is it 360? 45 degrees?
3. this is a special rule, so it overrides any generic rule found in the rulebook.
in the rulebook its worded that you measure from the "model". in this case however the special rule overrides that notion by saying that each weapon fires at the nearest target.
Only when it conflicts. The rule, as worded, doesn't.
4. to further implicate the importance of specific terms (which is a great deal when dealing with rules in a 100% RaW way)
look at the table you posted. i will mark every instance the word model is used as a reference to where you measure/shoot from, when making a ranged shooting attack.
not once is the term weapon used when its determined from where you measure the range and LoS from.
and not once is the term weapon used in an interchangable way for the term model.
The term may not be. The point you measure from absolutely is.
in the special rule for the tyrannocite however it does use the term weapon. and therefore you should measure from the weapon, not the model.
Again a lack of rules based evidence on how to do so. It's like it doesn't exist or something.
Since the answer to "Where on the weapon do you measure from?" cannot be answered using actual rules, and your position (that your interpretation is RAW correct) requires it to exist, your position fails for lack of evidence.
Until you can show actual rules that tell you how to determine LoS and range from a non-vehicle weapon your argument has no basis in fact and must make up rules.
You cannot use the shooting rules for determining range as they require you measure from the firer, not the weapon. You cannot use the normal LoS rules as they require you use the model, not the weapon.
Cite rules other than IF as IF doesn't include how to measure range nor how to determine LoS.
Just a question. Those claiming the weapon is making the shot. What Bs is a barbed strangler? Or a Venom Cannon? Or a Deathspitter? Where is this information found?
FlingitNow wrote: Just a question. Those claiming the weapon is making the shot. What Bs is a barbed strangler? Or a Venom Cannon? Or a Deathspitter? Where is this information found?
its not about whats "making the shot". the discussion is about from where to measure LoS and range
FlingitNow wrote: Just a question. Those claiming the weapon is making the shot. What Bs is a barbed strangler? Or a Venom Cannon? Or a Deathspitter? Where is this information found?
its not about whats "making the shot". the discussion is about from where to measure LoS and range
Nowhere in the instinctive fire rule does it state the weapons have firing arcs nor does it state it in the White Dwarf designers note. You have literally pulled this out of thin air. It simply says measure from the gun in the (non official) designers note and does not specify in the rule itself. In either case you would still revert to how a non vehicle shoots which is a 360 arc from the firer.
So if both the rule itself and the designers note have nothing about limited firing arcs (I have both rules prints in front of me) where did you get this from?
ok, you guys really need to read the posts before replying.
where do i have stated that RaW says that the weapons should have firing arcs? please read atleast some protions of the thread if you wanna make any contributions to the discussion.
Zande4 wrote: It simply says measure from the gun in the (non official) designers note and does not specify in the rule itself.
ok its the very last time i'm gonna do this quote:
Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight.
i dont know how to specify it more in the rules than this to make clear that you measure from the weapon, not the model.
RedNoak wrote: ok, you guys really need to read the posts before replying.
where do i have stated that RaW says that the weapons should have firing arcs? please read atleast some protions of the thread if you wanna make any contributions to the discussion.
Zande4 wrote: It simply says measure from the gun in the (non official) designers note and does not specify in the rule itself.
ok its the very last time i'm gonna do this quote:
Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight.
i dont know how to specify it more in the rules than this to make clear that you measure from the weapon, not the model.
Explain this to me in plain English please.
How does measuring from the weapon = weapon has restricted firing arc? Please explain that to me. How are you getting the pod has to use the vehicles rules for shooting from "measure from weapon"
How does measuring from the weapon = weapon has restricted firing arc? Please explain that to me. How are you getting the pod has to use the vehicles rules for shooting from "measure from weapon"
sorry, but are you serious? or just trolling? i'm saying this now for the like 3rd time.
I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABSOLUTE ABOUT FIRING ARCS AND VEHICLES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RAW INTERPRETATION OF THE INSTINCTIVE FIRE SPECIAL-RULE
but if you are not able to understand this, i doubt that any good can come from you when it comes to the understanding of ruletexting. -.-
@black talos
Spoiler:
i am not making up rules. the instictive fire tule states: Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight.
the subject of that sentence is the weapon. therefore the range and line of sight is applied to the weapon. not the model.
[...]
1. like i said, the rule explicitly mentions the weapon beeing used as a point of reference for range and LoS, due to the fact that the rule states each weapon fires at the nearest, visible unit.
2. since weapons =/= model, you measure from the weapon not the model because the rule says EACH WEAPON.
3. this is a special rule, so it overrides any generic rule found in the rulebook. in the rulebook its worded that you measure from the "model". in this case however the special rule overrides that notion by saying that each weapon fires at the nearest target.
4. to further implicate the importance of specific terms (which is a great deal when dealing with rules in a 100% RaW way) look at the table you posted. i will mark every instance the word model is used as a reference to where you measure/shoot from, when making a ranged shooting attack.
not once is the term weapon used when its determined from where you measure the range and LoS from. and not once is the term weapon used in an interchangable way for the term model.
in the special rule for the tyrannocite however it does use the term weapon. and therefore you should measure from the weapon, not the model.
How does measuring from the weapon = weapon has restricted firing arc? Please explain that to me. How are you getting the pod has to use the vehicles rules for shooting from "measure from weapon"
sorry, but are you serious? or just trolling? i'm saying this now for the like 3rd time.
I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABSOLUTE ABOUT FIRING ARCS AND VEHICLES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RAW INTERPRETATION OF THE INSTINCTIVE FIRE SPECIAL-RULE
I'm pretty sure that is his point, and he is asking you what rules are you using to draw LOS from the weapon if not from the MC rules?
2. since weapons =/= model, you measure from the weapon not the model because the rule says EACH WEAPON.
Can you prove this with some rules please?
There are rules on how this is perhaps possible with Vehicles, but in any other case, you fire a weapon from the model.
Weapon = Model.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Some RaW on this in case you contest:
"Most models only get to fire one shot, however, some weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we’ll explain in more detail later."
As you can see from the rule above, "models" and "weapons" are interchangeable.
A model fires a weapon, but you can never separate a model from the weapon.
1. Just saying that doesn't make it true. It states each weapon fires and does so at the neatest target in range & LoS. The weapon us still being fired by the MC right?
2. Nope range is measured from the firer not from the weapon. Nothing here states measure from the weapon.
3. Clearly you have no understanding of how specific vs general works so don't try to use it. As for codex vs rulebook codex only wins in the case of direct conflict. Nothing in these "codex rules" contradicts measuring from the base.
4. Use of the word weapon here is either irrelevant or you are claiming the weapon itself is firing? If so please tell me the Bs of each weapon and where this information is found.
RedNoak wrote: ok, you guys really need to read the posts before replying.
where do i have stated that RaW says that the weapons should have firing arcs? please read atleast some protions of the thread if you wanna make any contributions to the discussion.
Zande4 wrote: It simply says measure from the gun in the (non official) designers note and does not specify in the rule itself.
ok its the very last time i'm gonna do this quote:
Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight.
i dont know how to specify it more in the rules than this to make clear that you measure from the weapon, not the model.
Great - now, where are the rules for measuring from the weapon?
Do you measure from the tip of the weapon or the base? Please, for once, cite a rule other than Instinctive Fire (which doesn't tell you how to measure).
Without such a rule your interpretation cannot be correct.
RedNoak wrote: ok, you guys really need to read the posts before replying.
where do i have stated that RaW says that the weapons should have firing arcs? please read atleast some protions of the thread if you wanna make any contributions to the discussion.
Zande4 wrote: It simply says measure from the gun in the (non official) designers note and does not specify in the rule itself.
ok its the very last time i'm gonna do this quote:
Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight.
i dont know how to specify it more in the rules than this to make clear that you measure from the weapon, not the model.
All of the rules say that same thing.
All weapons have a maximum range, which is the furthest distance they can shoot. A
weapon must be in range of the target unit to shoot. Here are examples of weapon ranges:
Weapon - Maximum Range
Laspistol - 12"
Boltgun - 24"
Autocannon - 48"
When checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the
target unit. Any weapon that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the
target unit cannot shoot
This isn't the first (or last) time when GW designers do not know their own rules. I am sure they thought it would be cool and decided that it works like a vehicle, but then forgot what the rules tell us about MC's.
Naw wrote: This isn't the first (or last) time when GW designers do not know their own rules. I am sure they thought it would be cool and decided that it works like a vehicle, but then forgot what the rules tell us about MC's.
Agreed, they probably though modelling guns pointing at 5 different sides might have a bearing on written rules.
HIWPI i'd go for that though, with a pile of house rules lol
I'm having the same problem figuring out the Tyrannocyte rules, came here to find answer but got confused more that anything.
At first it was a good reading but after a while it turned into a "internet special game" so I simply stop reading.
Basically I'm stuck between 2 ways to deal with this issue.
1) If I blindly follow the RAW it tells me that I can fire my Tyrannocyte's weapon at anything in LoS and range no matter where the Tyrannocyte is actually "facing". In other words I can imagine the weapon itself having a certain degree of "pivoting" added to the mobility of the Tyrannocyte in order to get this done.
2) If I use "common sense" I would go with the conforting idea that GW simply came up (yup.. once more) with another poorly written rule and that a FAQ should come up later.
For now, unless I play in a tournament or competitive scene, i'll play my Tyrannocyte's weapon as "hull mounted". Even thought I would like to fire all 5 barbed strangler pie plate at my friend's remaining Guard platoon I still think this is "wrong"!
