Somehow my guts tell me that Gargantuan Creatures can fire more than 2 weapons per shooting phase.
Can't find anything that would support this. Maaybe it used to work that way or I just made it up.

the rules wrote:
When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it
may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired.

It's in the BRB under gargantuan & flying gargantuan creatures.

They can fire *each* weapon.

Key word for you there.

 Frozocrone wrote:
They can fire *each* weapon.

Key word for you there.

That's taking it out of context, the sentence is

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

It states before that gargantuan creatures are monstrous creatures that have additional rules stated in the Gargantuan creatures section. Therefore they may only fire 2 weapons as stated in the Monstrous creatures section.

^ I don't know a single person who plays it that way, Korlandril.

When you consider the similar rules to this, they have a clear wording difference. Split fire says they may fire at a different target. Necrons Independent Targeting says the weapon may fire at a different target. Each time it simply says "fire", and not "fire each weapon". The fact that they included "each weapon" means they can fire each weapon, not 2 weapons.

If you only fire 2 of your 4 weapons, you have not fired each weapon.

Bojazz wrote:
^ I don't know a single person who plays it that way, Korlandril.

Doesn't make it the right interpretation of the rule though.

When you consider the similar rules to this, they have a clear wording difference. Split fire says they may fire at a different target. Necrons Independent Targeting says the weapon may fire at a different target. Each time it simply says "fire", and not "fire each weapon". The fact that they included "each weapon" means they can fire each weapon, not 2 weapons.

Bear in mind the rules for Gargantuan creatures are additions to the rules of Monstrous Creatures, it clearly states in the Monstrous Creatures section that they can fire up to 2 weapons each shooting phase. If it had been their intention for them to fire all their weapons I think they would have said that "a Gargantuan Creature may fire all of it's weapons, and may fire them at different targets if desired". Whereas the section in Gargantuan creatures regarding shooting is just saying it can fire its weapons at different targets. When it says "each" its referring to the Monstrous creatures rule of being able to fire 2 weapons per shooting phase, so can fire each of its two weapons it can fire at different targets.

Do we know if the white dwarf with the new Eldar codex have a battle report with the Wraithknight? Or even a battle report published by GW using 7th Edition where a Gargantuan creature fires more than 2 weapons?. If it was firing all its weapons in there I would accept it can fire all of its weapons.

In addition there may be unit/army/wargear specific rules that allows the firin of an additional weapon(like tau multitrackers), these would allow a third weapon to be fired and in the case of a hypothetical tau gc with 3+ weapons would be able to fire each of those 3 at separate targets.

Korlandril is correct; they follow the rules for Monstrous Creatures - up to two weapons - with the addition that there may each be fired at different targets.

I'm still going to have to disagree. I'm still reading "It may fire each of it's weapons at a different target" as permission to fire each of its weapons at different targets, not two of it's weapons at different targets. Especially since the previous gargantuan creature rules allowed them to fire all of their weapons as well.

They follow the rules for monstrous creatures, *with additional rules and exceptions given below*. Among those additional rules and exceptions is the line stating they may fire each of their weapons at different targets.

In order to be able to fire each of its weapons at different targets, it has to be able to fire each of its weapons.

Which it gets permission to do in that very sentence. A single sentence that gives two permissions. To fire each weapon, and to fire them at different targets.

For instance, if a sentence said "A gargantuan creature can shoot at flyers at full BS after running" that would give them permission to shoot at flyers after running, and permission to shoot at flyers at full BS after running.

likewise "may fire each of its weapons at different targets" gives permission to fire each of its weapons, and fire them at different targets.

If they did not want to override the 2 weapon limit from monstrous creatures, they would have simply said "may fire it's weapons at different targets"

Ever since gargantuan creatures were introduced in apocalypse they have been able to fire all of their weapons.

This is a rules question where GW will answer with : "why not just roll a dice to settle it!"

 Wilson wrote:
This is a rules question where GW will answer with : "why not just roll a dice to settle it!"

I believe you actually have to forge the narrative. For example on a roll of 1 the gargantuan creature explodes with a strength d apoc explosion. On a roll of 4 it turns into a chaos spawn, and on a roll of 6 your opponent has to lick a battery for 39 seconds.

Here's a video of Reece from Frontline Gaming testing out the new eldar during a livestream.
http://www.twitch.tv/frontlinegaming_tv/v/4484550
At 1:13:10 you can see him fire all 4 of the wraithknight's weapons at different targets.

Not to say that Reece could never get a rule wrong, but considering his status in the 40k scene, I feel his opinion carries a lot more weight than my own.

The MC rules give you permission to fire 2 weapons. The GMC rules give you permission to fire each of those at different targets if you so wish. It's not complicated.

GMCs can fire all of their weapons AND can target different units with each weapon.

GMCs do follow the rules for MCs, with the changes noted in their section, which includes completely different shooting rules. If that section was meant to add to the MC rules rather than overwrite them, the rule would use "fire both weapons" rather than "each" weapon.

The wraith knight can only add two more regular heavy eldar weapons, which are widely available armywide at cheaper point cost and cannot have Strength D in both ranged and melee on the same model.

My understanding has always been they could fire all of their weapons. I've never seen it played any other way.

If we compare it with a similar example in the BRB.

In the rules for super-heavy vehicles it states:

When a super heavy vehicle makes a shooting attack, it is always treated as if it had remained stationary in the Movement phase (even if it actually moved), and it may fire each of its weapons at different targets if desired.

The first part of this sentence is giving permission to fire ALL of its weapons (due to the rules for vehicles allowing the vehicle to fire ALL weapons if it remains stationary and at full BS) and the last part is saying it may fire at different targets.


For gargantuan creatures consider this; the rule for all models is they can fire one weapon per shooting phase. The rules for monstrous creatures specifically state that they may fire two weapons a phase. Therefore it would follow on from this that if gargantuan creatures could fire all weapons it would have a similar sentence to super heavy vehicles something like:

When a gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it can fire all of its weapons, and it may fire each of its weapons at different targets if desired.

But instead the rule only contains the part stating it can fire its weapons at different targets. It never states that it may also fire all of its weapons.

You know, the "limited at 2 weapons" makes complete sense by RaW...

I'm going to have to change my mind on this: Gargantuan MC have permission to split fire, but that same permission does not include a permission to fire more weapons than the standard MC.

Super-Heavy vehicles are treated as Stationary. If Normal stationary vehicles were limited to 5 Weapons, then SHV would be limited to 5 weapons. That is the RaW.

I can understand that by HIWPI some GMC might want to be "equals" of SHV though, and fire 3+ weapons too =P

Yep, Superheavy vehicles have permission to fire all of their weapons as per the vehicle rules. GMC have permission to fire up to two weapons as per the MC rules. The additional rules in the superheavy and GMC sections in both cases allow you to fire each weapon that is eligible to fire at different targets. Which for GMC remains 2 weapons that can be fired.

Some people here are trying to argue that "each" means "all" in this case which is clearly incorrect when you actually read the rules in context and not base arguments on the interpretation of a single word trying to gain an illegal advantage.

it may fire each of its weapons

I do indeed agree that it is the above taken out of the full context which leads to possible confusion. But why would the SHV say "it is always treated as if it had remained stationary"? Only to make the above redundant?
That is what lead me to believe that GMC are indeed limited to 2 weapons, as you say.

Do a lot of GMC have more than 2 weapons? (to get an idea of whom this affect greatly?)

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Some people here are trying to argue that "each" means "all" in this case which is clearly incorrect when you actually read the rules in context and not base arguments on the interpretation of a single word trying to gain an illegal advantage.

But if it did in fact say 'ALL' instead of 'EACH' in the rule description, it would make 0 sense. If the wording was "may fire ALL of it's weapons at different targets" it would be more confusing, at least to me.

In either case, I think it's also fair to note either side of the argument could be said to be taking a single word and using it for illegal advantage. One trying to stop Gargantuans from using all of their weapons, and one for it.

1. You can fire two weapons.
2. You can fire each weapon at a different target.

Above is what we're effectively told for GCs. Nowhere are we told that we can fire more than two weapons... just that each weapon we fire can be fired at a different target.

each ēCH/ determiner & pronoun determiner: each; pronoun: each 1. used to refer to every one of two or more people or things, regarded and identified separately. "there are 47 books and each must be read"

So, the word each is used to refer to every one of two or more things. These things must be identified separately. In our case, the things are the two weapons the GC has permission to fire. I think this is a basic misunderstanding of what the word 'each' means.

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

emphasis mine.

What are "its weapons"? The weapons the model possesses.
That can be zero, two or 23, depending on the model.

If the number of weapons is always two (2) as per MC rules, why should the weapons of the model be referenced?

Including split fire in the GMC special rules would have that effect, yet we have a different rule with two distinct permissions,
1) fire each weapon and
2) different target.

 Kriswall wrote:
1. You can fire two weapons.
2. You can fire each weapon at a different target.

Above is what we're effectively told for GCs. Nowhere are we told that we can fire more than two weapons... just that each weapon we fire can be fired at a different target.

each ēCH/ determiner & pronoun determiner: each; pronoun: each 1. used to refer to every one of two or more people or things, regarded and identified separately. "there are 47 books and each must be read"

So, the word each is used to refer to every one of two or more things. These things must be identified separately. In our case, the things are the two weapons the GC has permission to fire. I think this is a basic misunderstanding of what the word 'each' means.

I'm quite sure i agree with this, and why the confusion occurs.

 Stephanius wrote:
Including split fire in the GMC special rules would have that effect, yet we have a different rule with two distinct permissions,
1) fire each weapon and
2) different target.

I disagree with this. That phrase gives permission only:
1) may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired

= This model has permission to: every ("each") weapon can select a different target.

But it does not give the permission "1)" that you think it does.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
1. You can fire two weapons.

 Stephanius wrote:
Including split fire in the GMC special rules would have that effect, yet we have a different rule with two distinct permissions,
1) fire each weapon and
2) different target.

I disagree with this. That phrase gives permission only:
1) may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired

= This model has permission to: every ("each") weapon can select a different target.

But it does not give the permission "1)" that you think it does.

That is your assertion, which is not conclusively supported by RAW.
I love how you left "fire" out of your reshuffled quote.

Compare the GMC BRB rules with the copy-pasta source, which before 7th was Apocalypse:

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

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

If "fire each of it's weapons" wasn't meant to specifically override the "fire 2 weapons" MC rule, it would have been easy to avoid by either referencing the MC allowance of 2 weapons specifically or by not referencing the model's weapons. Yet, what we got is the essentially unchanged Apocalypse rule.

The obivous reason to state that the model may "fire each of it's weapons" is that each of the models weapons may be fired.

I haven't played with the new Eldar codex yet and I'm rather worried that my Iyanden force may be too strong, but I'd rather choose to dial back my list than have someone tell me that an explicit permission is in fact not there.

Compare the GMC BRB rules with the copy-pasta source, which before 7th was Apocalypse:

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

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

If "fire each of it's weapons" wasn't meant to specifically override the "fire 2 weapons" MC rule, it would have been easy to avoid by either referencing the MC allowance of 2 weapons specifically or by not referencing the model's weapons. Yet, what we got is the essentially unchanged Apocalypse rule.

The obivous reason to state that the model may "fire each of it's weapons" is that each of the models weapons may be fired.

I haven't played with the new Eldar codex yet and I'm rather worried that my Iyanden force may be too strong, but I'd rather choose to dial back my list than have someone tell me that an explicit permission is in fact not there.

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

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

Quick question, could we expect GW to have a word-of-god answer to this problem? Or is that not something they often do?

Do people usually just wait for a big tournament to declare the ruling as per their interpretation? Just not sure what the history is for situations like this.

Yeah I think so, I think the debate is what is meant by the RAW. That's what FAQs are for, the latest FAQ was released January of this year. I wonder how many people ask GW on rule confirmation and how many come to forums, maybe most people come to forums so they don't get asked questions so GW can't answer them? I wonder if people decided to ask GW more about their rules if it would improve the way they write them or release FAQ's more frequently. It could be the case that no one emails them as much anymore, so to them it seems like the rules are well written. If they were forced to divert more resources to answering emails about rules they would see the problems?

 Korlandril wrote:

Compare the GMC BRB rules with the copy-pasta source, which before 7th was Apocalypse:

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

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

If "fire each of it's weapons" wasn't meant to specifically override the "fire 2 weapons" MC rule, it would have been easy to avoid by either referencing the MC allowance of 2 weapons specifically or by not referencing the model's weapons. Yet, what we got is the essentially unchanged Apocalypse rule.

The obivous reason to state that the model may "fire each of it's weapons" is that each of the models weapons may be fired.

I haven't played with the new Eldar codex yet and I'm rather worried that my Iyanden force may be too strong, but I'd rather choose to dial back my list than have someone tell me that an explicit permission is in fact not there.

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

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

Korlandril has it spot on here and in his previous posts. RAW clearly allows a GMC to fire 2 weapons maximum as per the MC rules. The only difference is that a GMC can fire them at different targets.

Let me see Korlandril!

For reference 7th Ed. BRB

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

old apocalypse rule

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

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

 Korlandril wrote:

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

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

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

 Korlandril wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Kriswall wrote:

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

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

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

This ^

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is not, because they can not.

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

Except you can not cherry pick rules...

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

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

Personal opinions have nothing to do with the RAW.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Personal opinions have nothing to do with the RAW.

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

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

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Personal opinions have nothing to do with the RAW.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me clarify:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Stephanius wrote:

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

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

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

Let me clarify:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Stephanius wrote:

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

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

The entire argument / confusion comes from 1 line:

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

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

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

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

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

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



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 BlackTalos wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 BlackTalos wrote:

But in the current writing, there is only 1 permission: choosing different targets. There is no 2nd permission to also fire all of your weapons.

The same sentence that gives permission to fire at multiple targets gives permission to fire more than 2.

The fact of the matter is "each" can be read to mean the same thing as "all". There would be no arguments if the sentence was:

A GC may fire ALL of it's weapons at different targets.

Based on the way it's used in the sentence structure, this is the way the word "each" is being portrayed. It has also historically been the way GCs have always worked in every other book. The RAW supports the interpretation that "each = all" due to the sentence structure, and there is no reason to believe that the RAI is any different than it's been in all the other books before.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
The same sentence that gives permission to fire at multiple targets gives permission to fire more than 2.

Except it doesn't. The sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire.

 Ghaz wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
The same sentence that gives permission to fire at multiple targets gives permission to fire more than 2.

Except it doesn't. The sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire.

QFT.

As written, 2 weapons per turn.

You may shoot each of them at a different target if you so choose.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
The same sentence that gives permission to fire at multiple targets gives permission to fire more than 2.

Except it doesn't. The sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire.

QFT.

As written, 2 weapons per turn.

You may shoot each of them at a different target if you so choose.

Correction:
You may fire ALL of your weapons at different targets if you so choose.

You're still limited to 2 weapons per Turn though

 Kriswall wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Ah yes, i'm not sure why i put 2 MC in that list.....
So, which Gargantuans have more than 2 weapons and feel really bad if they can't fire 3? Just the new WraithLord?

That's the only one I can think of.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

But in the current writing, there is only 1 permission: choosing different targets. There is no 2nd permission to also fire all of your weapons.

The same sentence that gives permission to fire at multiple targets gives permission to fire more than 2.

The fact of the matter is "each" can be read to mean the same thing as "all". There would be no arguments if the sentence was:

A GC may fire ALL of it's weapons at different targets.

Based on the way it's used in the sentence structure, this is the way the word "each" is being portrayed. It has also historically been the way GCs have always worked in every other book. The RAW supports the interpretation that "each = all" due to the sentence structure, and there is no reason to believe that the RAI is any different than it's been in all the other books before.

And actually, it would make no difference. If the rule was
A GC may fire ALL of it's weapons at different targets.

Then it would still be limited to 2 weapons: the above tells you what you can target , not how many weapons you can fire (As Ghaz put very aptly)

The rule would have to be:
A GC may fire ALL of it's weapons *and* at different targets.
Then the conjunction in the phrase would indeed create 2 permissions... but currently there is only 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
That's the only one I can think of.

I guess that's why the thread came up..... Does it even have 3 ("main") shooting weapons for there to be a RaI argument here?

The way I read this was that the GC could fire all of it's weapons. My reasoning was that I took the GC shooting rules to be an exception to the MC rules not in addition to those rules. I based this on the portion of the shooting rules that are in contention do not refer back to the MC rules in the same way that the GC movement rules do.

The Garg Squiggoth has two big guns, and two twin linked big shootas. (and can take more shootas, fired by passengers)

 BlackTalos wrote:

The rule would have to be:
A GC may fire ALL of it's weapons *and* at different targets.

Actually, no. That wouldn't be correct. The quoted sentence above is what is known on the internet as an English Fail.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
That's the only one I can think of.

I guess that's why the thread came up..... Does it even have 3 ("main") shooting weapons for there to be a RaI argument here?

No, the Wraith Knight can have the Suncannon plus two vanilla heavy weapons (e.g. Shuriken Cannons)
OR it can have two heavy wraithcannons plus two vanilla heavy weapons.

That means that the 3rd or 3rd&4th gun are widely available elsewhere and are in fact available cheaper elsewhere.
The only point would be the remote(*) chance of blowing up two targets with the wraithcannons and tagging others to still be egilble to assault.
(*) 1 shot heavy wraith cannon vs 3 HP/LP target: 3+ to hit, 4/6 chance of 2-5 on the D table, 1/3 chance to get a 5 or 6 on the D3 roll; 1/6 chance to get a 6. Aggregate chance to kill the model outright 20,98% The odds of that happening with two shots should be about 4% (not great with probability here).

However, clearly, the wraithknight is unlikely to be a factor for RAI here, considering that the new Eldar codex only just now upgraded it to GC and the 7th book was published way ealier while the WK was still an MC.

the rulebook lays it out in a reasonable order

A GC follows the rules for MCs (so only 2 weapons can fire)
It then states with the exceptions given below (or words to that effect, don't have rulebook in front of me)
Below that sentence, under shooting it states it may fire each of it's weapons at a different target.

This is classified as an exception. If GW wanted it to only fire 2 weapons it should have stated that above the "exception" part of specifically stated "each of it's two weapons eligible to fire".

Based on this....I'm pretty solid with it being all weapons.

The exception is what it can target with its shooting, not how many weapons it may fire.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

The rule would have to be:
A GC may fire ALL of it's weapons *and* at different targets.

Actually, no. That wouldn't be correct. The quoted sentence above is what is known on the internet as an English Fail.

1) The use of a comma would correct the issue.

2) please do not mention "English Fail" when you cannot differentiate between *its* and *it's*....

The addition of "and" was a simple modification to prove a point: the phrase would need a conjunction (worded in a correct way, of course) in order to have 2 permission where it currently has just the 1.

 Ghaz wrote:
The sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire.

And I think this explanation is perfect. Simple and easy to understand. I tend to over-complicate things.....

It is an explicit permission on how many weapons you can fire (each) as well as what you can target at it (as many targets as you have weapons.)

We're told the rules following the line "follows MC rules except for changes listed here" that we can fire "each" of it's weapons. Each means anything it's equipped with. Therefore it's a new rule that supercedes the MC rule allowing it to fire 2 weapons.

It doesn't say "each of the weapons it may fire," it says "each of it's weapons."

 SRSFACE wrote:
It is an explicit permission on how many weapons you can fire (each) as well as what you can target at it (as many targets as you have weapons.)

We're told the rules following the line "follows MC rules except for changes listed here" that we can fire "each" of it's weapons. Each means anything it's equipped with. Therefore it's a new rule that supercedes the MC rule allowing it to fire 2 weapons.

It doesn't say "each of the weapons it may fire," it says "each of it's weapons."

Again, "each" can literally mean the two it was previously given an allowance to fire. ie: I am allowed to fire 2 weapons, each weapon may target a different unit.

It can ALSO mean all, it does not ALWAYS mean ALL.

Without an FAQ both sides ARE correct, and you really should discuss it with your opponent before a game. I happen to not read "each" as being everything it has, but as the two previously allowed. A MC can have 4+ weapons, but it can only choose 2 of them to fire, a GC then further allows for each of these 2 to fire at different targets.

 SRSFACE wrote:
It is an explicit permission on how many weapons you can fire (each) as well as what you can target at it (as many targets as you have weapons.)

No. It is only an explicit permission on what you can target.

I have been reading this thread and I have read the rules regarding the topic quite a few times. It seems to me that the issue regards the phrase in the Gargantuan Creatures Shooting section, particularly with what it is referencing: the weapons the Gargantuan Creature (GC) has, or, the weapons it can fire, being that it is also a Monstrous Creature. And where it says that there are additional rules and exceptions regarding Gargantuan Creatures, I find this of little help regarding the topic. Is it an additional rule or an exception?

I believe the plain reading of it ought to be regarded as an exception, perhaps an unfortunate one, simply because it does not elaborate: we are given "its weapons". I don't believe I would insist that my opponent not have his GC fire more than two weapons. That said, without more clarity, I don't think I could insist on my GC firing more than two weapons myself. It seems unclear and best decided prior to the game.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

Again, "each" can literally mean the two it was previously given an allowance to fire. ie: I am allowed to fire 2 weapons, each weapon may target a different unit.

CAN mean that, but doesn't, in the sense of previously established rule.

@Ghaz:

I love that the usual RAW guys are the ones reading between the lines here now, because it suits them. Welcome to being ignored.

I'm not 'reading between the lines', but unlike some, I'm reading the whole sentence instead of stopping at the word 'each'.

Nevermind, not worth it. I'll just reiterate and walk away.

This line:

SHOOTING
Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each shooting phase

Is overwritten by this line:

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

Because of this line:

Gargantuan Creatures are Monstrous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below.

 Stephanius wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

An GC firing 4 weapons does not "break" the MC 2 weapons rule, it supersedes it.

No it doesn't actually.

Nothing in the GC rules explicitly override the only able to fire 2 weapons rule.

 Ghaz wrote:
The exception is what it can target with its shooting, not how many weapons it may fire.

Exactly!

 SRSFACE wrote:
Nevermind, not worth it. I'll just reiterate and walk away.

This line:

SHOOTING
Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each shooting phase

Is overwritten by this line:

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

Because of this line:

Gargantuan Creatures are Monstrous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below.

Let's put and then read them together, therefore in proper context, as we're told we must.

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

Read in context the additional rule/exception is to allow Gargantuan Creatures to shoot their weapons at different targets, but does not explicitly override the permission to fire up to two weapons.

 Mr. Shine wrote:


Let's put and then read them together, therefore in proper context, as we're told we must.

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

Read in context the additional rule/exception is to allow Gargantuan Creatures to shoot their weapons at different targets, but does not explicitly override the permission to fire up to two weapons.

That's not what we're told we must. That's what you infer is the proper way to do it.

But it means you're literally arguing an explicit rule saying "You may fire each of it's weapons at a different target as desired" doesn't mean "You man fire each of it's weapons at a different target as desired." You're literally making that argument.

 SRSFACE wrote:
That's not what we're told we must. That's what you infer is the proper way to do it.

Errr, that's exactly what we're told to do. You cannot have an additional rule without something to add to, not can you have an exception without having something for it to be an exception to. You must read the Gargantuan Creature rules with the Monstrous Creature rules in mind.

But it means you're literally arguing an explicit rule saying "You may fire each of it's weapons at a different target as desired" doesn't mean "You man fire each of it's weapons at a different target as desired." You're literally making that argument.

You're taking the sentence out of context.

Loving this thread.

For the people thinking that 'each' means 'all' weapons, consider the saying 'each and every'. Which means each without exception, which is the wording they should have used if they meant 'any and all' weapons.

It's not even ambigous, only your minds make it so.

If "fire each of it's weapons at different target" is a rule that can be followed, then it supercedes the restriction of weapons, because we're told we have additional rules to follow.

You're literally arguing I can't run a rule the way it's phrased.

And no, we're not told "put sentences together." We're told it uses X rules with the additions of Y and Z, one of which happens to be "fire each of it's weapons at different targets as desired" which is a rule we can also follow that means something different than "can fire up to two weapons."

You guys would make terrible lawyers.

 SRSFACE wrote:
If "fire each of it's weapons at different target" is a rule that can be followed, then it supercedes the restriction of weapons, because we're told we have additional rules to follow.

You're literally arguing I can't run a rule the way it's phrased.

Um, no. The only superseding that occurs is "may fire... at a different target" over "must... fire both at the same target". You're literally reading a rule's phrasing while putting its context aside.

And no, we're not told "put sentences together." We're told it uses X rules with the additions of Y and Z, one of which happens to be "fire each of it's weapons at different targets as desired" which is a rule we can also follow that means something different than "can fire up to two weapons."

It is impossible to read the Gargantuan Creature rules without reference to what the Monstrous Creature rules say as a basis, so yes, we need to read them together. Running the sentence sequentially as a single quote was meant to be illustrative, not definitive.

You guys would make terrible lawyers.

I'm doubtful you've any actual qualification or experience to base your opinion on, but I am in fact actually a very capable practitioner in the legal industry.

 SRSFACE wrote:
If "fire each of it's weapons at different target" is a rule that can be followed, then it supercedes the restriction of weapons, because we're told we have additional rules to follow.

You're literally arguing I can't run a rule the way it's phrased.

And no, we're not told "put sentences together." We're told it uses X rules with the additions of Y and Z, one of which happens to be "fire each of it's weapons at different targets as desired" which is a rule we can also follow that means something different than "can fire up to two weapons."

You guys would make terrible lawyers.

Quick question for you, do these 2 phrases have the same permission, for you:
- it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired
- it may fire each of its weapons if desired

What does the 1st statement allow, and what does the second statement allow?

One allows you to fire each of it's weapons at a different target, and one allows you to fire each of it's weapons. Both allow you to fire each of it's weapons, but one additionally allows you to fire it at different targets.

You're literally asking "are you allowed to do what you're told you're allowed to do." You have to see how asinine that is in the concept of rules of a game. Or just, like, basic functional human logic, or the trappings of language.

This isn't complicated. Your argument is directly saying the BRB rule that more specific rules supercede basic rules, as well as the Gargantuan Creature rule that gives us additional rules over Monstrous Creatures, suddenly no longer matter. You're telling me I can't follow the more specific rule, even after being told we have additonal/exceptional new rules to follow, TWICE. I don't know how much more clear it needs to be made.

And the worst part is, you're the ones saying I'm taking things out of context, while you're taking things out of context.

 SRSFACE wrote:
One allows you to fire each of it's weapons at a different target, and one allows you to fire each of it's weapons. Both allow you to fire each of it's weapons, but one additionally allows you to fire it at different targets.

You're literally asking "are you allowed to do what you're told you're allowed to do." You have to see how asinine that is in the concept of rules of a game. Or just, like, basic functional human logic, or the trappings of language.

This isn't complicated. Your argument is directly saying the BRB rule that more specific rules supercede basic rules, as well as the Gargantuan Creature rule that gives us additional rules over Monstrous Creatures, suddenly no longer matter. You're telling me I can't follow the more specific rule, even after being told we have additonal/exceptional new rules to follow, TWICE. I don't know how much more clear it needs to be made.

And the worst part is, you're the ones saying I'm taking things out of context, while you're taking things out of context.

The only part of the MC rules for shooting that are superceded by the additional GC rules is the requirement to fire the 2 weapons that are permitted to fire at the samestarget. The GC rules are simply now allowing you to fire each of those 2 weapons at different targets if you desire.

It's only when you incorrectly start taking the GC rules in isolation and therefore out of context (as you are) that problems arise. It means you then start assuming that you can ignore the MC shooting rules entirely and that "each" weapon means "all of its weapons", which has no basis in RAW.

 SRSFACE wrote:
One allows you to fire each of it's weapons at a different target, and one allows you to fire each of it's weapons. Both allow you to fire each of it's weapons, but one additionally allows you to fire it at different targets.

You're literally asking "are you allowed to do what you're told you're allowed to do." You have to see how asinine that is in the concept of rules of a game. Or just, like, basic functional human logic, or the trappings of language.

This isn't complicated. Your argument is directly saying the BRB rule that more specific rules supercede basic rules, as well as the Gargantuan Creature rule that gives us additional rules over Monstrous Creatures, suddenly no longer matter. You're telling me I can't follow the more specific rule, even after being told we have additonal/exceptional new rules to follow, TWICE. I don't know how much more clear it needs to be made.

And the worst part is, you're the ones saying I'm taking things out of context, while you're taking things out of context.

"One allows you to fire each of it's weapons at a different target, and one allows you to fire each of it's weapons"
Correct.
"Both allow you to fire each of it's weapons, but one additionally allows you to fire it at different targets"
How do you reach this (incorrect) conclusion?

Both of them are 1 phrase, 1 permission.

If i tell you:
- You may drive each of your cars when it rains.

Is that permission for you to drive every single car?
Clearly, it is only something you are allowed to do when it rains. If 1 of your cars is being in fixed and your friend currently has 1 of your cars (so you only have 1 car left), then the permission above is that, when it rains, you can drive the 1 car left, even though you have 3.

- it may fire each of its weapons if desired

permission to fire the weapons (would override the MC limit of 2)

- it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired

The sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire.

The limit of "2" still stands from previous rules.

 BlackTalos wrote:

- it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired

The sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire.

The limit of "2" still stands from previous rules.

this is 100% correct.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

- it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired

The sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire.

The limit of "2" still stands from previous rules.

this is 100% correct.

Why is it so hard to understand that it is doing both

 CrownAxe wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

- it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired

The sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire.

The limit of "2" still stands from previous rules.

this is 100% correct.

Why is it so hard to understand that it is doing both

Because the language is ambiguous.

Like the old joke about a hungry man finding a genie in a lamp and asking the genie, "Make me a sandwich" after which the genie turns the man into a sandwich.

For rules to be free of ambiguity, some small amount of effort must be made to actually avoid ambiguity. A task which GW seems to take great delight in avoiding.

 BlackTalos wrote:


"One allows you to fire each of it's weapons at a different target, and one allows you to fire each of it's weapons"
Correct.
"Both allow you to fire each of it's weapons, but one additionally allows you to fire it at different targets"
How do you reach this (incorrect) conclusion?

Both of them are 1 phrase, 1 permission.

Do you need me to go get a 3rd grade English teacher to come teach you how sentence structure works? I'm literally repeating the sentences word for word, and somehow, reading the sentence as it's written is incorrect? Also, where in god's name is there a rule saying 1 phrase can only give 1 permission?

I didn't bother to read the rest of your post because your working on several faulty assumptions. You're not taking rules at face value.

We're given rule A (MC rules), and then rule B (gargantuan creature rules) and then within rule be, we find rule C (may fire each of their weapons at different targets if desired.

Rule A says one thing. Rule B says we use rule A, with additions and exceptions. Rule C is an exception, and therefore, for the sake of what it can shoot, supplants Rule A. If following Rule C as it's written contradicts rule A, when we're told by Rule B we've got permission via additions and exceptions, then Rule C is the rule that should be followed.

You keep pretending like it's a rule that can't be followed in the absence of Rule A. You follow the new rule, because we're told you need to follow the new rule.

Quit throwing out the context of the rule about additions and exceptions, and you'll come to the same conclusion I am. Unless you want to just be pedantic and whinge and think you're right even though a guy on the internet is showing you that you're actually not right. I guess you can throw a temper tantrum if you want to. No sweat off my back.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

- it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired

The sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire.

The limit of "2" still stands from previous rules.

this is 100% correct.

Why is it so hard to understand that it is doing both

because it isnt.

There is nothing in the GC rules that override the only fire 2 weapons clause in the MC rules.

The only point of contention here is whether the rule is an "addition" or an "exception". The GC rules clearly say that they are MCs with the following addition and exceptions...

If the sentence, "may fire each of its weapons at different targets" is an addition, then only 2 weapons can be fired since it doesn't override the MC rule of 2 guns.

However, most people I have spoken to, read the rule as an "exception". Meaning that we can forget that the MC rule exists and solely go by the new sentence, "may fire each of its weapons at different targets". If read as an exception, it is pretty clear that this means ALL of its weapons, since it does not mention anywhere about only firing 2 weapons (remember an exception means: forget what came previously)

Unfortunately, no one here seems to agree if the rule is an "addition" to the MC rules, of an "exception".

So, according to BlackTalos that is:

Monsterous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each shooting phase - they must, of coruse, fire both at the same target. They may never go to ground, voluntarily or otherwise.

1) MC permission to fire 2 weapons

Gargantuan Creatures are Monsterous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below

2) GCs using MC rules with some additions

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

3) GCs permission to fire all weapons they have at different targets, plus permission to ignore ordnance restrictions, plus restriction on overwatch

There has been ample arguing about grammar in this thread. I believe that may be because of how the key sentence is written:
When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired.

This is very similiar to something we may unconsciously read by adding a pause in our head, which makes it go like this:
When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons, at a different target if desired.

Small change, big effect. Unfortunately, the comma is not there in the rule. Therefore I'll have to agree with the RAW view of Blacktalos.


In my opinion, the author of the GC bits in the BRB did some creative editing when copying the Apocalypse rule to the BRB and messed it up in the process.
Striking out redundant parts of the Apocalypse rule, e.g. the fluff in brackets and the every turn bit (since that is how all shooting weapons work by default) we get this:

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

This is almost exactly what we have in the current rule and is the logical source for GC rules for the 7th rule book. Botched editing is the only logical explanation why the "each of the GCs weapons" is even in the rule even though it's irrelevant RAW. Until now GCs were few in number and seldomly used, therefore it is quite plausible that nobody noticed that the 7th Ed. RAW was changed from previous RAW and RAI.

HIWPI is therefore following the apocalypse rule, similar to how we still use 6th edition rules to move around in ruins because it was too much work to copy paste those.

 Stephanius wrote:
There has been ample arguing about grammar in this thread. I believe that may be because of how the key sentence is written:
When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired.

This is very similiar to something we may unconsciously read by adding a pause in our head, which makes it go like this:
When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons, at a different target if desired.

This I agree is the issue, and I would entirely agree with the reasoning the other way if there were a comma, or an "and" or similar. But of course as you say there is not.

So editions upon editions of rules where Gargantuan Creatures can fire all their weapons, rules that tell you to use additions and exceptions, rules that tell you more specific rules when they're presented...

Matter less to your ability to functionally read rules than a simple comma?

There are no words to describe what I'm feeling right now.

Are you suggesting the following two sentences are semantically the same, then?

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

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

I'd also ask that you please try to keep calm. You've bandied words about whinging about some guy on the internet but it appears that you're the one losing your cool over some guy on the internet here.

If you can't keep your cool during an internet forum discussion about the rules of a game of plastic toy soliders then in fact you, good sir, would make a terrible lawyer

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Are you suggesting the following two sentences are semantically the same, then?

Yes.

 SRSFACE wrote:
So editions upon editions of rules where Gargantuan Creatures can fire all their weapons, rules that tell you to use additions and exceptions, rules that tell you more specific rules when they're presented...

Matter less to your ability to functionally read rules than a simple comma?

There are no words to describe what I'm feeling right now.

Hey, if that helps, the missing comma is only more important because this is a RAW discussion. Nobody claimed (yet) that this is RAI.

 SRSFACE wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

Again, "each" can literally mean the two it was previously given an allowance to fire. ie: I am allowed to fire 2 weapons, each weapon may target a different unit.

CAN mean that, but doesn't, in the sense of previously established rule.

@Ghaz:

I love that the usual RAW guys are the ones reading between the lines here now, because it suits them. Welcome to being ignored.

I am not arguing one side over the other. I am, however, pointing out that, linguistically, both readings are correct. Because, we are told to use the monstrous creatures rules, meaning 2 weapons at different targets. But it can also be read to mean all weapons. There is literally no concrete, definitive, be all end all statement that can prove it either way without having a member of the GW rules development team post here, or an FAQ is created.

Using a previously established rules is pointless, they change rules on a whim. Using the idea of previously established rules would leave Rapid Fire weapons firing once at 12" if a unit moves, twice up to 12" or once up to the range of the weapon if the model remains stationary. Or Fire Dragons being a move or fire weapon as established all the way back in Rouge Trader. Forget anything printed prior to this edition, as rules can and do change from previous iterations.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

Using a previously established rules is pointless, they change rules on a whim.

I meant previously established rule as in the one that says "with the following additions and exceptions listed below."

 SRSFACE wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

Using a previously established rules is pointless, they change rules on a whim.

I meant previously established rule as in the one that says "with the following additions and exceptions listed below."

I don't see a removal of the 2 weapon restriction from the MC rules. Aside from those that claim "each" equals "all" which, as I have pointed out, is not necessarily true. You read it as an exception, I read it as an addition. I am not saying you are wrong, because you CAN be right, however, so can I. The linguistics of it, when you read both rules together, also work the way the 2 weapon group is stating. The rule really needs a clarification from the source to end this debate.

I also would like to point out, again, the Wraith Knight ppm, and state that this low cost is due to the limit of 2 weapons as compared to Super Heavy vehicles that are allowed to fire them all, and cost more. Unless I missed one somewhere, the WK is the first actual GC written for 7th edition.

They probably meant to say something akin to, abilities/rules that affect a MC also affect a GC in the same manner. With the obvious exceptions of course.

 SRSFACE wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Are you suggesting the following two sentences are semantically the same, then?

Yes.

A panda walks into a café. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons.

"Why?" asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"Well, I'm a panda," he says. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry in the manual and, sure enough, finds an explanation. "Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 SRSFACE wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

Using a previously established rules is pointless, they change rules on a whim.

I meant previously established rule as in the one that says "with the following additions and exceptions listed below."

I don't see a removal of the 2 weapon restriction from the MC rules. Aside from those that claim "each" equals "all" which, as I have pointed out, is not necessarily true. You read it as an exception, I read it as an addition. I am not saying you are wrong, because you CAN be right, however, so can I. The linguistics of it, when you read both rules together, also work the way the 2 weapon group is stating. The rule really needs a clarification from the source to end this debate.

I also would like to point out, again, the Wraith Knight ppm, and state that this low cost is due to the limit of 2 weapons as compared to Super Heavy vehicles that are allowed to fire them all, and cost more. Unless I missed one somewhere, the WK is the first actual GC written for 7th edition.

They probably meant to say something akin to, abilities/rules that affect a MC also affect a GC in the same manner. With the obvious exceptions of course.

The Tyranid Bio-Titan uses the same rules. The odds are im favour of this being an editing mistake rather than a deliberate change. The WK as GC is unlikely to be a factor considering the publishing timeline.

Each still means all. If you put the sentences together like Mr. Shine has been doing, you end up with a sentence that directly contradicts the one before it.

Are we really going to get into a debate about the Oxford comma?

 Stephanius wrote:
So, according to BlackTalos that is:

Monsterous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each shooting phase - they must, of coruse, fire both at the same target. They may never go to ground, voluntarily or otherwise.

1) MC permission to fire 2 weapons

Gargantuan Creatures are Monsterous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below

2) GCs using MC rules with some additions

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

3) GCs permission to fire all weapons they have at different targets, plus permission to ignore ordnance restrictions, plus restriction on overwatch

There has been ample arguing about grammar in this thread. I believe that may be because of how the key sentence is written:
When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired.

This is very similiar to something we may unconsciously read by adding a pause in our head, which makes it go like this:
When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons, at a different target if desired.

Small change, big effect. Unfortunately, the comma is not there in the rule. Therefore I'll have to agree with the RAW view of Blacktalos.


In my opinion, the author of the GC bits in the BRB did some creative editing when copying the Apocalypse rule to the BRB and messed it up in the process.
Striking out redundant parts of the Apocalypse rule, e.g. the fluff in brackets and the every turn bit (since that is how all shooting weapons work by default) we get this:

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

This is almost exactly what we have in the current rule and is the logical source for GC rules for the 7th rule book. Botched editing is the only logical explanation why the "each of the GCs weapons" is even in the rule even though it's irrelevant RAW. Until now GCs were few in number and seldomly used, therefore it is quite plausible that nobody noticed that the 7th Ed. RAW was changed from previous RAW and RAI.

HIWPI is therefore following the apocalypse rule, similar to how we still use 6th edition rules to move around in ruins because it was too much work to copy paste those.

Very well described !
I'd point out that i also agree with you by HIWPI and that the rule should be re-written , as it was in Apocalypse.

Your quote above even points out something new to me, for the RaW:
"Monsterous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each shooting phase - they must, of course, fire both at the same target."

The underlined here is what the GCs RaW is "replacing" with the rule. If the comma you added existed, then it would also modify the first section of that rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SRSFACE wrote:
Each still means all. If you put the sentences together like Mr. Shine has been doing, you end up with a sentence that directly contradicts the one before it.

Are we really going to get into a debate about the Oxford comma?

No, we've all been trying to show you how these phrases actually have different meanings, due to their context, because context is important:

A) "it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired"
B) "it may fire each of its weapons"

or

A) "it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired"
B) "it may fire each of its weapons, at a different target if desired"

Because those phrases are all structurally different.
The current permission presented by the phrase: "it may fire each of its weapons" is not to be taken out of context: It contains a specific, related, and influencing addition: "at a different target if desired"
This addition is part of the phrase and modifies the context of the permission, specifically:
The sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire. (Thanks again Ghaz)

That missing comma (and it's not an Oxford comma) is really making the difference here, so I would agree with RaW = 2 weapons at different targets.

This is ridiculous that this argument is still going on. Here is the simple answer: GW meant for GCs to be able to fire all of their weapons. If they didn't, then the words "each of" is entirely superfluous. They could have written the sentence without those words completely, and THEN it would mean that they could only fire their already defined 2 weapons at different targets. The difference is this:

When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire its weapons at a different targets if desired.

But they didn't write it that way, which would have been the way it was written by someone who was thinking about there being a 2 weapon limit, if it was intended that they keep that limit. Instead, they wrote:

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

"Each of", in this context, clearly means "all", as it was a completely unnecessary word otherwise.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
This is ridiculous that this argument is still going on. Here is the simple answer: GW meant for GCs to be able to fire all of their weapons. If they didn't, then the words "each of" is entirely superfluous. They could have written the sentence without those words completely, and THEN it would mean that they could only fire their already defined 2 weapons at different targets. The difference is this:

When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire its weapons at a different targets if desired.

But they didn't write it that way, which would have been the way it was written by someone who was thinking about there being a 2 weapon limit, if it was intended that they keep that limit. Instead, they wrote:

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

"Each of", in this context, clearly means "all", as it was a completely unnecessary word otherwise.

I agree with your example and ruling, the original GW intent looks like it was supposed to mean all weapons. I don't have the new codex in front of me, but somebody also told me the WK profile lists it as only a Gargantuan Jump creature. Is it also still mentioned as a monstrous creature?

At this point it's a lot of rules lawyering and picking apart the grammar. I feel like we've all spent wayyyy more time and thought on this than ever GW did.

 clamclaw wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
This is ridiculous that this argument is still going on. Here is the simple answer: GW meant for GCs to be able to fire all of their weapons. If they didn't, then the words "each of" is entirely superfluous. They could have written the sentence without those words completely, and THEN it would mean that they could only fire their already defined 2 weapons at different targets. The difference is this:

When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire its weapons at a different targets if desired.

But they didn't write it that way, which would have been the way it was written by someone who was thinking about there being a 2 weapon limit, if it was intended that they keep that limit. Instead, they wrote:

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

"Each of", in this context, clearly means "all", as it was a completely unnecessary word otherwise.

I agree with your example and ruling, the original GW intent looks like it was supposed to mean all weapons. I don't have the new codex in front of me, but somebody also told me the WK profile lists it as only a Gargantuan Jump creature. Is it also still mentioned as a monstrous creature?

At this point it's a lot of rules lawyering and picking apart the grammar. I feel like we've all spent wayyyy more time and thought on this than ever GW did.

Yes, but that's almost always the case, since the GW rules authors have found a way to write rules without ever thinking about anything at all (especially not rules).

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
This is ridiculous that this argument is still going on. Here is the simple answer: GW meant for GCs to be able to fire all of their weapons. If they didn't, then the words "each of" is entirely superfluous. They could have written the sentence without those words completely, and THEN it would mean that they could only fire their already defined 2 weapons at different targets. The difference is this:

When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire its weapons at a different targets if desired.

But they didn't write it that way, which would have been the way it was written by someone who was thinking about there being a 2 weapon limit, if it was intended that they keep that limit. Instead, they wrote:

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

"Each of", in this context, clearly means "all", as it was a completely unnecessary word otherwise.

No, because "it may fire its weapons at a different target" is not specific enough to split up ALL the weapons.

If they wrote it that way, you would be forced to fire all of your weapons at this same "different target", which is different from what? Other models in the MC's Unit? It is just too vague and would make no sense as a Rule...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"This is ridiculous that this argument is still going on. Here is the simple answer:"

Gargantuan Creatures are Monsterous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below

"Monsterous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each shooting phase - they must, of course, fire both at the same target."

This Rule:"When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired"
is an additional rule that give an exception to what i have highlighted in the Monstrous Creature rule.

It is, indeed, very simple.

 BlackTalos wrote:

"Monsterous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each shooting phase - they must, of course, fire both at the same target."

This Rule:"When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired"
is an additional rule that give an exception to what i have highlighted in the Monstrous Creature rule.

It is, indeed, very simple.

The problem is whether it is an addition, OR an exception. If it is an addition, there is no issue and the "comma" doesn't matter at all. MC can fire 2 weapons, GC can fire 2, each at different targets.

If it is an exception, then we ignore any references that came before and read the sentence as a stand-alone statement. GC can fire each (meaning all) weapons at different targets.

Unforntunately, GW has not clarified whether the rule is an addition or exception. It can be correctly read as either. Therefore an FAQ is needed and until then (read: never) discuss with your opponent before each game.


-

 Galef wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

"Monsterous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each shooting phase - they must, of course, fire both at the same target."

This Rule:"When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired"
is an additional rule that give an exception to what i have highlighted in the Monstrous Creature rule.

It is, indeed, very simple.

The problem is whether it is an addition, OR an exception. If it is an addition, there is no issue and the "comma" doesn't matter at all. MC can fire 2 weapons, GC can fire 2, each at different targets.

If it is an exception, then we ignore any references that came before and read the sentence as a stand-alone statement. GC can fire each (meaning all) weapons at different targets.

Unforntunately, GW has not clarified whether the rule is an addition or exception. It can be correctly read as either. Therefore an FAQ is needed and until then (read: never) discuss with your opponent before each game.
-

And that is what so many have been trying to explain so far: It can only be an exception if there is a conflict between the original Rules, and the "advanced Rules".

It is an exception:
MCs "must fire both at the same target". A gargantuan has the exception that "it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired".
Therefore the rule is an exception regarding what you can target with your weapons.

But the sentence cannot, at the same time, give information on how many weapons you can fire.
Unless, as many have put forward, you add some sort of conjunction to the phrase, giving it 2 meanings combined into 1. (Such as a comma or "and"...) Which is why the entire discussion does indeed rest on the English Grammar, and how phrase construction works.

You are assuming that the "exception" is only to a section of the rule (the part you have underlined in orange). It can easily be read as an exception to the rule in its entirety, meaning that it replaces the "2 weapons" part.

I am not saying that this IS correct, but that it CAN be correct. Both interpretations can be correct, but conflict with each other.

Does this issue affect any model other than the WK?

 Galef wrote:
You are assuming that the "exception" is only to a section of the rule (the part you have underlined in orange). It can easily be read as an exception to the rule in its entirety, meaning that it replaces the "2 weapons" part.

I am not saying that this IS correct, but that it CAN be correct. Both interpretations can be correct, but conflict with each other.

Does this issue affect any model other than the WK?

1) It affect all Gargantuans, but the WK is the main one with "more than 2 primary weapons and want to use all of them"

2)I'm not assuming anything past reading the RaW: "it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired".
That phrase only refers to whether or not you can select multiple targets with each of the weapons you fired.
It does not refer to how many weapons you are allowed to fire.

As such, it only conflicts with the MC Rules about what targets you may select to fire at.

And as i have argued many "can be read 2 ways" arguments before, it does not seem to me like this is one of them. It is simply a misunderstanding of the construction of the rule i have just quoted.
I feel like i'm really starting to repeat myself here, but the qualifier "at a different target" is not an additional permission to one that already exists. You cannot separate it from the Action of that phrase: "it may fire each of its weapons"
You just cannot separate them, and take each as a Rule in a vacuum. They are 1 phrase, constructed without interruption as 1 statement, and provide 1 permission to the Game.

I could do the same with multiple other Rules:

Furious Charge: In a turn in which a model with this special rule charges into combat, it adds +1 to its Strength characteristic until the end of the Assault phase.

So, can i say "it adds +1 to its Strength characteristic" is a Rule for my model? Or is "until the end of the Assault phase" a Specification for the Rule?

Hatred: A model striking a hated foe in close combat re-rolls all failed To Hit rolls during the first round of each close combat.

So, can i say "re-rolls all failed To Hit rolls" is a Rule for my model? Or is "during the first round of each close combat" a Specification for the Rule?

Master-crafted: Weapons with the Master-crafted special rule allow the bearer to re-roll one failed roll To Hit per turn with that weapon.

So, can i say "allow the bearer to re-roll one failed roll To Hit per turn" is a Rule for my model? Or is "with that weapon" a Specification for the Rule?

They are all the same: a Specific permission that must be read as a whole. You cannot just read "it may fire each of its weapons" and find permission to fire more weapons than what you were restricted to...

I still don't see how that makes the "replaces the whole rule" interpretation invalid. Which is sad, because your argument is very well thought out and logical. I agree 100% that your interpretation is correct. But I can also agree that it replaces the 2 weapons limitation as well.

However, when I first read the rule, I read it as replacing the entire MC shooting section, not just the phrase about shooting both weapons at the same target. Clearly many other players still read it this way. I went through the process of magnetizing the shoulder guns on my WK. Now I have doubts that effort was even worth it.

If you can only fire 2 weapons, then there is no point in upgrading a WK to the shoulder weapons, unless you are fielding the Sword/shield variant. This is going to cause so many arguments and further fuel the flames of Eldar hate

 Galef wrote:


If you can only fire 2 weapons, then there is no point in upgrading a WK to the shoulder weapons, unless you are fielding the Sword/shield variant.

Well. you might want to shoot 8 shots, instead of 2...

Not worth 30pts for the "option" to not use the D shots. The standard WK does not have an invul, so you are bringing him for the D. Otherwise the Suncannon or D-glaive WKs are much better options.

haha, this is hilarious....

glad my WK is only going to have a suncannon and a single scatter laser, I'll be fine with either interpretation.

Yeah, I probably wont bother with the shoulder weapons just so I can avoid this issue entirely

Captyn_Bob wrote:

 Galef wrote:


If you can only fire 2 weapons, then there is no point in upgrading a WK to the shoulder weapons, unless you are fielding the Sword/shield variant.

Well. you might want to shoot 8 shots, instead of 2...

While both these statements are true, consider that the same weapon options were valid with the previous Eldar codex, while the WK was an MC and could most definitely only fire two weapons.

As a funny aside, I've been building my first Iyanden lists following the new codex, one for a 2000 point game and another for an upcomming 4000 point game.
I find that I'd rather go without WK shoulder weapons even assuming my opponent would be fine with me firing all my GC has. Simply because there are better things to spent the points on. ;-]

The big advantage, of course, being that if I have a third weapon, I can shoot Wcannon A at 1 target, Wcannon B at another, and the Scatter laser at a third target. If both Wcannons obliterate their targets, I still have a valid assault option.

 Galef wrote:
The big advantage, of course, being that if I have a third weapon, I can shoot Wcannon A at 1 target, Wcannon B at another, and the Scatter laser at a third target. If both Wcannons obliterate their targets, I still have a valid assault option.

Granted, the same function the IK's stubber has.
However, the WK has approx 20% chance to kill a 3 HP/LP target with its heavy wraith cannons. That is assuming the target isn't eligible for a cover save. With both cannons at once I assume a 4% chance.

Just like a helldrake back before castration, popping a transport and then rear BBQing the transport content, it can happen, but it is not very likely.

 BlackTalos wrote:


No, we've all been trying to show you how these phrases actually have different meanings, due to their context, because context is important:

But they don't. You keep insinuating this. And you're wrong, definitively.

Go consult the AP writing style guide, or the MLA writing style guide. Go talk to a English professors. Go talk to news editors. Please. You guys keep saying things that aren't true, and are asserting them as though they are. It's egregious. You guys want there to be extra commas, as though that changes the meaning. It doesn't change the meaning like you say it does according to the people who literally create the style guides on how to write the English language. The fact you're confused is your fault for not understanding how the language is written. Quit blaming that on Games Workshop. Own up to it. If you wanted to add unnecessary commas and were writing a novel, it'd be a stylistic choice on your end.

You guys keep trying to say it doesn't overwrite the 2 MC weapon firing restriction, but it does. If I follow the rule and fire each of my weapons at different targets, I'm firing more than two weapons. That is an exception to the MC rule. We're explicitly told to follow the additions and exceptions in the Gargantuan Creature rules. If it reads like a rule that can be followed, and it contradicts a former rule, but we're told there's additions and exceptions, the rule is an exception that needs to be followed.

If I fire all 4 weapons off a Gargantuan Creature that has 4 weapons, and I do that all at different targets if desired, am I "firing each of it's weapons at different targets if desired?" The answer is obviously yes. Doing exactly what something says to do is doing exactly what something says to do. The snozzberries taste like snozzberries. Captain Obvious is Captain Obvious.

Is that an exception to how Monstrous Creatures are worded? Yes. We're told to use the exceptions listed below. Therefore, you may fire each of your Gargantuan Creatures weapons at different targets if desired.

Coming back to a legalistic perspective, to have any weight there you'd need to prove the rules were written on the basis of following either the AP or MLA style guides, and you'd also need to provide a specific reference to where either guide tells us it works how you claim - "It says so in the book" is a useless argument.

Considering also that earlier you made a comment about turning this into a debate over the Oxford/serial comma, which is totally irrelevant to this situaiton, I seriously doubt your authority on the matter...


...but now we're arguing things completely removed from the rules. I really do think we're done here.

 SRSFACE wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:


No, we've all been trying to show you how these phrases actually have different meanings, due to their context, because context is important:

But they don't. You keep insinuating this. And you're wrong, definitively.

Go consult the AP writing style guide, or the MLA writing style guide. Go talk to a English professors. Go talk to news editors. Please. You guys keep saying things that aren't true, and are asserting them as though they are. It's egregious. You guys want there to be extra commas, as though that changes the meaning. It doesn't change the meaning like you say it does according to the people who literally create the style guides on how to write the English language. The fact you're confused is your fault for not understanding how the language is written. Quit blaming that on Games Workshop. Own up to it. If you wanted to add unnecessary commas and were writing a novel, it'd be a stylistic choice on your end.

You guys keep trying to say it doesn't overwrite the 2 MC weapon firing restriction, but it does. If I follow the rule and fire each of my weapons at different targets, I'm firing more than two weapons. That is an exception to the MC rule. We're explicitly told to follow the additions and exceptions in the Gargantuan Creature rules. If it reads like a rule that can be followed, and it contradicts a former rule, but we're told there's additions and exceptions, the rule is an exception that needs to be followed.

If I fire all 4 weapons off a Gargantuan Creature that has 4 weapons, and I do that all at different targets if desired, am I "firing each of it's weapons at different targets if desired?" The answer is obviously yes. Doing exactly what something says to do is doing exactly what something says to do. The snozzberries taste like snozzberries. Captain Obvious is Captain Obvious.

Is that an exception to how Monstrous Creatures are worded? Yes. We're told to use the exceptions listed below. Therefore, you may fire each of your Gargantuan Creatures weapons at different targets if desired.

I just talked to an English Professor. I suppose that means whatever I write next is correct.

Anyways, you continue to take the rules out of context.

Paraphrased... "You can fire two weapons. You can fire each weapon at a different target." We use context to figure out what "each weapon" means. In this context, each refers to the weapons that you are firing. How many weapons are you allowed to fire? You're allowed to fire two weapons. Therefore, you can fire each of the two weapons you are firing at different targets.

Play it however you want, dude. Live the dream. There is no explicit permission to fire more than two weapons. At best, you have an ambiguous permission that requires taking a rule out of context.

Oh yeah, for the record I also studied linguistics and English language teaching at university, and have worked as an English language teacher (in the linguistic sense, rather than say the Shakespearean).

I'm not an English professor or a news editor (I'm not sure what relevance that'd have, though I've worked for several years for the New Zealand Ministry of Justice as a court reporter too!) but I think that suggests I have some clue of how to wield the English language.

 SRSFACE wrote:
You guys want there to be extra commas, as though that changes the meaning. It doesn't change the meaning like you say it does according to the people who literally create the style guides on how to write the English language.

So you're saying that the following two statements mean the same thing?

Let's eat Grandma!
Let's eat, Grandma!

Just trying to understand this as I did quite poorly in High School English.

People telling me I'm taking something out of context, while I'm the only one actually utilizing all the context, continues to remain the funniest thing that's ever happened on this site.

Enjoy being wrong.

Yikes. Bitter much?

 SRSFACE wrote:
People telling me I'm taking something out of context, while I'm the only one actually utilizing all the context, continues to remain the funniest thing that's ever happened on this site.

Enjoy being wrong.

The funniest thing is that you don't realise/can't admit that you're taking the GC rules out of context. You're ignoring the shooting rules for MCs, which need to be read in conjunction with those for GC.

 Galef wrote:
then there is no point in upgrading a WK to the shoulder weapons, unless you are fielding the Sword/shield variant.

Which would make a lot of sense actually, eldar are not the "Full Dakka" type, that's best left to the Orks and SH Walkers
Thanks for that insight, telling a WK player "they're probably meant for the Melee type, as you can only fire 2 weapons" is much better than "You can only fire 2, you're wrong" lol

 SRSFACE wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:


No, we've all been trying to show you how these phrases actually have different meanings, due to their context, because context is important:

But they don't. You keep insinuating this. And you're wrong, definitively.

Well, at least i tried explaining it. And you don't support your claim much past:

 SRSFACE wrote:
If I follow the rule and fire each of my weapons at different targets, I'm firing more than two weapons.[...] We're explicitly told to follow the additions and exceptions in the Gargantuan Creature rules. If it reads like a rule that can be followed, and it contradicts a former rule, but we're told there's additions and exceptions, the rule is an exception that needs to be followed.

[...] The answer is obviously yes. Doing exactly what something says to do is doing exactly what something says to do. The snozzberries taste like snozzberries. Captain Obvious is Captain Obvious.

Which i can summarise as saying:

"That's what the Rule tells me to do" (Not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's how i've just read your post)

I'm not actually asking you what that rule says. I'm asking you to explain WHY you would think it "says so". Just as I tried to explain previously:

 BlackTalos wrote:
2)I'm not assuming anything past reading the RaW: "it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired".
That phrase only refers to whether or not you can select multiple targets with each of the weapons you fired.
It does not refer to how many weapons you are allowed to fire.

As such, it only conflicts with the MC Rules about what targets you may select to fire at.

And as i have argued many "can be read 2 ways" arguments before, it does not seem to me like this is one of them. It is simply a misunderstanding of the construction of the rule i have just quoted.
I feel like i'm really starting to repeat myself here, but the qualifier "at a different target" is not an additional permission to one that already exists. You cannot separate it from the Action of that phrase: "it may fire each of its weapons"
You just cannot separate them, and take each as a Rule in a vacuum. They are 1 phrase, constructed without interruption as 1 statement, and provide 1 permission to the Game.

I could do the same with multiple other Rules:

Furious Charge: In a turn in which a model with this special rule charges into combat, it adds +1 to its Strength characteristic until the end of the Assault phase.

So, can i say "it adds +1 to its Strength characteristic" is a Rule for my model? Or is "until the end of the Assault phase" a Specification for the Rule?

Hatred: A model striking a hated foe in close combat re-rolls all failed To Hit rolls during the first round of each close combat.

So, can i say "re-rolls all failed To Hit rolls" is a Rule for my model? Or is "during the first round of each close combat" a Specification for the Rule?

Master-crafted: Weapons with the Master-crafted special rule allow the bearer to re-roll one failed roll To Hit per turn with that weapon.

So, can i say "allow the bearer to re-roll one failed roll To Hit per turn" is a Rule for my model? Or is "with that weapon" a Specification for the Rule?

They are all the same: a Specific permission that must be read as a whole. You cannot just read "it may fire each of its weapons" and find permission to fire more weapons than what you were restricted to...

Okay I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, or am just really stupid. But the profile for the Wraithknight only lists is as a "jump gargantuan creature". Why is all the discussion for "monstrous creatures" even relevant?

 clamclaw wrote:
Okay I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, or am just really stupid. But the profile for the Wraithknight only lists is as a "jump gargantuan creature". Why is all the discussion for "monstrous creatures" even relevant?

Because the GC rules tell you to follow the MC rules with additional rules and exceptions. What can't be agreed upon is whether the shooting rules are an addition to the MC shooting rules, or if they are an exception to them. If an addition, the GC can only fire 2 weapons and at different targets, if an exception it can fire all weapons at different targets.

The rules can quite literally be read both ways, and be correct linguistically, using both methods. Though some can only see the one way as being correct.

 clamclaw wrote:
Okay I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, or am just really stupid. But the profile for the Wraithknight only lists is as a "jump gargantuan creature". Why is all the discussion for "monstrous creatures" even relevant?

Because of the RaW saying: "Gargantuan Creatures are Monstrous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below. Flying Gargantuan Creatures are Flying Monstrous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below."

How far does a Flying Gargantuan Creature move? What rules do you use?

 megatrons2nd wrote:
The rules can quite literally be read both ways, and be correct linguistically, using both methods. Though some can only see the one way as being correct.

I would really appreciate if you could back up your statement that it can be read both ways. The only one who was properly arguing the language was Stephanius, and he now agrees that it is to be read as 1 permission and not 2.

I am genuinely curious how you read the permission within a permission...?

Guys, I think you've got the secondary RAW argument all wrong.

MC has a basic option for the model to fire up to 2 weapons at a single target.

GC gives an alternative to fire all of its weapons, with a restriction that they must all be fired at different targets.

So a WK with 4 guns can fire up to 2 of them at a single target, but if it does so, it cannot fire the other 2 guns; or, it may instead fire all 4 guns, but it must select 4 different targets to do so.

In a situation in which there are fewer legal targets than a GC has guns, it has to default to the MC limitation of a single target with a maximum of 2 guns.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Guys, I think you've got the secondary RAW argument all wrong.

MC has a basic option for the model to fire up to 2 weapons at a single target.

GC gives an alternative to fire all of its weapons, with a restriction that they must all be fired at different targets.

So a WK with 4 guns can fire up to 2 of them at a single target, but if it does so, it cannot fire the other 2 guns; or, it may instead fire all 4 guns, but it must select 4 different targets to do so.

In a situation in which there are fewer legal targets than a GC has guns, it has to default to the MC limitation of a single target with a maximum of 2 guns.

Although that is just a different (pretty weird) way of seeing the same thing as others do:

"it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired" = "it may fire each of its weapons" (Which is incorrect - when you say "it may instead fire all 4 guns")

As the first sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire. (thanks yet again Ghaz)

Ah, I see. Did not know there was the modifier for the GC profile to include MC rules from the BRB. Thanks!

I suppose FW's Apocolypse updated rules are ignored since they're secondary to GW's ruling? Because I know FW made a point to clarify that all GC's can fire all weapons each turn.

 clamclaw wrote:
I suppose FW's Apocolypse updated rules are ignored since they're secondary to GW's ruling? Because I know FW made a point to clarify that all GC's can fire all weapons each turn.

I think that since they took that same, perfectly fine wording, and modified it, it might indicate that they tried to change the rule.
But for 7th it seems that they tried to shorten everything, so it could also be that....

 BlackTalos wrote:

 clamclaw wrote:
I suppose FW's Apocolypse updated rules are ignored since they're secondary to GW's ruling? Because I know FW made a point to clarify that all GC's can fire all weapons each turn.

I think that since they took that same, perfectly fine wording, and modified it, it might indicate that they tried to change the rule.
But for 7th it seems that they tried to shorten everything, so it could also be that....

Yeah, I wish that sometimes GW would realize a more wordy rule can actually be less confusing than trying to condense every rule to a sentence or two. A fine balance between the two, but in cases like the MC to GC rules it would have been invaluable.

Maybe GW will release an FAQ with a final ruling?

I have an Ulthwe Wraithknight. It's magnetised, but right now it has a heavy wraithcannon, another heavy wraithcannon, a scatter laser and another scatter laser. I painted each of the weapons bone colour. How many weapons did I paint?

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Yep, Superheavy vehicles have permission to fire all of their weapons as per the vehicle rules. GMC have permission to fire up to two weapons as per the MC rules. The additional rules in the superheavy and GMC sections in both cases allow you to fire each weapon that is eligible to fire at different targets. Which for GMC remains 2 weapons that can be fired.

Some people here are trying to argue that "each" means "all" in this case which is clearly incorrect when you actually read the rules in context and not base arguments on the interpretation of a single word trying to gain an illegal advantage.

For the intent why is no one looking at other sources, ie. BRB in another language?

FWIW, I interpret that to mean that while a MC can fire only two weapons at the same target, GMC's expand on this and the rules allow them to fire any number of weapons they have on different targets.

 Bhazakhain wrote:
I have an Ulthwe Wraithknight. It's magnetised, but right now it has a heavy wraithcannon, another heavy wraithcannon, a scatter laser and another scatter laser. I painted each of the weapons bone colour. How many weapons did I paint?

If you only had enough paint for 2 weapons, but you were told: "you may paint each of its weapons in bone colour if desired", how many weapons would you paint?

Remember, the allowance is to paint them "in bone colour" ("at a different target").....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:
For the intent why is no one looking at other sources, ie. BRB in another language?

That could be a good idea.... But i remember that the French Rulebook had a section that had a different meaning to a very clear "English RaW".... So i would not count on it too much
[Edit]:IIRC it was the "select Warlord" section of 6th Edition, where you had the "Warlord has to be chosen from highest Leadership..." section

 Bhazakhain wrote:
I have an Ulthwe Wraithknight. It's magnetised, but right now it has a heavy wraithcannon, another heavy wraithcannon, a scatter laser and another scatter laser. I painted each of the weapons bone colour. How many weapons did I paint?

You painted four. Using context, we know that 'each' refers back to the pre-determined population of four weapons you listed.

Using context in the exact same fashion with the MC/GC situation results in us having a pre-determined population of two firable weapons that the 'each' refers back to.

Thank you for providing an example that perfectly explains why context is so important and why GCs only have permission to fire two weapons, albeit each can be fired at a different target.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Guys, I think you've got the secondary RAW argument all wrong.

MC has a basic option for the model to fire up to 2 weapons at a single target.

GC gives an alternative to fire all of its weapons, with a restriction that they must all be fired at different targets.

So a WK with 4 guns can fire up to 2 of them at a single target, but if it does so, it cannot fire the other 2 guns; or, it may instead fire all 4 guns, but it must select 4 different targets to do so.

In a situation in which there are fewer legal targets than a GC has guns, it has to default to the MC limitation of a single target with a maximum of 2 guns.

Although that is just a different (pretty weird) way of seeing the same thing as others do:

"it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired" = "it may fire each of its weapons" (Which is incorrect - when you say "it may instead fire all 4 guns")

As the first sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire. (thanks yet again Ghaz)

No. You are failing comprehension.
- MC gives option A, limited weapons at single target; -or-.
- GC gives option B, unlimited weapons at completely different targets.
Choose A or B, not both.

"it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired" does not have any limit on number aside from the number of weapons that the model possesses "may fire each of its weapons". The only restriction is that they must each target a different unit "at a different target".

It's not really that different from any other tradeoff in 40k:
A. Fire Heavy weapon at full BS, but cannot move
B. Snap Shot Heavy weapon at BS1, after moving.
Snap Shot grants a new fire mode on the move.

In the MC vs GC example,
A. MC fires 2 weapons at a single target.
B. GC fires X weapons at X different tagets
GC grants a second fire mode that disallows concentration of fire.

It's very balanced, and your interpretation is completely wrong.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Guys, I think you've got the secondary RAW argument all wrong.

MC has a basic option for the model to fire up to 2 weapons at a single target.

GC gives an alternative to fire all of its weapons, with a restriction that they must all be fired at different targets.

So a WK with 4 guns can fire up to 2 of them at a single target, but if it does so, it cannot fire the other 2 guns; or, it may instead fire all 4 guns, but it must select 4 different targets to do so.

In a situation in which there are fewer legal targets than a GC has guns, it has to default to the MC limitation of a single target with a maximum of 2 guns.

Although that is just a different (pretty weird) way of seeing the same thing as others do:

"it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired" = "it may fire each of its weapons" (Which is incorrect - when you say "it may instead fire all 4 guns")

As the first sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire. (thanks yet again Ghaz)

No. You are failing comprehension.
- MC gives option A, limited weapons at single target; -or-.
- GC gives option B, unlimited weapons at completely different targets.
Choose A or B, not both.

"it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired" does not have any limit on number aside from the number of weapons that the model possesses "may fire each of its weapons". The only restriction is that they must each target a different unit "at a different target".

It's not really that different from any other tradeoff in 40k:
A. Fire Heavy weapon at full BS, but cannot move
B. Snap Shot Heavy weapon at BS1, after moving.
Snap Shot grants a new fire mode on the move.

In the MC vs GC example,
A. MC fires 2 weapons at a single target.
B. GC fires X weapons at X different tagets
GC grants a second fire mode that disallows concentration of fire.

It's very balanced, and your interpretation is completely wrong.

I don't think anyone in the thread has mentioned this "Third opinion" before you did, it's either been "all" or "nothing"....

I would ask you consider this rule again, and tell me that it "certainly" points at an "optional change" of the Rules:

Gargantuan Creatures are Monsterous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below

Does the above give you an "Option" of choosing the MC or GMC rules? Because i really cannot see it...?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Scratch that, you are correct.

I CAN see the above as an option..... But i really really doubt that it was RaI lol

GC is an additional rule.

Consider how Jump Pack is an additional rule. Jump Infantry can still A. move as Infantry. But they can also B. move 12" ignoring cover. They can't do both. It's A or B.

I don't read WD for batreps, so I have no idea what RAI is supposed to be. I suppose if GW does a few batreps in which they show a GC with 3+ weapons shooting them all, and concentrating fire, or deliberately spreading fire, that might give a clue.

Otherwise, if we're trying to parse the phrase "it may fire each of its weapons at a different target" under RAW, I can't see how my interpretation doesn't work as a possible valid choice.

Mostly, I just wanted to show how silly the argument had gotten.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 clamclaw wrote:
Okay I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, or am just really stupid. But the profile for the Wraithknight only lists is as a "jump gargantuan creature". Why is all the discussion for "monstrous creatures" even relevant?

Because of the RaW saying: "Gargantuan Creatures are Monstrous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below. Flying Gargantuan Creatures are Flying Monstrous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below."

How far does a Flying Gargantuan Creature move? What rules do you use?

 megatrons2nd wrote:
The rules can quite literally be read both ways, and be correct linguistically, using both methods. Though some can only see the one way as being correct.

I would really appreciate if you could back up your statement that it can be read both ways. The only one who was properly arguing the language was Stephanius, and he now agrees that it is to be read as 1 permission and not 2.

I am genuinely curious how you read the permission within a permission...?

Because, it really does depend on if it is a exception, or an addition. If it is an addition you may fire 2 weapons at up to 2 different targets. If it is an exception, you may fire all weapons at as many targets as you have weapons. There is enough obscurity to the writing to be a valid interpretation either way.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Personal opinions have nothing to do with the RAW.

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

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

The rule as written is that a GC can fire each of its weapons at different targets. The argument that your side is making is: If a GC can fire each of its weapons at different targets, then it can fire each of its weapons. Understood in one sense, the argument is sophistical. In another sense, it's tautologous. Sure. The GC can fire each of its weapons...but each of which of its weapons? Presumably, the ones that it can fire at different targets.

Which weapons are those? Well, the book doesn't tell us. You'll want to say: "each weapon it has." But that's not what the rules say. The last time that the rulebook got specific was a few pages earlier in the MC section, where it told us that MCs can fire up to two weapons in the shooting phase.

Thus, the natural reading, for me, is:

A GC may fire each [of the two] of its weapons [that it's allowed to fire as an MC] at different targets if desired. [I.e,. in addition to being an MC, a GC gains splitfire.]

I believe there is your mistake. You assert that a GMC is also an MC. What the rule tells you is to use GMC rule for shooting instead of the MC rule.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
GC is an additional rule.

Consider how Jump Pack is an additional rule. Jump Infantry can still A. move as Infantry. But they can also B. move 12" ignoring cover. They can't do both. It's A or B.

I don't read WD for batreps, so I have no idea what RAI is supposed to be. I suppose if GW does a few batreps in which they show a GC with 3+ weapons shooting them all, and concentrating fire, or deliberately spreading fire, that might give a clue.

Otherwise, if we're trying to parse the phrase "it may fire each of its weapons at a different target" under RAW, I can't see how my interpretation doesn't work as a possible valid choice.

Mostly, I just wanted to show how silly the argument had gotten.

The thing is, your parsing of the phrase is actually correct grammatically and structurally, just as much as the "limited to 2" is...
But the "can fire all weapons" as a single permission is not. As a summary:

Interpretation 1

MC are limited to 2 weapons, and are limited to 1 target.
Gargantuan rules specify that you can select multiple targets, but do not remove the limit of 2 weapons.

GMC can fire 2 weapons, at different targets.

Interpretation 2

MC are limited to 2 weapons, and are limited to 1 target.
Gargantuan rules specify that you can select multiple targets AND that you may fire all of your weapons.

This is grammatically incorrect, as it separates the context of "at a different target"

Interpretation 3

MC are limited to 2 weapons, and are limited to 1 target.
Gargantuan rules give you an alternative option:
- you may fire each of your weapon at a different target (pretty much "this rule in a vacuum", that you can select "When a [GMC] makes a shooting attack")

This interpretation is also correct in RaW, but i highly doubt the RaI. Not because we have not seen GW play it, but because "separate target" options usually allow you to fire all your weapons at 1 target, but make the split-fire an option.
As this interpretation would force you to choose a different target for all your weapons, i'm questioning it's validity (RaI)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:
I believe there is your mistake. You assert that a GMC is also an MC. What the rule tells you is to use GMC rule for shooting instead of the MC rule.

The thing is, they do not say those Rule replace ("Instead") the MC rules... From the book:

Gargantuan Creatures are Monsterous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below

"additional rules and exceptions" means you have to find conflict, but you do use MC Rules.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
GC is an additional rule.

Consider how Jump Pack is an additional rule. Jump Infantry can still A. move as Infantry. But they can also B. move 12" ignoring cover. They can't do both. It's A or B.

I have no idea what RAI is supposed to be.

Otherwise, if we're trying to parse the phrase "it may fire each of its weapons at a different target" under RAW, I can't see how my interpretation doesn't work as a possible valid choice.

Mostly, I just wanted to show how silly the argument had gotten.

The thing is, your parsing of the phrase is actually correct grammatically and structurally, just as much as the "limited to 2" is...
But the "can fire all weapons" as a single permission is not. As a summary:

Interpretation 1
MC are limited to 2 weapons, and are limited to 1 target.
Gargantuan rules specify that you can select multiple targets, but do not remove the limit of 2 weapons.

GMC can fire 2 weapons, at different targets.

Interpretation 2
MC are limited to 2 weapons, and are limited to 1 target.
Gargantuan rules specify that you can select multiple targets AND that you may fire all of your weapons.

This is grammatically incorrect, as it separates the context of "at a different target"

Interpretation 3
MC are limited to 2 weapons, and are limited to 1 target.
Gargantuan rules give you an alternative option:
- you may fire each of your weapon at a different target (pretty much "this rule in a vacuum", that you can select "When a [GMC] makes a shooting attack")

This interpretation is also correct in RaW, but i highly doubt the RaI. Not because we have not seen GW play it, but because "separate target" options usually allow you to fire all your weapons at 1 target, but make the split-fire an option.
As this interpretation would force you to choose a different target for all your weapons, i'm questioning it's validity (RaI)

WRT, "rule in a vacuum", consider an Eldar Dark Reaper armed with a Missile Launcher *and* a Shuriken Pistol (or SM Dev w/ ML & BP) - in the shooting phase, he has 2 options:
A. fire the Pistol, -or-
B. fire the Heavy Weapon.
The options are mutually exclusive, as the rules do not allow him to fire both. Heavy is in a vacuum relative to Pistol, just an added option.

WRT RAI, I completely agree that #3 is probably not what GW intended; however, #3 is the clearest and most direct interpretation of what GW actually wrote, and has the advantage of being relatively unambiguous. From a RAW standpoint, #3 is far more correct than #2, and much less confusing than #1.

Well this is another 'I'm right' 'No, I'm right' thread which needs to be discussed with an opponent beforehand and said thread needs to be locked before personal insults are thrown about

I sent this to the GW rules email.....sorry. Since GW doesn't do FAQ's anymore they are going to rush 8th edition out early, we will see it in 3-4 months. Hopefully with this issue fixed....but this is GW so expect more to be broken than fixed. Again, I'm sorry I brought this to their attention. Time to start saving for your new $95 rule book.

For a model company, they sure charge a lot for rules.

Its not ambiguous, there is a clear right and wrong here, and there should be no need to discuss this before the game. Those situations come up when there honest to god gaps in the rules. There is no gap here.

The gargantuan creature rules do not change, through addition or exception, the number of weapons that may be fired. They only change the number of targets those weapons may be fired at. Arguing otherwise it tantamount to not seeing the forest for the trees. The sentence includes the clause of 'at a different target."

Some of the confusion is that 'each of its weapons' refers to a single weapon. "Each" is singular and an "each of its weapons" is grammatically interchangeable with "each weapon". The former is preferred in this case because the weapon is in the possession of the subject and the use of "its weapon" is inappropriate to the context of firing more then one weapon.

Understanding that, if we drop the 'at a different target' clause from the sentence it would be equivalent to "When a gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire its weapon." and I don't see how that could possible mean it may fire all of its weapons.

Some grammatically equivalent and less confusing alternatives to the original sentence would be...

"Each time a gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire its weapon at a different target ."
"When a gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, its weapons may each be fired at a different target."

But for the sentence to grant permission to fire all its weapons, it would have to read more like

"When a gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire all of its weapons and each of its weapons may be fired at a different target."

It wouldn't need all those changes to say that. Simply changing the word from "each" to "all" would have swayed this argument so far to the side saying they can fire all their weapons that naysayers like you would have been drowned out in the tidal wave of responses. The fact that they used the word "each" is the problem, as it can be taken to mean either "all" OR "each of a previously determined number". But there isn't context to support the latter version. Context is generally found within the literary bounds of where a statement is written. In the paragraph that it's in. If not in the paragraph, then in the surrounding paragraphs.

People keep trying to say that if you read it as saying "MCs may shoot 2 weapons. Treat GCs as though they were MCs, with the exceptions and additions that follow. GCs may fire each of their weapons at a different target if they desire." Then you COULD make the (weak) argument that it's referring to 2 weapons. I say weak because it STILL says exceptions and additions, and even with that wording, it could be read as an exception, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS. That's not the context. There are literally 8 pages of rules, and an entire "chapter/section" between those sentences. It's possible that those two sections were even written by different authors. Context has to do with structure, cadence, and supporting information that gives you insight into the INTENT of the writer. So, you can't discuss taking a rule in context without discussing intent. If ANYONE is a writer, and their intent was that GCs could only fire two weapons, but may fire them at different targets, would they write it that way? The answer is unequivocally no.

Therefore, the only way it would have been written that way is if someone were writing the rules for GCs, as they had always wrote the rules for GCs(Which have always allowed them to fire all of their weapons), and simply wasn't thinking about a rule several sections previous to that one, on a different category of models. If it's an intentional change, it would have been worded clearly because intent requires them to be thinking about it, so obviously the intent was not to change it, but a simple misjudgement of wording because writers aren't nearly as obsessive as their fanbase, picking apart and cross-referencing every single word in the book.

And that is why it's 100% clear that the intent of the writers was for GCs to be able to fire all of their weapons at multiple targets.

"And that is why it's 100% clear that the intent of the writers was for GCs to be able to fire all of their weapons at multiple targets."

Not necessarily. This discussion is proof that it is not 100% clear that that is the intent.

I never played with GC's until the WK was upgraded to one. So, with my reading of the rules, which do state to use MC rules, I can see the interpretation of only 2 weapons as being a correct interpretation. The amount of pages/paragraphs between the GC rules and MC rules matter not, you must reference them when reading the GC rules. As such, you have the context of a limited amount of weapons to fire being added to the rule.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

I never played with GC's until the WK was upgraded to one. So, with my reading of the rules, which do state to use MC rules, I can see the interpretation of only 2 weapons as being a correct interpretation. The amount of pages/paragraphs between the GC rules and MC rules matter not, you must reference them when reading the GC rules. As such, you have the context of a limited amount of weapons to fire being added to the rule.

You said the word "context", which means you HAVE to consider intent of the writer. When considering intent of the writer, see above post. Back to 100%.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

I never played with GC's until the WK was upgraded to one. So, with my reading of the rules, which do state to use MC rules, I can see the interpretation of only 2 weapons as being a correct interpretation. The amount of pages/paragraphs between the GC rules and MC rules matter not, you must reference them when reading the GC rules. As such, you have the context of a limited amount of weapons to fire being added to the rule.

You said the word "context", which means you HAVE to consider intent of the writer. When considering intent of the writer, see above post. Back to 100%.

"It's 100% clear that the intent of the writers was for GCs to be able to fire 2 of their weapons at multiple targets."

Because they wrote in the Rulebook that you have to follow MCs Rules:

Gargantuan Creatures are Monsterous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below

You are getting your "context" completely wrong, by the way. Location of rules in the BrB are not "context" of the rules. The context of a Rule is how it is written, and what it refers to. In this case, the rules for MCs.

If your argument is now based on the location of the Rule in the Rulebook, then i don't think it's worth going any further.......

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

I never played with GC's until the WK was upgraded to one. So, with my reading of the rules, which do state to use MC rules, I can see the interpretation of only 2 weapons as being a correct interpretation. The amount of pages/paragraphs between the GC rules and MC rules matter not, you must reference them when reading the GC rules. As such, you have the context of a limited amount of weapons to fire being added to the rule.

You said the word "context", which means you HAVE to consider intent of the writer. When considering intent of the writer, see above post. Back to 100%.

While I agree that GW may have intended to allow GC's to fire all weapons, there is also the possibility that they intended to reduce the number of weapons GC's could fire to give superheavy walkers an edge that they wouldn't have otherwise. The cost of the Wraithknight as compared to Superheavy walkers reinforces this belief for me. I ignore Forge world stuff, as it is just written differently, and likely is priced for the FW rules that have a GC firing all weapons. I am not even sure what is a GC other than the Wraithknight at this point, let alone which are actually written for 7th rather than 6th. I know the Transcendent C'tan lost this status.

Limiting GCs to 2 weapons isn't a bad balancing option, as it would make the Glaive & Shield option a lot more competitive.

The problem is that the WK pays full BS4 price for each of the extra weapons, when balance-wise that makes no sense. A double-D WK capped at 2 shots doesn't need the extra guns, because he can't suffer Weapon Destroyed. The number of times he's going to want to fire 2 Scatter Lasers like a War Walker is basically zero - they add basically zero marginal utility because anything he can shoot that way, he can Stomp.

A G&S WK does get full value from those guns, but it's not starting on par with the double-D WK in the first place.

The way that the model is designed and costed, I'm not sure the balancing argument holds.


I am curious to see how GW handles GCs going foward, for things like Squiggoths and eventual TGCs.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

The problem is that the WK pays full BS4 price for each of the extra weapons, when balance-wise that makes no sense. A double-D WK capped at 2 shots doesn't need the extra guns, because he can't suffer Weapon Destroyed. The number of times he's going to want to fire 2 Scatter Lasers like a War Walker is basically zero - they add basically zero marginal utility because anything he can shoot that way, he can Stomp

Do you mean that the utility of shooting each Wcannon at separate vehicles in the enemy's deployment zone, then shooting a Scatterlaser at a closer target to be able to then charge it is worth nothing? I don't understand that logic at all.

The reason for a WK with Wcannons to want a Scatterlaser is to be able to shoot at a target "other" than the target of the Wcannons. If the Wcannons kill their targets, you still have an assault option. But if a WK can only fire 2 weapons, you will never see the Wcannon variant with shouldercannons

Did you not read or understand the bit about assuming that GCs are limited to 2 shots per turn? If you shoot at separate vehicles, that's your 2 shots, so you don't get to shoot the Scatterlasers at something to charge. Maybe you should read it again.

If you want to ensure you have something to charge, a non-blast D shot maybe vaporizing a single infantry model of the target unit pretty much eliminates the chance of breaking it, or killing so many models that you end up outside charge range.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

While I agree that GW may have intended to allow GC's to fire all weapons, there is also the possibility that they intended to reduce the number of weapons GC's could fire to give superheavy walkers an edge that they wouldn't have otherwise.

Do you know anyone, or could you even imagine anyone, who would word the rule that way if, when they were writing it, they were thinking "Yeah, GCs can only shoot 2 weapons."

No. The answer is no. No one would ever write it that way if that's what they were thinking.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Did you not read or understand the bit about assuming that GCs are limited to 2 shots per turn? If you shoot at separate vehicles, that's your 2 shots, so you don't get to shoot the Scatterlasers at something to charge. Maybe you should read it again.

If you want to ensure you have something to charge, a non-blast D shot maybe vaporizing a single infantry model of the target unit pretty much eliminates the chance of breaking it, or killing so many models that you end up outside charge range.

Sorry, I was still reading this thread as a dispute about firing 2 weapons. I get what you are saying now. I was distracted by your avatar

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

While I agree that GW may have intended to allow GC's to fire all weapons, there is also the possibility that they intended to reduce the number of weapons GC's could fire to give superheavy walkers an edge that they wouldn't have otherwise.

Do you know anyone, or could you even imagine anyone, who would word the rule that way if, when they were writing it, they were thinking "Yeah, GCs can only shoot 2 weapons."

No. The answer is no. No one would ever write it that way if that's what they were thinking.

Repeating something many times doesn't make it right.
Your comments add absolutely nothing to your side's argument or this thread that has not been said before.

Grammatically both popular interpretations make sense.

The problem is that the rule does not explicitly state that they can fire all weapons as it did in previous publications.
It is unclear as to the whether the additional shooting rules provided for GMCs are intended to replace the whole shooting section for MCs, or more specifically only the part regarding the number of targets that can be selected.

Arguing RAI and using previous editions as evidence is pointless. RAI is inherently an interpretation of the rules as opposed to fact, and game changes in editions happen all the time.
Maybe it was RAI that GMCs can shoot all their weapons, maybe it wasn't. There is no way to be sure without an FAQ from GW clarifying their intent.

In the meantime, I personally don't consider the ambiguity of the word 'each' to be a sound reason to allow GMCs to fire more than 2 weapons.

I was in the two weapon camp until I read the 2nd sentence.
In addition, firing Ordnance weapons has no effect on a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature's ability to fire other weapons.


It's not firing an ordnance weapon, it's firing plural ordnance weapons not impacting your ability to fire plural other weapons.
If it were 2 shots, it should be written as,
Firing an Ordnance weapon has no effect on the Creature's ability to fire another weapon.

The rule is poorly phrased, but I believe the 2nd half of the rule demonstrates firing more than 2 weapons.

-Matt

 Galef wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Did you not read or understand the bit about assuming that GCs are limited to 2 shots per turn? If you shoot at separate vehicles, that's your 2 shots, so you don't get to shoot the Scatterlasers at something to charge. Maybe you should read it again.

If you want to ensure you have something to charge, a non-blast D shot maybe vaporizing a single infantry model of the target unit pretty much eliminates the chance of breaking it, or killing so many models that you end up outside charge range.

Sorry, I was still reading this thread as a dispute about firing 2 weapons. I get what you are saying now. I was distracted by your avatar

Heh, yeah, that happens. No biggie.


At +20 pts per Scatter Laser / Shuricannon / Starcannon, why wouldn't I just spend 80 for 3 Jetbikes? Or 60 pts on a War Walker? In case the enemy has a D-weapon...

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
I was in the two weapon camp until I read the 2nd sentence.
In addition, firing Ordnance weapons has no effect on a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature's ability to fire other weapons.


It's not firing an ordnance weapon, it's firing plural ordnance weapons not impacting your ability to fire plural other weapons.
If it were 2 shots, it should be written as,
Firing an Ordnance weapon has no effect on the Creature's ability to fire another weapon.

The rule is poorly phrased, but I believe the 2nd half of the rule demonstrates firing more than 2 weapons.

-Matt

It could, but i believe it just uses plural as a constant rather than defining multiple weapons:
"Firing Heavy weapons means a Unit cannot charge"

Weapons, plural, but it is a Rule that applies to all the Units that only have 1 Heavy Weapon.

BlackTalos, you are now ignoring a clear rule that shows a GMC is indeed allowed to fire more than two weapons. Your belief here doesn't count.

Naw wrote:
BlackTalos, you are now ignoring a clear rule that shows a GMC is indeed allowed to fire more than two weapons. Your belief here doesn't count.

Again, the writing is ambiguous, rather than clear.
A clear rule would state: GMCs can fire all their weapons per shooting phase, and each weapon may select and fire at a different target.
No quote provided in the thread thus far can could be considered "clear".

Going back to the quote provided by HawaiiMatt: what does "ability to fire other weapons" refer to?

1) All weapons?
2) All weapons, but the model is still restricted to 2 per turn?
3) Twin-linked weapons? These act as one weapon, but to be grammatically correct still need to be pluralized.

The quote could logically be applied to all three of the given examples.

Let's just agree to disagree. Incidentally my Codex says e.g. twin-linked lascannon, instead of lascannons.

Disclaimer: I do not play Eldar nor do I have any super heavies, GMC's or Knights.

I dont understand why the "2 weapon" camp keeps insisting we refer to the MC rules when we have a more specific rule in the GC rules.

It works just like Maugan Ra. He has rules that allow him to shoot his weapon twice. Now, we still refer to the shooting rules as we would for any other infantry IC, but he still gets to fire twice because his rules say so.

GC are permitted to fire EACH weapon. "Each" is used to refer to every one of two or more people or things. The "things" in this case are "its weapons."

Here is the rules quote:

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

Here it is again with the definition of "each."

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

This is clear permission to fire any and all weapons belonging to a GC.

Not sure if this has been raised before here but was browsing the rulebook yesterday (looking for stomp rules) and found that the rules of super-heavy vehicles say: '...may fire each of its weapons at different targets if desired.'

This doesn't sort out whether GC rules follow from MC but it does give precedent in the rule book for 'each' meaning 'all on the model' as we know vehicles often have more than 2 weapons.

 Zippokovich wrote:
Not sure if this has been raised before here but was browsing the rulebook yesterday (looking for stomp rules) and found that the rules of super-heavy vehicles say: '...may fire each of its weapons at different targets if desired.'

This doesn't sort out whether GC rules follow from MC but it does give precedent in the rule book for 'each' meaning 'all on the model' as we know vehicles often have more than 2 weapons.

Super-heavy Vehicles are Vehicles and therefore already have permission to fire all of their weapons. So either saying they can fire each of their weapons is redundant (possible), or it is an exception to the normal rules for targeting.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Zippokovich wrote:
Not sure if this has been raised before here but was browsing the rulebook yesterday (looking for stomp rules) and found that the rules of super-heavy vehicles say: '...may fire each of its weapons at different targets if desired.'

This doesn't sort out whether GC rules follow from MC but it does give precedent in the rule book for 'each' meaning 'all on the model' as we know vehicles often have more than 2 weapons.

Super-heavy Vehicles are Vehicles and therefore already have permission to fire all of their weapons. So either saying they can fire each of their weapons is redundant (possible), or it is an exception to the normal rules for targeting.

Redundancy is irrelevant here though.

 Zippokovich wrote:
Not sure if this has been raised before here but was browsing the rulebook yesterday (looking for stomp rules) and found that the rules of super-heavy vehicles say: '...may fire each of its weapons at different targets if desired.'

This doesn't sort out whether GC rules follow from MC but it does give precedent in the rule book for 'each' meaning 'all on the model' as we know vehicles often have more than 2 weapons.

Please note the preceding sentence. The one that says something like, Super heavy vehicles always count as being stationary and may always fire all of their weapons even when moving, or some such. Note the explicit permission for a super heavy vehicle to always fire every weapon it has. The following sentence is exactly the same as the GC one, and is a permission to target multiple targets.

It actually sets precedent that the sentence is just permission to target multiple units.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Zippokovich wrote:
Not sure if this has been raised before here but was browsing the rulebook yesterday (looking for stomp rules) and found that the rules of super-heavy vehicles say: '...may fire each of its weapons at different targets if desired.'

This doesn't sort out whether GC rules follow from MC but it does give precedent in the rule book for 'each' meaning 'all on the model' as we know vehicles often have more than 2 weapons.

Super-heavy Vehicles are Vehicles and therefore already have permission to fire all of their weapons. So either saying they can fire each of their weapons is redundant (possible), or it is an exception to the normal rules for targeting.

I agree, as it would not be a redundant rule if it referred only to what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire.

But let's agree to disagree, if players REALLY want their WK to be able to fire more than 2 weapons and REALLY need to read the rules that way, i say let them spend their points

I just don't understand why anyone has an issue with this. Perhaps their grasp of the English language is too poor to understand the sentence. It clearly says "...may fire each of its weapons at different targets..." This sentence alone is sufficient to provide all the information required. Context, as some people cite as a counterargument, is irrelevant because the sentence does not refer to any previous statements, and the most relevant clause that may be applied is the caveat that MC rules are superceded by rules listed in the GMC section. Returning to the relevant sentence, it specifically states that each of the GMC's weapons may be fired at a separate target from the others. It does not say that each of the weapons it is allowed to fire may be fired at different targets and therefore no restriction is placed on the number of weapons it may fire. In orderfor each of its weapons to be fired at a different taget from the others, it MUST be allowed tp fire each of the weapons it possesses. Any other interpretation is both grammatically and logically incorrect.

josephking79 wrote:
Context, as some people cite as a counterargument, is irrelevant because the sentence does not refer to any previous statements, and the most relevant clause that may be applied is the caveat that MC rules are superceded by rules listed in the GMC section.

Except you're trying to use a rule that does nothing more than tell us what the model can target as a rule that tells us how many weapons he can fire.

josephking79 wrote:
I just don't understand why anyone has an issue with this. Perhaps their grasp of the English language is too poor to understand the sentence. It clearly says "...may fire each of its weapons at different targets..." This sentence alone is sufficient to provide all the information required. Context, as some people cite as a counterargument, is irrelevant because the sentence does not refer to any previous statements, and the most relevant clause that may be applied is the caveat that MC rules are superceded by rules listed in the GMC section. Returning to the relevant sentence, it specifically states that each of the GMC's weapons may be fired at a separate target from the others. It does not say that each of the weapons it is allowed to fire may be fired at different targets and therefore no restriction is placed on the number of weapons it may fire. In orderfor each of its weapons to be fired at a different taget from the others, it MUST be allowed tp fire each of the weapons it possesses. Any other interpretation is both grammatically and logically incorrect.

Thank you for dredging this topic up from three and a half weeks ago to simply repeat the same thing others have said in the last seven pages.

Can we please have this closed or something?

josephking79 wrote:
I just don't understand why anyone has an issue with this. Perhaps their grasp of the English language is too poor to understand the sentence. It clearly says "...may fire each of its weapons at different targets..." This sentence alone is sufficient to provide all the information required. Context, as some people cite as a counterargument, is irrelevant because the sentence does not refer to any previous statements, and the most relevant clause that may be applied is the caveat that MC rules are superceded by rules listed in the GMC section. Returning to the relevant sentence, it specifically states that each of the GMC's weapons may be fired at a separate target from the others. It does not say that each of the weapons it is allowed to fire may be fired at different targets and therefore no restriction is placed on the number of weapons it may fire. In orderfor each of its weapons to be fired at a different taget from the others, it MUST be allowed tp fire each of the weapons it possesses. Any other interpretation is both grammatically and logically incorrect.

Except nothing overrides the MC rule about only firing 2 weapons.

Nothing in the GC rules states you may fire moew than 2 weapons.

The line that says "...may fire each of its weapons at different targets..." is referring to the weapons it can fire, which is 2 weapons, since the MC rules tell us this.


Please read the whole thread before you post, since this is well hashed out.

 Ghaz wrote:

josephking79 wrote:
Context, as some people cite as a counterargument, is irrelevant because the sentence does not refer to any previous statements, and the most relevant clause that may be applied is the caveat that MC rules are superceded by rules listed in the GMC section.

Except you're trying to use a rule that does nothing more than tell us what the model can target as a rule that tells us how many weapons he can fire.

Ummm. No, I'm not. Not at all. It says "each of its weapons" - this section by itself quantifies the number of weapons it may fire as "each" means "every one of two or more people or things regarded and identified separately" and the things that are being regarded and identified separately are "its weapons". Not two of its weapons, all of them.

josephking79 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

josephking79 wrote:
Context, as some people cite as a counterargument, is irrelevant because the sentence does not refer to any previous statements, and the most relevant clause that may be applied is the caveat that MC rules are superceded by rules listed in the GMC section.

Except you're trying to use a rule that does nothing more than tell us what the model can target as a rule that tells us how many weapons he can fire.

Ummm. No, I'm not. Not at all. It says "each of its weapons" - this section by itself quantifies the number of weapons it may fire as "each" means "every one of two or more people or things regarded and identified separately" and the things that are being regarded and identified separately are "its weapons". Not two of its weapons, all of them.

Selective quoting on your part. It says they may fire each of their weapons "... at a different target if desired". The rule only covers what they can target with their weapons, not how many weapons may be fired. The Monstrous Creature rules allow them to fire two weapons and the Gargantuan Creature rules allow them to fire each of those weapons at a different target if desired.

 DeathReaper wrote:

josephking79 wrote:
I just don't understand why anyone has an issue with this. Perhaps their grasp of the English language is too poor to understand the sentence. It clearly says "...may fire each of its weapons at different targets..." This sentence alone is sufficient to provide all the information required. Context, as some people cite as a counterargument, is irrelevant because the sentence does not refer to any previous statements, and the most relevant clause that may be applied is the caveat that MC rules are superceded by rules listed in the GMC section. Returning to the relevant sentence, it specifically states that each of the GMC's weapons may be fired at a separate target from the others. It does not say that each of the weapons it is allowed to fire may be fired at different targets and therefore no restriction is placed on the number of weapons it may fire. In orderfor each of its weapons to be fired at a different taget from the others, it MUST be allowed tp fire each of the weapons it possesses. Any other interpretation is both grammatically and logically incorrect.

Except nothing overrides the MC rule about only firing 2 weapons.

Nothing in the GC rules states you may fire moew than 2 weapons.

The line that says "...may fire each of its weapons at different targets..." is referring to the weapons it can fire, which is 2 weapons, since the MC rules tell us this.


Please read the whole thread before you post, since this is well hashed out.

I have read a huge amount of this tgread, thank you and I wanted to add my piece. To counter your argument, in what way does the sentence in question specifically refer to the two weapons an MC is restricted to? Answer: in no way whatsoever. The sentence itself provides a new quantity. of weapons that may be fired, namely each weapon the GMC posesses. As previously stated, any other conclusion is logically incorrect.

Again, the Gargantuan Creature rules add nothing to how many weapons can be fired, only what weapons that the Monstrous Creature rules allow to be fired can be fired at. Grammatically that is the only way the rules can be read.

josephking79 wrote:
In order for each of its weapons to be fired at a different target from the others, it MUST be allowed to fire each of the weapons it possesses.

The underlined is an assumption you are making that is not in the original 1 line you quoted ("may fire each of its weapons at different targets")

You got the first part right though, that one line allows you to "In order for each of its weapons to be fired at a different target from the others". On that you are correct. That is what the rule lets you do. But it is 1 phrase, 1 rule. If you add anything to that, such as 'it must therefore be able to...', then you are adding a meaning that is not in that 1 line...

I would wager you play Eldar, but in any case, my closing post still stands:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Zippokovich wrote:
Not sure if this has been raised before here but was browsing the rulebook yesterday (looking for stomp rules) and found that the rules of super-heavy vehicles say: '...may fire each of its weapons at different targets if desired.'

This doesn't sort out whether GC rules follow from MC but it does give precedent in the rule book for 'each' meaning 'all on the model' as we know vehicles often have more than 2 weapons.

Super-heavy Vehicles are Vehicles and therefore already have permission to fire all of their weapons. So either saying they can fire each of their weapons is redundant (possible), or it is an exception to the normal rules for targeting.

I agree, as it would not be a redundant rule if it referred only to what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire.

But let's agree to disagree, if players REALLY want their WK to be able to fire more than 2 weapons and REALLY need to read the rules that way, i say let them spend their points

In the section for vehicles it says on page 73 "A vehicle that remained stationary may fire all of it's weapons" so the super heavy section about firing each of its weapons at different targets relates back to the fact it is a vehicle and can fire all it's weapons.

Gargantuan creatures have the same wording for they can fire each of their weapons at different targets, but in the same manner as super heavy is a vehicle and so can fire all it's wepons based on the vehicle section a gargantuan can still only fire 2 weapons as they are a monstrous creature with the extra rule of being able to target multiple units .

 Ghaz wrote:
Again, the Gargantuan Creature rules add nothing to how many weapons can be fired, only what weapons that the Monstrous Creature rules allow to be fired can be fired at. Grammatically that is the only way the rules can be read.

This 100%

josephking79, your argument does not hold water.

This thread proves that.

 HANZERtank wrote:
In the section for vehicles it says on page 73 "A vehicle that remained stationary may fire all of it's weapons" so the super heavy section about firing each of its weapons at different targets relates back to the fact it is a vehicle and can fire all it's weapons.

Gargantuan creatures have the same wording for they can fire each of their weapons at different targets, but in the same manner as super heavy is a vehicle and so can fire all it's wepons based on the vehicle section a gargantuan can still only fire 2 weapons as they are a monstrous creature with the extra rule of being able to target multiple units .

I would also add that vehicles, inherently can shoot all of their weapons. Because they are vehicles, not because the superheavy vehicle rules allow them to.

Wraithknights can only shoot two weapons. No rule gives them permission to shoot more. This is how I interpret it, as an Eldar player with two Wraithknights (and also not a douche).

Belly wrote:
I would also add that vehicles, inherently can shoot all of their weapons. Because they are vehicles, not because the superheavy vehicle rules allow them to.

Not quite correct. Vehicles can shoot all of their weapons if they remain stationary. Super-heavy vehicles always count as remaining stationary; they do not actually have direct or explicit permission to fire all of their weapons as such.

Wraithknights can only shoot two weapons. No rule gives them permission to shoot more. This is how I interpret it, as an Eldar player with two Wraithknights (and also not a douche).

Inclined to agree, coming from the same position.

I know this is pouring oil on a blazing fire to say it but I missed this thread first time round: I can honestly say 90% of the people here do not know what they are talking about, and collectively this thread came to the wrong conclusion utterly: and so it needs fixing.

For that reason josephking79 was right to bring it back up

Probably due to a poor understanding of grammar as english people use it. *It says Monstrous Creatures may fire each of it's weapons*. It says that in a sentence. It then widens the scope to say *at separate targets* anyone who wants to dismantle that sentence cannot do so without un welding these two instructions

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Belly wrote:
I would also add that vehicles, inherently can shoot all of their weapons. Because they are vehicles, not because the superheavy vehicle rules allow them to.

Not quite correct. Vehicles can shoot all of their weapons if they remain stationary.

Incorrect. Vehicles can shoot all of their weapons regardless of how far they move. The only thing that is affected is how many they can shoot at full BS.

Here's an example. My mother gives me 5 £1 coins, but says i can only spend £2 and only one shop. She then gives my big brother 5 £1 coins and says you follow all the instructions I told your little brother, but you can spend your money in several different shops.

I'm only allowed to spend £2 and all in the same shop. My brother can then spend £2 in as many shops as he wants but no more than £2 as thats all I'm allowed to spend and he follows all the same rules except where he can spend it.

 Happyjew wrote:
Incorrect. Vehicles can shoot all of their weapons regardless of how far they move. The only thing that is affected is how many they can shoot at full BS.

Well, yes. In the context of what being a Super-heavy vehicle grants over regular vehicles I assumed we were talking in the context of full BS

ConanMan wrote:
I know this is pouring oil on a blazing fire to say it but I missed this thread first time round: I can honestly say 90% of the people here do not know what they are talking about, and collectively this thread came to the wrong conclusion utterly: and so it needs fixing.

For that reason josephking79 was right to bring it back up

Probably due to a poor understanding of grammar as english people use it. *It says Monstrous Creatures may fire each of it's weapons*. It says that in a sentence. It then widens the scope to say *at separate targets* anyone who wants to dismantle that sentence cannot do so without un welding these two instructions

Did you want to bring a new argument, or did you just forget to read the thread?

You cannot "dismantle that sentence", no, please read the thread as to why.

Those of you arguing that Gargantuan Creatures (i.e. Wraith Knights) can only fire 2 weapons in the shooting phase: Prepare to be disappointed.

By...whom, precisely? Is there a FAQ on the way, or just a locally enforced houserule that few people on here will likely care about?

 BlackTalos wrote:

ConanMan wrote:
I know this is pouring oil on a blazing fire to say it but I missed this thread first time round: I can honestly say 90% of the people here do not know what they are talking about, and collectively this thread came to the wrong conclusion utterly: and so it needs fixing.

For that reason josephking79 was right to bring it back up

Probably due to a poor understanding of grammar as english people use it. *It says Monstrous Creatures may fire each of it's weapons*. It says that in a sentence. It then widens the scope to say *at separate targets* anyone who wants to dismantle that sentence cannot do so without un welding these two instructions

Did you want to bring a new argument, or did you just forget to read the thread?

You cannot "dismantle that sentence", no, please read the thread as to why.

I read it all, I am genuinely aghast, because it is a simple simple thing. seriously, you are wrong guys.. Gargantuan creatures can fire 4 weapons if they have 4, to even suggest otherwise you have to be prepared to

follow an convoluted inference from an indirect source

split the meaning of a multi parted sentence

chose one particular (highly debatable) inference over another on a direct sentence

alternatively you can

chose the much more likely grammatically inference over another on a direct sentence

since I am not prepared to do all three of those convoluted things I choose to read it as it is clearly intended - it is firing all 4 if that's how they bring it

ConanMan wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

ConanMan wrote:
I know this is pouring oil on a blazing fire to say it but I missed this thread first time round: I can honestly say 90% of the people here do not know what they are talking about, and collectively this thread came to the wrong conclusion utterly: and so it needs fixing.

For that reason josephking79 was right to bring it back up

Probably due to a poor understanding of grammar as english people use it. *It says Monstrous Creatures may fire each of it's weapons*. It says that in a sentence. It then widens the scope to say *at separate targets* anyone who wants to dismantle that sentence cannot do so without un welding these two instructions

Did you want to bring a new argument, or did you just forget to read the thread?

You cannot "dismantle that sentence", no, please read the thread as to why.

I read it all, I am genuinely aghast, because it is a simple simple thing. seriously, you are wrong guys.. Gargantuan creatures can fire 4 weapons if they have 4, to even suggest otherwise you have to be prepared to



alternatively you can

chose the much more likely grammatically inference over another on a direct sentence

since I am not prepared to do all three of those convoluted things I choose to read it as it is clearly intended - it is firing all 4 if that's how they bring it

Well that a great argument right there, since you are actually doing:

follow an convoluted inference from an indirect source

split the meaning of a multi parted sentence

chose one particular (highly debatable) inference over another on a direct sentence

It's rather simple.

One Rule:
"may fire each of its weapons at different targets"

One direct meaning:
You have an explicit permission to select different targets for your weapons

The above permission does not allow you to fire any more weapons than your were allowed to fire previously.
That's just you "splitting the meaning" and "following a convoluted inference" that simply does not exist in that Rule

If you REALLY want your WK to be able to fire more than 2 weapons and REALLY need to read the rules that way, hope you enjoy all of your upcoming games



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ConanMan wrote:
*It says Monstrous Creatures may fire each of it's weapons*. It says that in a sentence. It then widens the scope to say *at separate targets* anyone who wants to dismantle that sentence cannot do so without un welding these two instructions

See: ~ ~Incorrectly splitting the meaning of a simple sentence.~ ~ of your own argument.

BlackTalos however angry you are, however adamant you are, however you try to (laughably, and poorly) reverse my sound break down of the choice before us, however in fits of rage you are. however lacking, it doesn't make the illogical incoherent assumption you are ranting over suddenly true.

You are still placing an overwhelming bias on something so flimsy it is a joke. And you know it.

The truth is this is a WraithKnight hate issue. Always was. The reason why 90% of people sided is the same reason 90% of people hated the Eldar codex. It was always such, that is why it was raised. But you are prepared to let all that poison and animosity over that WK hate spill out into a perfectly unrelated rule.

*each* means each. it doesn't mean less than that.

You don't have to jump from a) to b) to c) and then badly hack a) to get the rule you want. you can just read it.