So I had this argument with one of my friends. Dominus always has 2 shooting weapons both of which he can shoot due to mechadendrite harness. Since master of machines says that I can choose to not fire one of his weapons to regain a wound\HP\restore crit on a 2+ and it doesn't say one use only or once per game\turn\shooting phase does it actually make it possible for me to opt to not fire any of his weapons and try, for exmple, to regain 2 wound on him? I feel like it should, honestly.

Similar to exvhanging 1 weapon for a relic, or any other instances of allowance of not do one thing to do something else: if you choose not to fire 2 weapons to repair 2 wounds/hullpoints; you are not following the rules allowed.

If it had said he can attempt repairs for each weapon not fired, or otherwise gave permission for multiple attempts, then it would work just fine.

It would not be unreasonable to houserule it to work, discuss it with your group.

Well it's a different sitution with relics since a model can only have 1 relic anyway, unless it's rules state otherwise, and that's what prevents it from having multiple.
Limitations in this rule itself are doing it in the shooting phase, opting to not fire one of it's weapons to use it and being in base contact\embarked on vehicle you wish to repair. In this case it's just doing it twice.

Where do the rules permit you to use it twice?

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Well it's a different sitution with relics since a model can only have 1 relic anyway, unless it's rules state otherwise, and that's what prevents it from having multiple.
Limitations in this rule itself are doing it in the shooting phase, opting to not fire one of it's weapons to use it and being in base contact\embarked on vehicle you wish to repair. In this case it's just doing it twice.

It is exactly the same as with relics: a model may exchange one weapon for an item from the following list.

Or for the Arcana Mechanicum; "A model may take one of the following:". If you take both a mask of the alpha dominus and an uncreator gauntlet; then you have taken more than one of the following.

If you choose to not fire both weapons in the shooting phase for 2 attempts at repair; then you have not fired more than the one weapon the rule allows.

I am not sure if it is as cut and dry as you keep claiming Kommissar Kel.


A Tech-Priest Dominus has 2 shooting weapons - a macrostubber and a volkite blaster

Master of Machines:


MECHADENDRITE HARNESS



This is how I understand the OP to be reading the rule . . .

So in the shooting phase, the Dominus goes to shoot a macrostubber but instead uses Master of Machines. Later in the shooting phase he goes to shoot the volkite blaster but instead uses Master of Machines.

It seems like a reasonable read to me. There is nothing in the Master of Machines rule to restrict the ability to use it twice like "once per shooting phase" or "instead of firing his weapons".

And have you attempted to repair a single friendly vehicle, and/or restored a wound twice by not firing one weapon in your shooting phase?

No, you have not fired two weapons in your shooting phase.

Two and one are different numbers, and the rule only allows you to not fire one weapon.

1. Dominus has two shooting weapons
2. Mechadendrite harness allows for N shooting weapons to be used by an infantry model instead of the normal 1 shooting weapon per phase limitation, in this specific instance 2 as there are no relics that provide shooting attacks
3. Master of machines allows the model to exchange a shooting attack to repair or un-wound

I think we all agree on this so far.

A. Item 2. allows for a previously single occurrence action to be taken twice
B. item 3. allows an alternative action to be substituted for the shooting action by exchanging "one of his weapons"

∴

The techpriest can Master of Machines instead of firing weapon A, and the techpriest can Master of Machines instead of firing weapon B

The only way I can see the other position to be incontrovertible would be if it was phrased "once per shooting phase".

So as ever, agree with your opponent, ideally before the game if they care, and/or contact GW for a FAQ update.

 malamis wrote:
1. Dominus has two shooting weapons
2. Mechadendrite harness allows for N shooting weapons to be used by an infantry model instead of the normal 1 shooting weapon per phase limitation, in this specific instance 2 as there are no relics that provide shooting attacks
3. Master of machines allows the model to exchange a shooting attack to repair or un-wound

I think we all agree on this so far.

A. Item 2. allows for a previously single occurrence action to be taken twice
B. item 3. allows an alternative action to be substituted for the shooting action by exchanging "one of his weapons"

∴

The techpriest can Master of Machines instead of firing weapon A, and the techpriest can Master of Machines instead of firing weapon B

Because otherwise it would have been phrased "once per shooting phase".

Your point 3 is incorrect. Master of the Machines allows the model to exchange the firing of one of his weapons. One is not two.

 Ghaz wrote:

 malamis wrote:
1. Dominus has two shooting weapons
2. Mechadendrite harness allows for N shooting weapons to be used by an infantry model instead of the normal 1 shooting weapon per phase limitation, in this specific instance 2 as there are no relics that provide shooting attacks
3. Master of machines allows the model to exchange a shooting attack to repair or un-wound

I think we all agree on this so far.

A. Item 2. allows for a previously single occurrence action to be taken twice
B. item 3. allows an alternative action to be substituted for the shooting action by exchanging "one of his weapons"

∴

The techpriest can Master of Machines instead of firing weapon A, and the techpriest can Master of Machines instead of firing weapon B

Because otherwise it would have been phrased "once per shooting phase".

Your point 3 is incorrect. Master of the Machines allows the model to exchange the firing of one of his weapons. One is not two.

I'm not contesting that he can only exchange one of his weapons per invocation of MoM, i'm contesting that he gets to trigger the same rule twice in the same phase to basically the same effect.

And where does it say you can use the rule twice? Page and paragraph please.

 Ghaz wrote:
And where does it say you can use the rule twice? Page and paragraph please.

Where does it say you can't?

Shooting attacks, psychic attacks, movement and assault all have explicit assertions that they only occur once (with appropriate exceptions) during the respective phases. If you want i'll go digging them up but I'm pretty sure that's not the answer you're after, and you'll contend with my first sentence.

Where do the rules say I can't smash your models and claim I win automatically? The rules don't work that way. Warhammer 40K is a permissive rules set which tells you what you can do, not what you can't. So I repeat my question. Where do the rules allow you to use it twice? Page and paragraph please.

You can forgo one shooting attack to do another thing. Have you forgone one? Then you're done. Oh, you have another shooting attack, okay, take the shot. You already skipped one shooting attack to do the other thing, so that's done and dried up, now you do a shooting attack or nothing.

That's how I read the rule. It explicitly states one. Guess we're rolling off for it in-game

"instead of firing one of his weapons"

This is all you need to read.

 Ghaz wrote:
Where do the rules say I cant smash your models and claim I win automatically?

Section 52, Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 combined with the GamesWorkshopCode of conduct as posted in public at all venues i've played at - you'd be better at defining what one applies to your area.

 Ghaz wrote:

The rules don't work that way.

Incorrect

BRB Pg 163 col 2 para2 (Eternal Warrior) wrote:
If a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound ... etc

Where, as written, does it say this can apply more than once per wound resolution (e.g. initiative step)? Should I only benefit from eternal warrior on the first smack from an activated Force axe and not the second? For that matter, where does it say you can use a unit's shooting attack more than once per game? I trust neither of us reads it this way.

Wargear and so on which allows a one off save, only applicable in a specific turn or phase or a 'use it and you lose it' all have it marked explicitly in their entries or corresponding single use provisions somewhere in their codex (with a few notable exceptions). When rules don't define the single use boundaries we assume it happens on every relevant occasion such as for Eternal Warrior, Shrouded, Strafing Run and Zealot for some skimmed examples.

 Ghaz wrote:

Warhammer 40K is a permissive rules set which tells you what you can do, not what you can't.

We agree on that, we obviously don't agree that a special rule can be triggered more than once except when explicitly stated (for which nearly all of the USRs have the boundaries defined) , nor do we agree that MoM as written can be triggered more than once per shooting phase.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Rules are not laws. Rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't. Since you can't provide a rule that allows you to use Master of the Machine twice, you can't.

RAW there is only permission to e change one shooting attack for one repair attempt. There is no language that grants permission to use the rule n times per turn such as "for each shooting attack given up may make a repair attempt.". Or "may exchange a shooting attack for a repair attempt".

The rules specify one, Becerra you can do it one time per turn.

The problem is the ability to shoot each weapon comes up at different times in the shooting sequence.

Per the rules of the Shooting Sequence the Dominus does not attempt to shoot all of his weapons at the same time.



Because the Tech Priest has two weapons he actually has two opportunities to use Master of Machines instead of firing one of his weapons. There will be one opportunity on one iteration of steps 3-7 and another opportuniy on the other iteration of steps 3-7.


Blaktoof, the rule does not say "you can do it one time per turn"

Kommisar Kel, as I have shown, the occasion "of firing one of his weapons" comes up twice in the Shooting Sequence. You have to show that the rule says "once per shooting phase" or "once per turn".


I think possibly the intent of the rule is to restrict the rule to 'once per shooting phase'. However, that is not what the rules actually say. A strict RAW read supports the ability to use Master of Machines whenever Dominus has the opportunity to shoot one of his weapons, which is twice.

col_impact wrote:

I think possibly the intent of the rule is to restrict the rule to 'once per shooting phase'. However, a strict RAW read supports the ability to use Master of Machines whenever Dominus has the opportunity to shoot one of his weapons, which is twice.

A loose RAW read supports both sides. A strict RAW read sees the word "one" and stops after one occurrence.

Jacksmiles wrote:

col_impact wrote:

I think possibly the intent of the rule is to restrict the rule to 'once per shooting phase'. However, a strict RAW read supports the ability to use Master of Machines whenever Dominus has the opportunity to shoot one of his weapons, which is twice.

A loose RAW read supports both sides. A strict RAW read sees the word "one" and stops after one occurrence.

Can you demonstrate how that works out with regards to the shooting sequence as I have done?


Also, the rules do not say that 'you can forego one shooting attack to do another thing' as you would have it. The rules actually say "instead of firing one of his weapon" which is an occasion that comes up twice in the Shooting Sequence.

col_impact wrote:
The problem is the ability to shoot each weapon comes up at different times in the shooting sequence.

Per the rules of the Shooting Sequence the Dominus does not attempt to shoot all of his weapons at the same time.

Spoiler:

1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.

2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.

3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot.

4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines what it must roll in order to hit the target.

5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.

6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.

7. Select Another Weapon. After resolving all shots from the currently selected weapon, if the firing unit is equipped with differently named weapons that have yet to fire, select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6.

Because the Tech Priest has two weapons he actually has two opportunities to use Master of Machines instead of firing one of his weapons. There will be one opportunity on one iteration of steps 3-7 and another opportuniy on the other iteration of steps 3-7.


Blaktoof, the rule does not say "you can do it one time per turn"

Kommisar Kel, as I have shown, the occasion "of firing one of his weapons" comes up twice in the Shooting Sequence. You have to show that the rule says "once per shooting phase" or "once per turn".


I think possibly the intent of the rule is to restrict the rule to 'once per shooting phase'. However, that is not what the rules actually say. A strict RAW read supports the ability to use Master of Machines whenever Dominus has the opportunity to shoot one of his weapons, which is twice.

In each of your Shooting phases, instead of firing one of his weapons (controlling player’s choice), a Tech-Priest Dominus can choose either to repair a single friendly vehicle that he is in base contact with or embarked upon, or to restore a Wound lost earlier in the battle

There is permission during the shooting phase (happens once per turn) to do something instead of firing one weapon. The one is singular. If you do two things instead of firing two weapons is different, just as doing something instead of firing a weapon. RAW says one, not for each, not for a, or not each time the model fires a weapon. The model can give up firing one weapon (players choice) [further showing you pick which weapon to not fire....as in One weapon is chosen as the RAW has stated] to do something.

Nothing grants permission to do it more than one time within that rule.

blaktoof wrote:


There is permission during the shooting phase (happens once per turn) to do something instead of firing one weapon. The one is singular. If you do two things instead of firing two weapons is different, just as doing something instead of firing a weapon. RAW says one, not for each, not for a, or not each time the model fires a weapon. The model can give up firing one weapon (players choice) [further showing you pick which weapon to not fire....as in One weapon is chosen as the RAW has stated] to do something.

Nothing grants permission to do it more than one time within that rule.

You have that backwards. Nothing is restricting it from happening more than once in a shooting phase.

That's the problem.

The rule can happen "in each of your shooting phases" not "once per shooting phase".

If you march step by step through the Shooting Sequence as the rules explicitly require you to do you will have two fully legal occasions to use the Master of Machines rule.

The RAW says you get to repair something instead of firing one weapon, you get to pick the weapon.

Nothing says you can do it more than one time.

it can happen in each of your shooting phases instead of firing one weapon.

not in each of your shooting phases one time per weapon you choose to not fire.

The rules as written do not say what you are implying.

blaktoof wrote:
The RAW says you get to repair something instead of firing one weapon, you get to pick the weapon.

Nothing says you can do it more than one time.

it can happen in each of your shooting phases instead of firing one weapon.

not in each of your shooting phases one time per weapon you choose to not fire.

The rules as written do not say what you are implying.

You are required to work it out in the context of the Shooting Sequence since that is the way models are allowed to shoot in the game.

Setting aside the Master of Machines rule for now, how many times in the Shooting Sequence is the Dominus firing one of his weapons?

blaktoof wrote:
The RAW says you get to repair something instead of firing one weapon, you get to pick the weapon.

Nothing says you can do it more than one time.

it can happen in each of your shooting phases instead of firing one weapon.

not in each of your shooting phases one time per weapon you choose to not fire.

The rules as written do not say what you are implying.

Pretty much. "One" does not equal "all", "every", or "any number". Some people need to not remove math from their reading comprehension matrix and also read beyond one or two words they want to focus on.

 Charistoph wrote:

Pretty much. "One" does not equal "all", "every", or "any number". Some people need to not remove math from their reading comprehension matrix and also read beyond one or two words they want to focus on.

The same question can be directed at you then . . .

You are required to work it out in the context of the Shooting Sequence since that is the way models are allowed to shoot in the game.

Setting aside the Master of Machines rule for now, how many times in the Shooting Sequence is the Dominus 'firing one of his weapons'?

col_impact wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The RAW says you get to repair something instead of firing one weapon, you get to pick the weapon.

Nothing says you can do it more than one time.

it can happen in each of your shooting phases instead of firing one weapon.

not in each of your shooting phases one time per weapon you choose to not fire.

The rules as written do not say what you are implying.

You are required to work it out in the context of the Shooting Sequence since that is the way models are allowed to shoot in the game.

Setting aside the Master of Machines rule for now, how many times in the Shooting Sequence is the Dominus firing one of his weapons?

Spoiler:

1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.

2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.

3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot.

4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines what it must roll in order to hit the target.

5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.

6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.

7. Select Another Weapon. After resolving all shots from the currently selected weapon, if the firing unit is equipped with differently named weapons that have yet to fire, select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6.

Interesting that you put in red type "select A weapon", not "select ONE weapon". Being told you may replace firing one weapon means exactly that, firing one weapon. It does not mean replacing two weapons with something else twice. They would have used "a weapon" or "for up to as many weapons as you can fire" or something along those lines if they had meant for you to apply it more than once in the shooting phase. One means one. One is not two or more.

 doctortom wrote:


Interesting that you put in red type "select A weapon", not "select ONE weapon". Being told you may replace firing one weapon means exactly that, firing one weapon. It does not mean replacing two weapons with something else twice. They would have used "a weapon" or "for up to as many weapons as you can fire" or something along those lines if they had meant for you to apply it more than once in the shooting phase. One means one. One is not two or more.

Answer a simple question.

The Dominus has two shooting weapons. How many times in the Shooting Sequence is the Dominus 'firing one of his weapons'?

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


Interesting that you put in red type "select A weapon", not "select ONE weapon". Being told you may replace firing one weapon means exactly that, firing one weapon. It does not mean replacing two weapons with something else twice. They would have used "a weapon" or "for up to as many weapons as you can fire" or something along those lines if they had meant for you to apply it more than once in the shooting phase. One means one. One is not two or more.

Answer a simple question.

The Dominus has two shooting weapons. How many times in the Shooting Sequence is the Dominus 'firing one of his weapons'?

Once. After he fires one of his weapons he fires the other of his weapons if he fires again.

Being told you may replace firing one weapon does not mean getting to replace firing multiple weapons with that action multiple times. From a rules standpoint, you are not allowed to make a "replace one" into "replace each" or "replace many". You are not told that you can replace each of his shooting attacks, only one of his shooting attacks.


You keep wanting to make 1 = 2.

Now, your turn. According to the words in the rule, how many shooting attacks may you replace - one, all, as many as you want up to what you can fire? There's only one right answer in that selection.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


Interesting that you put in red type "select A weapon", not "select ONE weapon". Being told you may replace firing one weapon means exactly that, firing one weapon. It does not mean replacing two weapons with something else twice. They would have used "a weapon" or "for up to as many weapons as you can fire" or something along those lines if they had meant for you to apply it more than once in the shooting phase. One means one. One is not two or more.

Answer a simple question.

The Dominus has two shooting weapons. How many times in the Shooting Sequence is the Dominus 'firing one of his weapons'?

Once. After he fires one of his weapons he fires the other of his weapons if he fires again.

Being told you may replace firing one weapon does not mean getting to replace firing multiple weapons with that action multiple times. From a rules standpoint, you are not allowed to make a "replace one" into "replace each" or "replace many". You are not told that you can replace each of his shooting attacks, only one of his shooting attacks.


You keep wanting to make 1 = 2.

Now, your turn. According to the words in the rule, how many shooting attacks may you replace - one, all, as many as you want up to what you can fire? There's only one right answer in that selection.

You are being daft in your response.

Each time the model is allowed to repeat steps 3 - 6 of the Shooting Sequence 'firing one of his weapons' will occur. That happens twice in the case of the Dominus since he has two shooting weapons.

The rules allow me to use Master of Machines instead of 'firing one of his weapons' which happens twice.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


Interesting that you put in red type "select A weapon", not "select ONE weapon". Being told you may replace firing one weapon means exactly that, firing one weapon. It does not mean replacing two weapons with something else twice. They would have used "a weapon" or "for up to as many weapons as you can fire" or something along those lines if they had meant for you to apply it more than once in the shooting phase. One means one. One is not two or more.

Answer a simple question.

The Dominus has two shooting weapons. How many times in the Shooting Sequence is the Dominus 'firing one of his weapons'?

Once. After he fires one of his weapons he fires the other of his weapons if he fires again.

Being told you may replace firing one weapon does not mean getting to replace firing multiple weapons with that action multiple times. From a rules standpoint, you are not allowed to make a "replace one" into "replace each" or "replace many". You are not told that you can replace each of his shooting attacks, only one of his shooting attacks.


You keep wanting to make 1 = 2.

Now, your turn. According to the words in the rule, how many shooting attacks may you replace - one, all, as many as you want up to what you can fire? There's only one right answer in that selection.

You are being daft in your response.

Each time the model is allowed to repeat steps 3 - 6 of the Shooting Sequence 'firing one of his weapons' will occur. That happens twice in the case of the Dominus since he has two shooting weapons.

The rules allow me to use Master of Machines instead of 'firing one of his weapons' which happens twice.

That doesn't mean he gets to replace both weapons when you are told you may replace firing one weapon. Getting to repeat the shooting sequence is completely irrelevant to what you are told in Master of Machines, which is that you replace firing one weapon. Replacing firing of each weapon is replacing firing of two weapons, not one weapon. You may not replace firing of two weapons. You may only replace firing of one weapon according to Master of Machines.

 doctortom wrote:


That doesn't mean he gets to replace both weapons when you are told you may replace firing one weapon. Getting to repeat the shooting sequence is completely irrelevant to what you are told in Master of Machines, which is that you replace firing one weapon. Replacing firing of each weapon is replacing firing of two weapons, not one weapon. You may not replace firing of two weapons. You may only replace firing of one weapon according to Master of Machines.

If you tell me the Shooting Sequence is not relevant then you are House Ruling.

The Shooting Sequence is entirely relevant since that is how models actually shoot per the BRB. What rules are you using if not the Shooting Sequence?

If you follow the Shooting Sequence you will find that 'firing one of his weapons' happens twice in the case of the Dominus who has two shooting weapons.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


That doesn't mean he gets to replace both weapons when you are told you may replace firing one weapon. Getting to repeat the shooting sequence is completely irrelevant to what you are told in Master of Machines, which is that you replace firing one weapon. Replacing firing of each weapon is replacing firing of two weapons, not one weapon. You may not replace firing of two weapons. You may only replace firing of one weapon according to Master of Machines.

If you tell me the Shooting Sequence is not relevant then you are House Ruling.

The Shooting Sequence is entirely relevant since that is how models actually shoot per the BRB. What rules are you using if not the Shooting Sequence?

If you follow the Shooting Sequence you will find that 'firing one of his weapons' happens twice in the case of the Dominus who has two shooting weapons.

No, it isn't house ruling. I say it is irrelevant because Master of Machines tells you that you may replace shooting ONE weapon with doing what the power does. That is all you need to know. The number of times you can shoot is irrelevant because you are told you replace shooting ONE weapon, not all weapons, each weapon, any combination of weapons or anything like that. The rule I am using is the Master of Machines rule, which tells you ALL you need to know about being able to use it, which is once (replacing firing one weapon). Trying to claim that you get to use it more than once is ignoring what the rule is actually telling you, that you replace firing ONE weapon.

 doctortom wrote:


No, it isn't house ruling. I say it is irrelevant because Master of Machines tells you that you may replace shooting ONE weapon with doing what the power does. That is all you need to know. The number of times you can shoot is irrelevant because you are told you replace shooting ONE weapon, not all weapons, each weapon, any combination of weapons or anything like that. The rule I am using is the Master of Machines rule, which tells you ALL you need to know about being able to use it, which is once (replacing firing one weapon). Trying to claim that you get to use it more than once is ignoring what the rule is actually telling you, that you replace firing ONE weapon.

Models are not allowed to shoot outside of the context of the Shooting Sequence rules.

When models shoot it is in the context of the Shooting Sequence rules.

Per the Shooting Sequence rules, the occasion of 'firing one of his weapons' happens twice for the Dominus; therefore Master of Machines can be used twice.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


Interesting that you put in red type "select A weapon", not "select ONE weapon". Being told you may replace firing one weapon means exactly that, firing one weapon. It does not mean replacing two weapons with something else twice. They would have used "a weapon" or "for up to as many weapons as you can fire" or something along those lines if they had meant for you to apply it more than once in the shooting phase. One means one. One is not two or more.

Answer a simple question.

The Dominus has two shooting weapons. How many times in the Shooting Sequence is the Dominus 'firing one of his weapons'?

Once. After he fires one of his weapons he fires the other of his weapons if he fires again.

Being told you may replace firing one weapon does not mean getting to replace firing multiple weapons with that action multiple times. From a rules standpoint, you are not allowed to make a "replace one" into "replace each" or "replace many". You are not told that you can replace each of his shooting attacks, only one of his shooting attacks.


You keep wanting to make 1 = 2.

Now, your turn. According to the words in the rule, how many shooting attacks may you replace - one, all, as many as you want up to what you can fire? There's only one right answer in that selection.

Actually it depends on the types of Weapon being employed. If they are two of the same Weapon, then it changes things up a little bit. You shoot one Weapon twice if they are two different Weapons, but none if they are both the same Weapon.

But yeah, whether you go through the Shooting Sequence once or twice, doesn't really matter if the Master of Machines rule starts off with the condition of "Once per turn" like most of these repairing rules go.

 Charistoph wrote:


But yeah, whether you go through the Shooting Sequence once or twice, doesn't really matter if the Master of Machines rule starts off with the condition of "Once per turn" like most of these repairing rules go.

I assume that you have read the rule.

If not, let's go ahead and take a look at the actual rule.



There is no "once per turn" like in most of the repairing rules.

That's why Dominus can use Master of the Machines on both occasions in the Shooting Sequence when he is 'firing one of his weapons'.

col_impact wrote:

Models are not allowed to shoot outside of the context of the Shooting Sequence rules.

Overwatch.

col_impact wrote:
When models shoot it is in the context of the Shooting Sequence rules.

Per the Shooting Sequence rules, the occasion of 'firing one of his weapons' happens twice for the Dominus; therefore Master of Machines can be used twice.

You should go back and review other rules from GW and how they have dealt with them in FAQS when they say you may replace one of something with something else - notably buying relics. They say you may replace (for example) one weapon with a relic. They have clearly FAQ'd that one means one - you do not replace one weapon with a relic, then another weapon with another relic. This is an indication that they are following normal English language in relation to saying "one" and when they say you may replace firing one weapon, or instead of firing your weapon, you mayh get the benefits of Master of Machines, they mean exactly that - replacing shooting ONE weapon. There is no permission for getting the benefit twice.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Models are not allowed to shoot outside of the context of the Shooting Sequence rules.

Overwatch.

Am I the only one who actually reads the rules?

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
When models shoot it is in the context of the Shooting Sequence rules.

Per the Shooting Sequence rules, the occasion of 'firing one of his weapons' happens twice for the Dominus; therefore Master of Machines can be used twice.

You should go back and review other rules from GW and how they have dealt with them in FAQS when they say you may replace one of something with something else - notably buying relics. They say you may replace (for example) one weapon with a relic. They have clearly FAQ'd that one means one - you do not replace one weapon with a relic, then another weapon with another relic. This is an indication that they are following normal English language in relation to saying "one" and when they say you may replace firing one weapon, or instead of firing your weapon, you mayh get the benefits of Master of Machines, they mean exactly that - replacing shooting ONE weapon. There is no permission for getting the benefit twice.

I have shown you the rules for the Shooting Sequence which indicate that the Dominus will be 'firing one of his weapons' on two separate iterations of the Shooting Sequence and therefore will be able to activate the Master of Machines rule twice.

It has already been pointed out that the Master of Machines rule lacks the "once per shooting phase" that you are wont to read into the rule.

Following normal English means not reading into the rule. If you read into the rule then your argument is invalid.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Models are not allowed to shoot outside of the context of the Shooting Sequence rules.

Overwatch.

Bad example. Overwatch uses the Shooting Sequence rules.

Can someone reliable quote the Master of Machines rule?

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Models are not allowed to shoot outside of the context of the Shooting Sequence rules.

Overwatch.

Bad example. Overwatch uses the Shooting Sequence rules.

Can someone reliable quote the Master of Machines rule?

Master of Machines



Now compare that rule with the Space Marine rule . . .

Blessing of the Omnissiah:

The RAW difference is one requires you give up firing your weapons, the other requires you only give up firing one weapon and can heal wounds of certain factions.

Neither has permission to be used multiple times per turn, phase, or sequence.

blaktoof wrote:
The RAW difference is one requires you give up firing your weapons, the other requires you only give up firing one weapon and can heal wounds of certain factions.

Neither has permission to be used multiple times per turn, phase, or sequence.

If you follow the Shooting Sequence rule (which you must), the Dominus has the occasion twice to 'fire one of his weapons'; therefore, the Dominus can use Master of Machines twice.

Master of machines does not use step 3, you do not select the macrostubber and then state that you are opting not to fire the macro stubber in order to make an attempt to repair.

In fact, master of machines is in your shooting phase; you do not even do it within the shooting sequence. You are free to start your shooting phase, fire with a breacher unit, activate master of the machines with your dominus, fire with your kastelan maniple, then fire the dominus' volkite blaster.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Master of machines does not use step 3, you do not select the macrostubber and then state that you are opting not to fire the macro stubber in order to make an attempt to repair.

In fact, master of machines is in your shooting phase; you do not even do it within the shooting sequence. You are free to start your shooting phase, fire with a breacher unit, activate master of the machines with your dominus, fire with your kastelan maniple, then fire the dominus' volkite blaster.

Incorrect. You have to use the Master of Machines rule "instead of firing one of his weapons". That would occur on each of the two iterations of the Shooting Sequence that the Dominus participates in.

Otherwise you are not adhering to what "instead" means. Instead means "in place of".

First of all: you are trying to enforce your definition of "instead of" while completely ignoring the definition of "one".

Second: no. Instead of firing/shooting happens outside the shooting sequence. Or are you claiming that Fenrisian Wolves, ripper swarms, genestealers, hormagaunts, lone terminator librarians without a gun pruchased, or any other unit that has no ranged weapon cannot run? Step 1 requires the nominated unit to be equipped with a ranged weapon, running is instead of firing.

Running(or blessings of the omnissiah, or any other instead of firing/shooting special rule) would also require you to choose a target; if there is no target in sight you are stuck not being able to pass step 2 and can never choose to run instead of firing.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
When models shoot it is in the context of the Shooting Sequence rules.

Per the Shooting Sequence rules, the occasion of 'firing one of his weapons' happens twice for the Dominus; therefore Master of Machines can be used twice.

You should go back and review other rules from GW and how they have dealt with them in FAQS when they say you may replace one of something with something else - notably buying relics. They say you may replace (for example) one weapon with a relic. They have clearly FAQ'd that one means one - you do not replace one weapon with a relic, then another weapon with another relic. This is an indication that they are following normal English language in relation to saying "one" and when they say you may replace firing one weapon, or instead of firing your weapon, you mayh get the benefits of Master of Machines, they mean exactly that - replacing shooting ONE weapon. There is no permission for getting the benefit twice.

I have shown you the rules for the Shooting Sequence which indicate that the Dominus will be 'firing one of his weapons' on two separate iterations of the Shooting Sequence and therefore will be able to activate the Master of Machines rule twice.

It has already been pointed out that the Master of Machines rule lacks the "once per shooting phase" that you are wont to read into the rule.

Following normal English means not reading into the rule. If you read into the rule then your argument is invalid.

Kommissar Kel brings up valid points. You are outside the shooting sequence when you are using Master of Machines. That means that your entire argument base on the shooting sequence in invalidated; I had already pointed out that it's irrelevant since if does NOT affect the Mast of Machines rule (as it done outside the shooting sequence) and you have permission to only use Master of Machines once, instead of firing one weapon.

You are trying to enforce your version of "instead" while completely ignoring the definition of "one". You have completely ignored what I pointed out here, that in other situations where GW has said "one", they mean "one", not "many". My comparison here is completely valid. In both cases, you are replacing one thing for another thing (using Master of Machines "instead of" firing one weapon means you are replacing one weapon with using Master of Machines). In the case of relics, you are replacing one item with a something else (a relic). In the case of Master of Machines you are replacing one action (firing one ranged weapon) with something else (using Master of Machines). GW has made it perfectly clear that, even if you have multiple weapons eligible to trade for relics, when they say you trade one weapon for a relic, this means only one; you do not get to trade multiple weapons for multiple relics. GW's use here is the same; using Master of Machines instead of firing one ranged weapon is done only once no matter how many times you can shoot, because - like with their use of "one" in other situations - you may only do it once. GW's usage of "one" also invalidates your trying to use the shooting sequence to justify turning one into more than one. Your citing "normal English" to try to help you doesn't cut it when I have been able to show counterexamples of how GW uses "one" in their rules language, which is what you need to adhere to. Now, please don't ignore this point again like you did in your past response, which made no effort to try to deal with this.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
First of all: you are trying to enforce your definition of "instead of" while completely ignoring the definition of "one".

Second: no. Instead of firing/shooting happens outside the shooting sequence. Or are you claiming that Fenrisian Wolves, ripper swarms, genestealers, hormagaunts, lone terminator librarians without a gun pruchased, or any other unit that has no ranged weapon cannot run? Step 1 requires the nominated unit to be equipped with a ranged weapon, running is instead of firing.

Running(or blessings of the omnissiah, or any other instead of firing/shooting special rule) would also require you to choose a target; if there is no target in sight you are stuck not being able to pass step 2 and can never choose to run instead of firing.

You have made a straw man by not attending to the language used by the rules.

I agree that 'instead of firing' happens outside the shooting sequence. Units can choose to run instead of firing.

However, 'instead of firing one of his weapons' can only happen in the context of one of the iterations of the shooting sequence as it is a model level action.

If an individual model that is part of a unit wants to choose to fire one of his shooting weapons but not the other then he must do so in the shooting sequence (even if it's a one model unit).



If you feel otherwise, it is up to you to point out when and where the Dominus is allowed in the rules to 'fire one of his weapons' if not in the context of the Shooting Sequence. And remember to not confuse unit level actions with model level actions.


Also, I am using "instead" in the same way the BRB and the dictionary do. How are you defining "instead" if not "in place of, in lieu of, as a substitute to"?

I am genuinely curious how you would define "instead". You claim somehow that the definition I use is my version of "instead" when it is actually the English language version of "instead".

Models may choose not to fire individual weapons that they are equipped with after the unit has chosen to fire that weapon.

You do not start with selecting the dominus(or the unit he has joined), pick a target for that unit, choose the macrostubber, then choose not to fire the macrostubber in order to attempt repairs.

You simply have the dominus attempt repairs instead of firing one of his weapons, at any point in the shooting phase after that(or before if he had already fired one of his weapons, or even while firing one of his weapons) he/his unit goes through the shooting sequence.

Although this is arguing when, exactly, during the shooting phase that you are attempting to repair instead of firing one weapon. If it is your shooting phase and you are attempting repairs instead of firing more than one weapon; you are breaking the rules.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You simply have the dominus attempt repairs instead of firing one of his weapons

When exactly does this happen? The rules are precise and you keep answering vaguely.

When exactly does "firing one of his weapons" occur?

col_impact wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You simply have the dominus attempt repairs instead of firing one of his weapons

When exactly does this happen? The rules are precise and you keep answering vaguely.

When exactly does "firing one of his weapons" occur?

Use of Master of Machines happens at any time during the shooting phase, as he said. That's not vague, you just don't like the answer. You do not have to be in the shooting sequence to use Master of Machines, just as you do not have to be in the shooting sequence to Run instead of firing.

Apparently you feel that it has to be only during the shooting sequence. Going by that, does that mean you're not allowed to use Master of Machines if there's nothing available to shoot? Because that's a consequence of what you are saying. We all know that isn't correct, however - you can use Master of Machines even if you can't shoot at something, just like models with no ranged weapons can Run.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You simply have the dominus attempt repairs instead of firing one of his weapons

When exactly does this happen? The rules are precise and you keep answering vaguely.

When exactly does "firing one of his weapons" occur?

Use of Master of Machines happens at any time during the shooting phase, as he said. That's not vague, you just don't like the answer.

I asked when exactly does "firing one of his weapons" occur. That happens at a precise time in the Shooting Phase. Two times in the Shooting Phase for the Dominus actually. Point it out.

 doctortom wrote:

Apparently you feel that it has to be only during the shooting sequence. Going by that, does that mean you're not allowed to use Master of Machines if there's nothing available to shoot? Because that's a consequence of what you are saying. We all know that isn't correct, however - you can use Master of Machines even if you can't shoot at something, just like models with no ranged weapons can Run.

Keep your language straight. Units can run instead of firing. The whole unit chooses to opt out of the shooting sequence to run. That is not the case here. Do not confuse models with units.

Until you adhere to a precise use of language your argument is invalid.

col_impact wrote:

Until you adhere to a precise use of language your argument is invalid.

Okay, how about we stick with GW's "precise use of language"? This will be the third time I've mentioned how they have used "replace one..." or Instead of firing one.."" or something mentioning one. Go back to my posts that point out the similarities between getting to replace only one relic by trading a weapon even if you have more than one weapon to trade, and only getting to use Master of Machines even if you have more than one weapon available to fire. It is certainly not an invalid argument, and so far you keep ignoring it.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Until you adhere to a precise use of language your argument is invalid.

Okay, how about we stick with GW's "precise use of language"? This will be the third time I've mentioned how they have used "replace one..." or Instead of firing one.."" or something mentioning one. Go back to my posts that point out the similarities between getting to replace only one relic by trading a weapon even if you have more than one weapon to trade, and only getting to use Master of Machines even if you have more than one weapon available to fire. It is certainly not an invalid argument, and so far you keep ignoring it.

You have to follow the Shooting Sequence. When you do, there will be precisely 2 fully legal occasions where the Dominus will be 'firing one of his weapons'; therefore, the Dominus can use Master of Machines two times.

col_impact wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You simply have the dominus attempt repairs instead of firing one of his weapons

When exactly does this happen? The rules are precise and you keep answering vaguely.

When exactly does "firing one of his weapons" occur?

At the exact same time that a rhino that has lost its stormbolter pops smoke or moves flat out.

At the exact same time a unit of fenrisian wolves or genestealers runs.

Both of the above are done in the shooting phase instead of firing.

Neither of the above are eligible units for step 1.

These running, or smoke launching, or flat-out moving units do so whenever the player wants them to during the shooting phase but outside of the shooting sequence(since it is done instead of shooting or firing).

Again though, you are told by master of machines that in your shooting phase(not the model's shooting phase as in the case of some other rules which we can only infer to mean during the shooting sequence) you may attempt repairs instead of firing ONE weapon. If it is your shooting phase it does not matter how many weapons you do not fire the attempt to repair only occurs instead of one of them.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Until you adhere to a precise use of language your argument is invalid.

Okay, how about we stick with GW's "precise use of language"? This will be the third time I've mentioned how they have used "replace one..." or Instead of firing one.."" or something mentioning one. Go back to my posts that point out the similarities between getting to replace only one relic by trading a weapon even if you have more than one weapon to trade, and only getting to use Master of Machines even if you have more than one weapon available to fire. It is certainly not an invalid argument, and so far you keep ignoring it.

You have to follow the Shooting Sequence. When you do, there will be precisely 2 fully legal occasions where the Dominus will be 'firing one of his weapons'; therefore, the Dominus can use Master of Machines two times.

Thank you for ignoring what I said - you have not addressed the issue at all about GW's use of the language and when they say something like "instead of firing one weapon" or "trade one weapon in to purchase a Relic." It also ignores that by what you say Master of Machines can not be used if there is nothing to shoot at - something that we know is patently false because units that can not shoot can still run (so I said "model" in the last post - you didn't feel like addressing the point behind it so chose to ignore it.). You also ignore that Master of Machines is no more specific than in your shooting phase - it does not state that it occurs as part of the shooting eequence. This is something you are trying to read into it when it's not applicable. By ignoring all these things, I can only take this to mean that you have no rebuttal for the argument that GW's use of "firing one weapon" is in line with "trading one weapon" for relics, and are merely trying to ignore it so that you don't have to face up to that completely disproves your claims.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You simply have the dominus attempt repairs instead of firing one of his weapons

When exactly does this happen? The rules are precise and you keep answering vaguely.

When exactly does "firing one of his weapons" occur?

At the exact same time that a rhino that has lost its stormbolter pops smoke or moves flat out.

At the exact same time a unit of fenrisian wolves or genestealers runs.

Both of the above are done in the shooting phase instead of firing.

Neither of the above are eligible units for step 1.

These running, or smoke launching, or flat-out moving units do so whenever the player wants them to during the shooting phase but outside of the shooting sequence(since it is done instead of shooting or firing).

Again though, you are told by master of machines that in your shooting phase(not the model's shooting phase as in the case of some other rules which we can only infer to mean during the shooting sequence) you may attempt repairs instead of firing ONE weapon. If it is your shooting phase it does not matter how many weapons you do not fire the attempt to repair only occurs instead of one of them.

You are confusing UNIT actions with MODEL actions.

Running instead of firing is a UNIT action.

"Firing one of his weapons" can only occur in the Shooting Sequence by a MODEL.

If you think otherwise, point to the page and paragraph where a MODEL can fire one of his weapons outside of the Shooting Sequence.

Uh, col_impact, the Shooting sequence is a sequence to follow for the UNIT action of shooting ranged weapons at a target. You're trying to make a strawman argument here.

Oh, and if I recall correctly the Tech-priest 'Dominus is a unit as well as a model.

 doctortom wrote:


Thank you for ignoring what I said - you have not addressed the issue at all about GW's use of the language and when they say something like "instead of firing one weapon" or "trade one weapon in to purchase a Relic." It also ignores that by what you say Master of Machines can not be used if there is nothing to shoot at - something that we know is patently false because units that can not shoot can still run (so I said "model" in the last post - you didn't feel like addressing the point behind it so chose to ignore it.). You also ignore that Master of Machines is no more specific than in your shooting phase - it does not state that it occurs as part of the shooting eequence. This is something you are trying to read into it when it's not applicable. By ignoring all these things, I can only take this to mean that you have no rebuttal for the argument that GW's use of "firing one weapon" is in line with "trading one weapon" for relics, and are merely trying to ignore it so that you don't have to face up to that completely disproves your claims.

I have not ignored your argument and have adhered to the precise meaning of "one" as it actually occurs in the rules at stake.

I have demonstrated that

You have to follow the Shooting Sequence. When you do, there will be precisely 2 FULLY LEGAL OCCASIONS where the Dominus will be 'firing one of his weapons'; therefore, the Dominus can use Master of Machines two times.



You, on the other hand, have failed to show how a model can "fire one of his weapons" outside of the Shooting Sequence. You have also ignored that "firing one of his weapons" happens twice in the Shooting Sequence.

You can't just hand-wave away the Shooting Sequence. That's where models are given permission to fire their weapons.

If you flat-out ignore rules in the BRB your argument is invalid.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:
Uh, col_impact, the Shooting sequence is a sequence to follow for the UNIT action of shooting ranged weapons at a target. You're trying to make a strawman argument here.

Oh, and if I recall correctly the Tech-priest 'Dominus is a unit as well as a model.

Sigh.

Units opt to participate in the Shooting Sequence altogether or not. Once a unit is participating in the Shooting Sequence, the sequence marches through all the weapons and all the models to resolve the firing of each weapon by each model.


If the Dominus is acting as a unit by himself, the Dominus unit opts to participate in the Shooting Sequence or not. If the Dominus unit opts to fire, you then follow the Shooting Sequence rules to resolve the firing of all the weapons and all the models of the unit which is not too hard since there is 2 shooting weapons and one model involved.

The Dominus "firing one of his weapons" can only occur in the context of the Shooting Sequence. Sorry, but that's the rules.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


Thank you for ignoring what I said - you have not addressed the issue at all about GW's use of the language and when they say something like "instead of firing one weapon" or "trade one weapon in to purchase a Relic." It also ignores that by what you say Master of Machines can not be used if there is nothing to shoot at - something that we know is patently false because units that can not shoot can still run (so I said "model" in the last post - you didn't feel like addressing the point behind it so chose to ignore it.). You also ignore that Master of Machines is no more specific than in your shooting phase - it does not state that it occurs as part of the shooting eequence. This is something you are trying to read into it when it's not applicable. By ignoring all these things, I can only take this to mean that you have no rebuttal for the argument that GW's use of "firing one weapon" is in line with "trading one weapon" for relics, and are merely trying to ignore it so that you don't have to face up to that completely disproves your claims.

I have not ignored your argument and have adhered to the precise meaning of "one" as it actually occurs in the rules at stake.

I have demonstrated that

You have to follow the Shooting Sequence. When you do, there will be precisely 2 FULLY LEGAL OCCASIONS where the Dominus will be 'firing one of his weapons'; therefore, the Dominus can use Master of Machines two times.



You, on the other hand, have failed to show how a model can "fire one of his weapons" outside of the Shooting Sequence. You have also ignored that "firing one of his weapons" happens twice in the Shooting Sequence.

You can't just hand-wave away the Shooting Sequence. That's where models are given permission to fire their weapons.

If you flat-out ignore rules in the BRB your argument is invalid.

This is a load of codswallop. You do NOT get to ignore how GW has used similar phrases elsewhere in the rulebook. YOU are the one ignoring rules in the BRBs and Codexes by ignoring these rules using similar phrases. This is all completely independent of when you fire a weapon, and you do NOT get to dismiss it on the basis of the shooting sequence. Deal with explaining away the similar usages in other areas of the rulebooks without bringing up the shooting sequence, as it is a more general issue there. By not dealing with it, you are tacitly admitting that you have no proper rebuttal for it.


But, let's talk about the shooting sequence. If you are given permission to do something else instead of firing one weapon, then you are NOT firing that one weapon, and therefor the shooting sequence does not need to be involved BECAUSE you are doing something INSTEAD of firing the weapon. Run can happen at any time in the shooting phase instead of firing weapons - it doesn't matter if it's a unit or model action, you don't enter the shooting sequence to do something instead of firing weapons. This means your invoking the shooting sequence is again a red herring, and disproved through a different method. Now that it's doubly disproved, deal with both issues; bringing up the shooting sequence does not give you an excuse to ignore these or claim they are all invalid (here we show your claim of invalidity is in itself invalid).

 doctortom wrote:


This is a load of codswallop. You do NOT get to ignore how GW has used similar phrases elsewhere in the rulebook. YOU are the one ignoring rules in the BRBs and Codexes by ignoring these rules using similar phrases. This is all completely independent of when you fire a weapon, and you do NOT get to dismiss it on the basis of the shooting sequence. Deal with explaining away the similar usages in other areas of the rulebooks without bringing up the shooting sequence, as it is a more general issue there. By not dealing with it, you are tacitly admitting that you have no proper rebuttal for it.

I have not ignored GW use of similar phrases in the rulebook. I have shown that there are two occasions where the Dominus is "firing one of his weapons" and can therefore invoke the Master of Machines rule twice. The Master of Machines rule does not say "once per shooting phase".

 doctortom wrote:

But, let's talk about the shooting sequence. If you are given permission to do something else instead of firing one weapon, then you are NOT firing that one weapon, and therefor the shooting sequence does not need to be involved BECAUSE you are doing something INSTEAD of firing the weapon.

The Shooting Sequence has to be involved or otherwise you have no permission for the model of be "firing one of his weapons".

If you keep hand-waving away the rules in the BRB, your argument is invalid.

 doctortom wrote:

Run can happen at any time in the shooting phase instead of firing weapons - it doesn't matter if it's a unit or model action, you don't enter the shooting sequence to do something instead of firing weapons. This means your invoking the shooting sequence is again a red herring, and disproved through a different method. Now that it's doubly disproved, deal with both issues; bringing up the shooting sequence does not give you an excuse to ignore these or claim they are all invalid (here we show your claim of invalidity is in itself invalid).

The difference between UNIT or MODEL is always important in the rules.

If a unit opts to shoot, a model in that unit is not allowed to run.

If you can't keep UNIT separate from MODEL then your argument is invalid.

@col_impact going on your reading of the rule, I'd be able to use battle focus to enable my eldar to run twice in the shooting phase. I trust you would accept that, and from every Eldar player who you go up against?

 JamesY wrote:
@col_impact going on your reading of the rule, I'd be able to use battle focus to enable my eldar to run twice in the shooting phase. I trust you would accept that, and from every Eldar player who you go up against?

Feel free to present an actual argument here.

 JamesY wrote:
@col_impact going on your reading of the rule, I'd be able to use battle focus to enable my eldar to run twice in the shooting phase. I trust you would accept that, and from every Eldar player who you go up against?

In addition to that, Assault Terminators, Hormagaunts, and any number of units without any Shooting Weapon whatsoever would not be able to Run. Also, in order for any unit with a Ranged Weapon that wanted to Run would have to select a Target in Line of Sight in order to Run.

But this is classic for the Ignored One. Take one or two words, give them primacy over context and ignore all relevance, and calls it proper grammar.

It's a discussion forum, not a platform from which to argue. And for someone who has banged on for three pages about paying attention to the language used, I think you should be adequately capable of inferring my point.

 Charistoph wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
@col_impact going on your reading of the rule, I'd be able to use battle focus to enable my eldar to run twice in the shooting phase. I trust you would accept that, and from every Eldar player who you go up against?

In addition to that, Assault Terminators, Hormagaunts, and any number of units without any Shooting Weapon whatsoever would not be able to Run. Also, in order for any unit with a Ranged Weapon that wanted to Run would have to select a Target in Line of Sight in order to Run.

But this is classic for the Ignored One. Take one or two words, give them primacy over context and ignore all relevance, and calls it proper grammar.

The UNIT opts to not fire, ie to not make a shooting attack and to run instead. It breaks no requirements doing so. You are making a straw man argument and a bad one at that. A unit that has no shooting weapons can run instead of firing since it runs in place of firing and therefore does not need to meet any requirements for firing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JamesY wrote:
It's a discussion forum, not a platform from which to argue. And for someone who has banged on for three pages about paying attention to the language used, I think you should be adequately capable of inferring my point.

I can't read your mind. And if you can't bother articulating a point then it must be inconsequential.

You don't need to be a mind reader. You just need to say if you are unaware of the specifics of the battle focus rule.

It allows the model/unit to make both a run and shooting attack in the shooting phase. I could use your interpretation to initiate the shooting sequence once to make my run move, and then again, and use the run rules to opt for a second run move.

Far from inconsequential, if it means objective secured units moving up to 18" a turn.

 JamesY wrote:
You don't need to be a mind reader. You just need to say if you are unaware of the specifics of the battle focus rule.

It allows the model/unit to make both a run and shooting attack in the shooting phase. I could use your interpretation to initiate the shooting sequence once to make my run move, and then again, and use the run rules to opt for a second run move.

Far from inconsequential, if it means objective secured units moving up to 18" a turn.

As I have already stated, the shooting sequence is not involved in any way whatsoever for units that are choosing to run. Units that choose to run skip the Shooting Sequence entirely. In fact, the Shooting Sequence rules preclude this.




What I have said is that Dominus can only be "firing one of his weapons" in the context of the Shooting Sequence.

If you feel otherwise, point out how Dominus could be "firing one of his weapons" outside of the context of the Shooting Sequence. I await your response.

The battle focus rule overrides that and allows a running unit to shoot. By your logic, after the run, they enter the shooting sequence, and I can use the run rule to run again instead of shooting.

You haven't pointed out anything other than a single minded determination to deliberately misread a very clearly worded rule for your own benefit. I don't feel the need to repeat the accurate and valid points others have made that you will continue to ignore.

I'm not going to add any further, as the last word isn't necessarily the right word.

 JamesY wrote:
The battle focus rule overrides that and allows a running unit to shoot. By your logic, after the run, they enter the shooting sequence, and I can use the run rule to run again instead of shooting.

That's not my logic at all. A unit that has entered the Shooting Sequence cannot choose to run. The choice to either run or fire has at that point in time already been made for the unit. You simply have to read the rules to know that.




You have failed to address the actual issue. What is the precise point in the rules when Dominus can be "firing one of his weapons"?


I have proven that the occasion of Dominus "firing one of his weapons" happens twice in the Shooting Sequence; therefore, Master of Machines can be used twice.

As of yet, no one has disproven my argument.

 JamesY wrote:


I'm not going to add any further, as the last word isn't necessarily the right word.

Good. All you have done so far is produce a bad strawman argument that has nothing to do with the actual argument.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


This is a load of codswallop. You do NOT get to ignore how GW has used similar phrases elsewhere in the rulebook. YOU are the one ignoring rules in the BRBs and Codexes by ignoring these rules using similar phrases. This is all completely independent of when you fire a weapon, and you do NOT get to dismiss it on the basis of the shooting sequence. Deal with explaining away the similar usages in other areas of the rulebooks without bringing up the shooting sequence, as it is a more general issue there. By not dealing with it, you are tacitly admitting that you have no proper rebuttal for it.

I have not ignored GW use of similar phrases in the rulebook. I have shown that there are two occasions where the Dominus is "firing one of his weapons" and can therefore invoke the Master of Machines rule twice. The Master of Machines rule does not say "once per shooting phase".

Congratulations on showing there are two occasions where the Dominus is firing a weapon. You can show that water is wet, or that the Sun rises in the east, and those two things have exactly the same amount of relevance to how many times you get to use Master of Machines as how many times you get to shoot does - absolutely no relevance to it at all. Saying you have not ignored the issue is a fundamentally dishonest statment; when GW has used similar phrasing, such as "may trade one weapon for a Relic", etc., they have made it clear in the rules and in FAQs that it only happens once. I have pointed this out on numerous occasions and you still choose to ignore it. Claiming no you are not ignoring it when you have not dealt with it at all is a fundamental lie. Because of this, it doesn't matter how many times you can fire in the Shooting sequence, you only get to use Master of Machines once because of it saying "one weapon", backed up by how GW treats trading one item or doing something instead of one thing.

You have also avoided the issue of whether the Tech-priest Dominus can use Master of Machines if he is not able to fire at anything. We have shown that in other cases you are able to things instead of shooting and not enter the shooting sequence. It doesn't matter whether it's units or models - you have shown no proof to back up your claim that it's invalid. But, if you want a model example - bombing runs happen in the movement phase, yet count as a shooting attack that has been used in the shooting phase. Therefore, you are outside the shooting sequence in the shooting phase for this. This is still a side issue though, as you have not been able to prove that being able to fire twice in the shooting sequence overrides GW's written rules about trading for one thing or doing something instead of one other thing can only be done once. And please do not try to dismiss this as handwaving; there has been enough presented where it is clear to anybody who wants to argue honestly that it is not mere handwaving.

Indeed. The Shooting Phase isn't just the Shooting Sequence. It is the main focus and point of the Shooting Phase, without a doubt, but there are other things that are involved in the Shooting Phase than shooting. Ignoring context and other rules does not help the Ignored One's case at all.

 doctortom wrote:


Congratulations on showing there are two occasions where the Dominus is firing a weapon. You can show that water is wet, or that the Sun rises in the east, and those two things have exactly the same amount of relevance to how many times you get to use Master of Machines as how many times you get to shoot does - absolutely no relevance to it at all. Saying you have not ignored the issue is a fundamentally dishonest statment; when GW has used similar phrasing, such as "may trade one weapon for a Relic", etc., they have made it clear in the rules and in FAQs that it only happens once. I have pointed this out on numerous occasions and you still choose to ignore it. Claiming no you are not ignoring it when you have not dealt with it at all is a fundamental lie. Because of this, it doesn't matter how many times you can fire in the Shooting sequence, you only get to use Master of Machines once because of it saying "one weapon", backed up by how GW treats trading one item or doing something instead of one thing.

Incorrect.
The rule makes no mention of any restriction to the use of Master of Machines, such as "once in the shooting phase"; therefore, there is no restriction. You are not allowed to read into the rules.

As you agree and as I have proven, the occasion of Dominus "firing one of his weapon" happens twice in the Shooting Sequence. Therefore, Master of Machines can be used twice.


Also, your attempt at offering a rebuttal in the form of some vague statements about Relics and how GW handles them bears no relevance. It's up to you to put your thoughts together and form an argument.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
Indeed. The Shooting Phase isn't just the Shooting Sequence. It is the main focus and point of the Shooting Phase, without a doubt, but there are other things that are involved in the Shooting Phase than shooting. Ignoring context and other rules does not help the Ignored One's case at all.

I asked you before and you failed to answer.

How many times in the Shooting Sequence is the Dominus 'firing one of his weapons'?

Your inability to answer the simplest of questions highlights your fallacious thinking.

Only when you are prepared to answer that question can you actively participate in the debate.

 Charistoph wrote:

Ignoring context and other rules does not help the Ignored One's case at all.

Also, you mention context and other rules that I am somehow ignoring. What context and which rules are those? Making vague references does not help your case at all and really only highlights that your posts in this thread have been contentless and merely disruptive and therefore against YMDC rules.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


Congratulations on showing there are two occasions where the Dominus is firing a weapon. You can show that water is wet, or that the Sun rises in the east, and those two things have exactly the same amount of relevance to how many times you get to use Master of Machines as how many times you get to shoot does - absolutely no relevance to it at all. Saying you have not ignored the issue is a fundamentally dishonest statment; when GW has used similar phrasing, such as "may trade one weapon for a Relic", etc., they have made it clear in the rules and in FAQs that it only happens once. I have pointed this out on numerous occasions and you still choose to ignore it. Claiming no you are not ignoring it when you have not dealt with it at all is a fundamental lie. Because of this, it doesn't matter how many times you can fire in the Shooting sequence, you only get to use Master of Machines once because of it saying "one weapon", backed up by how GW treats trading one item or doing something instead of one thing.

Incorrect.
The rule makes no mention of any restriction to the use of Master of Machines, such as "once in the shooting phase"; therefore, there is no restriction. You are not allowed to read into the rules.

You are wrong. The rules clearly state you may replace firing ONE weapon with using Master of Machines. This is a limitation. Your refusal to realize it as such is not reading into the rules; to the contrary, YOU are the one trying to read into the rules to turn one into more than one.

col_impact wrote:
Also, your attempt at offering a rebuttal in the form of some vague statements about Relics and how GW handles them bears no relevance. It's up to you to put your thoughts together and form an argument.

And, this is exactly the type of thing you continually do when you don't wish to deal with a problem - try to find some excuse to ignore it and not have to worry about it. If you think the statements about Relics bear no relevance, then your reading comprehension is severely challenged as they use a similar wording in relation to the word "One", and replacing something instead of something else (an item in the case or relics, an action in the case of Master of Machines). I have provided enough where accusations of "some vague statments" ring hollow; you just do not wish to deal with them. At this point I can only conclude that you are not able to comprehend the rules as can not see similarities between the rules when they are pointed out to you, and you can't tell when a rule that provide a limitation actually is a limitation

col_impact wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
Indeed. The Shooting Phase isn't just the Shooting Sequence. It is the main focus and point of the Shooting Phase, without a doubt, but there are other things that are involved in the Shooting Phase than shooting. Ignoring context and other rules does not help the Ignored One's case at all.

I asked you before and you failed to answer.

How many times in the Shooting Sequence is the Dominus 'firing one of his weapons'?

He's probably figured that it's been answered enough, and like the rest of us, realize that it's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Your turn to answer simple questions. According to Master of Machines, how many weapons do you replace firing with in order to use it. Answer this only using the rules from Master of Machines; do not invoke the Shooting sequence. Stick only with what Master of machines tells you.

Now, for another question: If, as you say, you have to be in the shooting sequence to use Master of Machines, does a Tech-Priest Dominus get to use it if he has nothing to shoot at?

 doctortom wrote:


You are wrong. The rules clearly state you may replace firing ONE weapon with using Master of Machines. This is a limitation. Your refusal to realize it as such is not reading into the rules; to the contrary, YOU are the one trying to read into the rules to turn one into more than one.

As you have already agreed, there are two separate and fully legal occasions where the Dominus will be "firing one of his weapons"; therefore the Master of Machines can be legally used to replace both occasions.

The problem for you is that the rule does not say "once per shooting phase". That would be a limitation. You are not allowed to pretend "once per shooting phase" is in the rule.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Also, your attempt at offering a rebuttal in the form of some vague statements about Relics and how GW handles them bears no relevance. It's up to you to put your thoughts together and form an argument.

And, this is exactly the type of thing you continually do when you don't wish to deal with a problem - try to find some excuse to ignore it and not have to worry about it. If you think the statements about Relics bear no relevance, then your reading comprehension is severely challenged as they use a similar wording in relation to the word "One", and replacing something instead of something else (an item in the case or relics, an action in the case of Master of Machines). I have provided enough where accusations of "some vague statments" ring hollow; you just do not wish to deal with them. At this point I can only conclude that you are not able to comprehend the rules as can not see similarities between the rules when they are pointed out to you, and you can't tell when a rule that provide a limitation actually is a limitation

You have not formed an argument. Feel free to crack open a codex and provide quotes and prove that the language used is exactly the same. Keep in mind that I have already proven that there are two occasions where the Dominus is "firing one of his weapons" and I have replaced each instance of "firing one of his weapons" with exactly one instance of Master of Machines. In order for you to find a comparable situation in the case of Relics you will have to find a datasheet where the option to purchase a Relic is listed TWICE and therewith allowing for TWO separate purchases from the Relic list. No such datasheet exists to my knowledge and if it did then that datasheet would indeed get to have 2 Relics as long as they are not the same Relic, since there is a separate rule keeping a particular Relic from being selected more than once per army.

The problem for you is that "firing one of his weapons" happens twice.

 doctortom wrote:

He's probably figured that it's been answered enough, and like the rest of us, realize that it's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

He can answer for himself.

 doctortom wrote:

Your turn to answer simple questions. According to Master of Machines, how many weapons do you replace firing with in order to use it. Answer this only using the rules from Master of Machines; do not invoke the Shooting sequence. Stick only with what Master of machines tells you.

Master of Machines allows you to replace an instance of"firing one of his weapons" with an instance of the Master of Machines rule. As you have already agreed and I have already proved, there are two separate and fully legal instances where the Dominus will be "firing one of his weapons"; therefore, the Master of Machines can be legally used to replace both instances (the one-for-one trade happens twice).

 doctortom wrote:

Now, for another question: If, as you say, you have to be in the shooting sequence to use Master of Machines, does a Tech-Priest Dominus get to use it if he has nothing to shoot at?

If the unit the Dominus is in cannot draw line of sight to any enemies at all then he cannot use Master of Machines. This breaks "real world" logic to a certain extent but it will be an exceedingly rare occurrence and of no consequence to my argument. See Tenet 3 of YMDC.

Also, if the unit the Dominus is in is locked in combat or running he cannot use Master of Machines.

 doctortom wrote:
He's probably figured that it's been answered enough, and like the rest of us, realize that it's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

It is more that the Ignored One does not know that he is Ignored. I do not answer posts I do not see.

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
He's probably figured that it's been answered enough, and like the rest of us, realize that it's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

It is more that the Ignored One does not know that he is Ignored. I do not answer posts I do not see.

As stated before, your posts in this thread have been contentless and merely disruptive and therefore against YMDC rules.

If you want to actually participate in this thread I suggest you turn your ignore off. I will have a Mod deliver the message on the next occasion of a contentless and disruptive post.

There isn't any wording to demonstrate that a second instance of firing a weapon would use the phrase "firing one of his weapons," as at no point does the rule book, or the ruling for mechadendrite harness make an explicit statement on it. You are working off the assumption that a second firing would use that wording in the absence of it. It could (more likely) be worded as firing a second weapon, or third, or additional. This would make sense, as it informs when a vehicle has reached the limit of it's full bs shooting, and has to change to snap firing.

So there is only one instance of a "model firing one of his weapons", then an instance of a model firing a second weapon. There is no explicit wording in the rule book to demonstrate either as correct, so at the best you'd get a roll off.

 JamesY wrote:
There isn't any wording to demonstrate that a second instance of firing a weapon would use the phrase "firing one of his weapons," as at no point does the rule book, or the ruling for mechadendrite harness make an explicit statement on it. You are working off the assumption that a second firing would use that wording in the absence of it. It could (more likely) be worded as firing a second weapon, or third, or additional. This would make sense, as it informs when a vehicle has reached the limit of it's full bs shooting, and has to change to snap firing.

So there is only one instance of a "model firing one of his weapons", then an instance of a model firing a second weapon. There is no explicit wording in the rule book to demonstrate either as correct, so at the best you'd get a roll off.

Thanks for the input, but you are incorrect.

The active player only has to be able to prove that each iteration through the Shooting Sequence is an occasion of the Dominus "firing one of his weapons". The active player has no problem doing this as has already been proven by me.

The presence or absence of the ordinal numbers ("first", "second", "third", "fourth", etc.) would not change the legality of the active player's statement. "Firing the second of his weapons" and "firing one of his weapons" can each refer to a legal instance of "firing one of his weapons" and the Master of Machines only checks if the latter is true which it will be twice in the Shooting Phase.

Moreover, your attempt to force a roll-off with ordinal numbers is completely far-fetched, since the Shooting Sequence makes absolutely no mention of the ordinal number sequence. Not that it matters any anyway, the Master of Machines rule checks for its legal conditions on its own. But your attempt to force a roll-off by literally adding stuff to the rules that does not exist in the rules at all should be noted and dismissed outright as a fallacious line of reasoning.

I disagree with your interpretation of the wording of the rule and won't be convinced. You disagree with mine and won't be convinced. What do the rules tell us to do to resolve the matter and progress with the game?

You'd have the choice between a roll off on every attempt to use the rule twice, or concede the game and quit.

 JamesY wrote:
I disagree with your interpretation of the wording of the rule and won't be convinced. You disagree with mine and won't be convinced. What do the rules tell us to do to resolve the matter and progress with the game?

You'd have the choice between a roll off on every attempt to use the rule twice, or concede the game and quit.

My interpretation of the game is that my army automatically wins if the points value of my army adds up to 1850 (this only affects my army). Your interpretation of the game is that I have run completely afoul of the BRB.

We roll-off and I lose.

My interpretation of the game is that my army automatically wins during deployment. Your interpretation of the game is that I have run completely afoul of the BRB.

We roll-off and I win.



So basically your answer to this rules debate is to spam the opponent with disingenuous roll-offs? It looks to me like you are conceding the rules debate at this point.

Also, relying on The Most Important Rule is not allowed in this forum.

The instances you have raised are clearly covered by the rules, there would be no basis on which to make an argument for them within the rules. It wouldn't be rules debating, it would be cheating.

I pointed out clearly that your interpretation of the wording isn't actually supported by the rules and is your personal reading of what firing one weapon means. There is another, clearer reading that gives a different interpretation to the one you have, which you must acknowledge exists, as you are clearly competent with the language in which it was written. I am not hiding behind the rule, I'm saying that it is the best chance your interpretation has, not mine, and every other contributor to this discussion.

 JamesY wrote:
The instances you have raised are clearly covered by the rules, there would be no basis on which to make an argument for them within the rules. It wouldn't be rules debating, it would be cheating.

I pointed out clearly that your interpretation of the wording isn't actually supported by the rules and is your personal reading of what firing one weapon means. There is another, clearer reading that gives a different interpretation to the one you have, which you must acknowledge exists, as you are clearly competent with the language in which it was written. I am not hiding behind the rule, I'm saying that it is the best chance your interpretation has, not mine, and every other contributor to this discussion.

Incorrect.

My interpretation of the wording is fully supported by the rules. Your interpretation relies on a sense of "once per shooting phase" which is completely absent in the rules.

The Dominus can only be "firing one of his weapons" in the context of the Shooting Sequence.

Once you march through the Shooting Sequence (which you cannot avoid), there will be TWO separate and fully legal occasions where the Dominus will be "firing one of his weapons"; therefore the Master of Machines rule can be legally used to replace BOTH occasions.

The problem for you is that the rule does not say "once per shooting phase". That would be a limitation. You are not allowed to pretend "once per shooting phase" is in the rule. If you really want to disprove my interpretation then you need to PROVE that "once per shooting phase" is somehow in the Master of Machines rule. Feel free to find it.

No I don't, you need to prove that firing a second weapon would count as firing one weapon, as your argument hinges on it. "An instance of firing one weapon" is your term, not a term from the rules. That the weapons are fired one at a time does not automatically support your interpretation, as you seem to think.

 JamesY wrote:
No I don't, you need to prove that firing a second weapon would count as firing one weapon, as your argument hinges on it. "An instance of firing one weapon" is your term, not a term from the rules. That the weapons are fired one at a time does not automatically support your interpretation, as you seem to think.

Incorrect. That the weapons are fired one at a time is precisely what proves my interpretation as the correct one.

You have to prove that the Dominus fires his weapons 'all at once', which he clearly doesn't. Alternatively, you could try to prove that there is somehow a limitation 'once per shooting phase' on the Master of Machines rule, which there isn't.


My interpretation directly follows from the actual words in the actual rules and is directly supported by merely adhering to the Shooting Sequence. The Dominus will be "firing one of his weapons" TWICE in the Shooting Sequence allowing for the Master of Machines rule to be used TWICE.

Your interpretation relies on words that are not in the actual rules. Dominus does not fire his weapons 'all at once' nor is Master of Machines limited to 'once per shooting phase'.

weapons are not fired one at a time. In the instance of the solo tech priest dominus with no other models in the unit firing the same weapon it would fire one at a time.

the problem is the RAW for the rule lets you not fire one weapon.

if you pick two weapons you have not picked one.

it does not matter the order, because the rule in question does not specify during the pick weapon step, it specifies during the SHOOTING PHASE.

so if during the shooting phase you pick more than one weapon you have not picked one weapon therefore you are not in any way following the rules as written.

blaktoof wrote:
weapons are not fired one at a time. In the instance of the solo tech priest dominus with no other models in the unit firing the same weapon it would fire one at a time.

The occasion of "firing one of his weapons" occurs TWICE in the Shooting Sequence as has been proved.

blaktoof wrote:


the problem is the RAW for the rule lets you not fire one weapon.

if you pick two weapons you have not picked one.

it does not matter the order, because the rule in question does not specify during the pick weapon step, it specifies during the SHOOTING PHASE.

so if during the shooting phase you pick more than one weapon you have not picked one weapon therefore you are not in any way following the rules as written.

The occasion of "firing one of his weapons" happens on separate iterations of the Shooting Sequence and it happens TWICE.

It's equivalent to listing the option of purchasing one relic from a list of relics TWICE on the ALE of a unit. A double listing of the option allows the purchasing of TWO relics.

Therefore it is entirely legal to use the Master of Machines rule TWICE in the Shooting Phase.

Nowhere in any of the rules involved is there any mention of "once per shooting phase". You are literally making that up.

If you add stuff to the rules that is not there your argument is invalid.

"In each of your shooting phases"... "One weapon"... "Choose to either repair a single friendly vehicle"... "or to restore a wound".

All singular. All 1 per your shooting phase.

Pretty much. It doesn't say, "For each Weapon the model may shoot", just "one weapon".

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
"In each of your shooting phases"... "One weapon"... "Choose to either repair a single friendly vehicle"... "or to restore a wound".

All singular. All 1 per your shooting phase.

That's not how language or logic works. Singular agreement does not translate to "once per shooting phase". Your argument can simply be dismissed as daft. One plus one does not equal one, as you would have us believe. One plus one equals two!

As already proven, the occasion of the Dominus "firing one of his weapons" happens twice in the Shooting Sequence. Do you deny this?

No amount of bolding "one" will change the meaning of the phrase "in each of your shooting phases" to "once per shooting phase". You are literally trying to add that meaning without any justification to the sentence (and failing badly at it).

Obviously "in each of your shooting phases" does not mean "once per shooting phase". Do you deny this?

The occasion of Dominus "firing one of his weapon" happens twice in the Shooting Sequence. Therefore, Master of Machines can be used twice.

My argument rests on a completely straightforward and logical reading of the rules where absolutely nothing is being read into the rules.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
Pretty much. It doesn't say, "For each Weapon the model may shoot", just "one weapon".

If you had bothered to read the rules in question you would have noticed it says "instead of firing one of his weapons" which undeniably occurs TWICE in the Shooting Sequence for the Dominus. Therefore, the Master of Machines rule can be used twice.

Make sure to actually read the rules before jumping in on a debate, since it bears greatly on your ability to actually meaningfully participate in the debate.

col_impact wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
"In each of your shooting phases"... "One weapon"... "Choose to either repair a single friendly vehicle"... "or to restore a wound".

All singular. All 1 per your shooting phase.

That's not how language or logic works.

It is according to how GW writes rules.This is exactly how the language works in their rules.

One again, look at rules for Relics and how they word trading in one weapon for purchasing a relic. They do not allow you to trade in one weapon for a relic, then one more weapon for a second relic when you have two relics. You still will not deal with how similarly worded rules, such as the rules for Relics, indicate that when GW says "one" they mean "one", not "more than one". I'm sorry if you find this vague, but I'm reasonably sure the other people here can see the argument there, so for you to claim that it's just something vaguely worded means you don't want to even try to understand what's being said, or worse, know what's being said and are wanting to ignore it anyway.

The tech-priest has two opportunities to fire weapons due to having two weapons. However, if he sacrifices both to instead repair something, he has not repaired "instead of firing one weapon."

 doctortom wrote:


One again, look at rules for Relics and how they word trading in one weapon for purchasing a relic. They do not allow you to trade in one weapon for a relic, then one more weapon for a second relic when you have two relics. You still will not deal with how similarly worded rules, such as the rules for Relics, indicate that when GW says "one" they mean "one", not "more than one". I'm sorry if you find this vague, but I'm reasonably sure the other people here can see the argument there, so for you to claim that it's just something vaguely worded means you don't want to even try to understand what's being said, or worse, know what's being said and are wanting to ignore it anyway.

As I have already pointed out, the case in question would be equivalent to an Army List Entry that included the option to purchase a Relic TWICE since that is how many times the occasion of "firing one of his weapons" occurs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jacksmiles wrote:
The tech-priest has two opportunities to fire weapons due to having two weapons. However, if he sacrifices both to instead repair something, he has not repaired "instead of firing one weapon."

The Dominus will have repaired something instead of "firing one of his weapons" on both of the occasions it came up.

There is no limit on the number of times Master of Machines can be invoked, such as "once per Shooting Phase". If you feel there is a limit, then feel free to point it out in the actual rules.

You are not allowed to pretend things are in the rules that aren't. If your interpretation relies on 'make believe' then your argument is invalid.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


One again, look at rules for Relics and how they word trading in one weapon for purchasing a relic. They do not allow you to trade in one weapon for a relic, then one more weapon for a second relic when you have two relics. You still will not deal with how similarly worded rules, such as the rules for Relics, indicate that when GW says "one" they mean "one", not "more than one". I'm sorry if you find this vague, but I'm reasonably sure the other people here can see the argument there, so for you to claim that it's just something vaguely worded means you don't want to even try to understand what's being said, or worse, know what's being said and are wanting to ignore it anyway.

As I have already pointed out, the case in question would be equivalent to an Army List Entry that included the option to purchase a Relic TWICE since that is how many times the occasion of "firing one of his weapons" occurs.

No, it's actually your equivalent because in the case of purchasing, having two weapons would be the same as firing two weapons in your case. You trade one weapon for a relic, you still have a relic. Then, you trade one weapon for a relic and have a second relic. That's the same logic that you are using. You might not think it, but it is.

Going back, I find Kommissar Kel argued this, the post before you first piped up:

Kommissar Kel wrote:It is exactly the same as with relics: a model may exchange one weapon for an item from the following list.

Or for the Arcana Mechanicum; "A model may take one of the following:". If you take both a mask of the alpha dominus and an uncreator gauntlet; then you have taken more than one of the following.

If you choose to not fire both weapons in the shooting phase for 2 attempts at repair; then you have not fired more than the one weapon the rule allows.

col_impact wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jacksmiles wrote:
The tech-priest has two opportunities to fire weapons due to having two weapons. However, if he sacrifices both to instead repair something, he has not repaired "instead of firing one weapon."

The Dominus will have repaired something instead of "firing one of his weapons" on both of the occasions it came up.

There is no limit on the number of times Master of Machines can be invoked, such as "once per Shooting Phase". If you feel there is a limit, then feel free to point it out in the actual rules.

It comes up once, not twice. Let's go back to the Master of Machines rule - I copied it from your first post, so I'm sure you'll agree that it's accurate:

"In each of your Shooting phases, instead of firing one of his weapons (controlling player’s choice), a Tech-Priest Dominus can choose either to repair a single friendly vehicle that he is in base contact with or embarked upon, or to restore a Wound lost earlier in the battle."


So, what's relevent? We have "in each of your shooting phases", so we're dealing with a shooting phase
"instead of" - you get to substitute something
"firing one weapon - one of the weapons you fire each shooting phase, as designated by the opening clause of the sentence.

So, unlike your claim here, the statement clearly shows that it is referring to using Master of machines instead of firing one and only one weapon each shooting phase. You do not have to enter the shooting sequence to deal with that, you already have the inbuilt limitation of using Master of Machines instead of firing one and only one weapon. Also not the use of either, they do not say you can replace both to use it twice. Therefore, by the rules you only get to use Master of machines once each shooting phase. You can fire a weapon twice in the shooting phase (nobody disputes that), but you have permission to only use Master of Machines once per shooting phase according to the wording of Master of Machines.

col_impact wrote:
You are not allowed to pretend things are in the rules that aren't. If your interpretation relies on 'make believe' then your argument is invalid.

Take your own advice, and don't pretend there aren't things in the rules that are. Your interpretation is the one relying on "make believe" - "let's make believe the rules for Master of Machines doesn't start with "each shooting "phase" and then reference using it instead of firing one weapon". Treating it as "a" weapon, or "each" weapon, as you are, is what's make beileve.

 doctortom wrote:


So, unlike your claim here, the statement clearly shows that it is referring to using Master of machines instead of firing one and only one weapon each shooting phase. You do not have to enter the shooting sequence to deal with that, you already have the inbuilt limitation of using Master of Machines instead of firing one and only one weapon. Also not the use of either, they do not say you can replace both to use it twice. Therefore, by the rules you only get to use Master of machines once each shooting phase. You can fire a weapon twice in the shooting phase (nobody disputes that), but you have permission to only use Master of Machines once per shooting phase according to the wording of Master of Machines.

In red I have noted where you are adding to the rules without justification. None of the stuff in red is actually in the rules.

This is what the rules actually say --> In the Shooting Sequence, the Dominus will TWICE have the occasion to be "firing one of his weapons"; therefore, the Dominus may use Master of Machines TWICE.

###########################

Let's break the logical problem down to it's essentials.


Let's say you were playing a video game which had controls like this:

Press "X" to select a new weapons.

Press "A" to fire one your weapons.

Hold down SHIFT and press "A" to jump instead of firing one of your weapons.


Now in each of your games of this video game you can fire as many times as you like.

Your argument is that the phrase "instead of firing one of your weapons" carries with it somehow a notion of "once" or "one and only one" such that in the video game you could only jump once per game.

However, I hope it is obvious to you that that is not the correct read of the situation described above at all and that your argument is ill-founded. You can jump as many times as you like in the video game.

This example proves that the phrase "instead of firing one of your weapons" carries no restriction as to how many times it can be invoked.



Now the situation described above is very easy to cast into the Dominus situation. The only real difference is that 40k metes out firing.

Dominus has 2 weapons and the ability to fire each of them once each Shooting phase. This permission is given by the Mechadendrite Harness rule and the Shooting Sequence rule that loops through each model/weapon pairing such that the Dominus will have the occasion of TWICE 'firing one of his weapons'.

So Dominus can normally do this . . .

Press "A" then press "X" and then press "A" again. [Fire one of his weapons, select a new weapon, fire one of his weapons]


And if Dominus chooses to use the Master of Machines rule it works out thusly. We just swap 'Jump' for 'use Master of Machines'.

Hold down SHIFT and press "A" then press "X" and then hold down SHIFT and press "A" again. [Use Master of Machines, select a new weapon, use Master of Machines]


This proves that it's the Mechadendrite Harness rule and the Shooting Sequence rule that actually govern how many times the Master of Machines rule can be invoked.


########################

All of this has been just a longer explication of what has already been proven.

In the Shooting Sequence, the Dominus will TWICE have the occasion to be "firing one of his weapons"; therefore, the Dominus may use Master of Machines TWICE.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


So, unlike your claim here, the statement clearly shows that it is referring to using Master of machines instead of firing one and only one weapon each shooting phase. You do not have to enter the shooting sequence to deal with that, you already have the inbuilt limitation of using Master of Machines instead of firing one and only one weapon. Also not the use of either, they do not say you can replace both to use it twice. Therefore, by the rules you only get to use Master of machines once each shooting phase. You can fire a weapon twice in the shooting phase (nobody disputes that), but you have permission to only use Master of Machines once per shooting phase according to the wording of Master of Machines.

In red I have noted where you are adding to the rules without justification. None of the stuff in red is actually in the rules.

This is what the rules actually say --> In the Shooting Sequence, the Dominus will TWICE have the occasion to be "firing one of his weapons"; therefore, the Dominus may use Master of Machines TWICE.

 doctortom wrote:


You substitute for using one weapon - you use Master of Machines as you have not done Master of Machines instead of firing one weapon.

Incorrect. You subsitute for "firing one of his weapons" which is an OCURRENCE or ACTION that happens TWICE in the Shooting Sequence.

Let's be super clear here. The Master of Machines rule does not replace "one weapon". The Master of Machines rule replaces "firing one of his weapons".

Until you adhere to the actual language and logic being used in the rule, your argument is invalid.

 doctortom wrote:

You go to fire the second weapon. Is there a second weapon available to fire? Yes. Can you substitute Master of Machines? You go back to the rule and it says that in each shooting phase you may do it instead of firing one weapon. So, have you already substituted it for firing one weapon? Yes. That means no, you cannot substitute it again to do it a second time. You do not have permission to substitute a second time, and all your rationalizatiions are trying to do an end run around the limitation established in the Master of Machines rule itself.

I can use it a second time because the Dominus is "firing one of his weapons" when he goes to shoot the second weapon.

 doctortom wrote:

Your video game jibber jabber is just an obfuscation showing that you do not comprehend what the Master of Machines rule is saying, because it clearly states using it instead of firing one weapon each shooting phase. Substituting it twice instead of firing two weapons is not substituting it once instead of firing one weapon. Since you only have permission to use Master of Machines instead of firing one weapon, you do not get to substitute it more than once, no matter how many weapons you get to fire. You continue to ignore this fundamental limitation in the rule.

The thread should take note that doctortom has refused to address the video game example which utterly disproves his argument. Dodging a simple logical analysis like that is basically conceding the argument.

Further I have marked in red in the quote above where you are literally adding to the rules. The phrase is "firing one of his weapons" which you need to stick to.


Here is how it works out . . .


Shooting Sequence

Dominus selects his Volkite blaster.

Dominus goes to fire his blaster. Is Dominus "firing one of his weapons"? Yes. Dominus may use the Master of Machines rule instead.

Dominus selects his Macrostubber.

Dominus goes to fire his stubber. Is Dominus "firing one of his weapons"? Yes. Dominus may use the Master of Machines rule instead.



Also, you really need to comment on my video game example which completely disproves your argument.

Let's break the logical problem down to it's essentials.


Let's say you were playing a video game which had controls like this:

Press "X" to select a new weapons.

Press "A" to fire one your weapons.

Hold down SHIFT and press "A" to jump instead of firing one of your weapons.


Now in each of your games of this video game you can fire as many times as you like.

Your argument is that the phrase "instead of firing one of your weapons" carries with it somehow a notion of "once" or "one and only one" such that in the video game you could only jump once per game.

However, I hope it is obvious to you that that is not the correct read of the situation described above at all and that your argument is ill-founded. You can jump as many times as you like in the video game.

This example proves that the phrase "instead of firing one of your weapons" carries no restriction as to how many times it can be invoked.



Now the situation described above is very easy to cast into the Dominus situation. The only real difference is that 40k metes out firing.

Dominus has 2 weapons and the ability to fire each of them once each Shooting phase. This permission is given by the Mechadendrite Harness rule and the Shooting Sequence rule that loops through each model/weapon pairing such that the Dominus will have the occasion of TWICE 'firing one of his weapons'.

So Dominus can normally do this . . .

Press "A" then press "X" and then press "A" again. [Fire one of his weapons, select a new weapon, fire one of his weapons]


And if Dominus chooses to use the Master of Machines rule it works out thusly. We just swap 'Jump' for 'use Master of Machines'.

Hold down SHIFT and press "A" then press "X" and then hold down SHIFT and press "A" again. [Use Master of Machines, select a new weapon, use Master of Machines]


This proves that it's the Mechadendrite Harness rule and the Shooting Sequence rule that actually govern how many times the Master of Machines rule can be invoked.

I am awaiting your comments. A refusal to deal with this simple example will mean your argument is invalid.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


You substitute for using one weapon - you use Master of Machines as you have not done Master of Machines instead of firing one weapon.

Incorrect. You subsitute for "firing one of his weapons" which is an OCURRENCE or ACTION that happens TWICE in the Shooting Sequence.

Let's be super clear here. The Master of Machines rule does not replace "one weapon". The Master of Machines rule replaces "firing one of his weapons".

Until you adhere to the actual language and logic being used in the rule, your argument is invalid.

I AM adhering to the actual language; you are the one who isn't. You look at "firing one of his weapons", but are completely ignoring the first clauase of the sentence, "In each of your Shooting phases". and "instead of firing one of his weapons". So, in each of your shooting phases there is something you can do instead of firing one weapon. It does not say in each of you shooting phases" "instead of firing a weapon", which is what your interpretation boils down to. You only have permission to use Master of Machines instead of firing one weapon. You do not have permission to use it instead of firing two weapons. When it comes time to fire the second weapon, have you already used Master of Machines instead of firing one weapon? If so, then you have already used it instead of firing one weapon, and you do not get to use it again. That's clear to every single sentient person who has read the rule, except for you. It does not invoke the shooting sequence to see how many times you cana shoot, because you only have permission to use it once and therefore don't need to try to bring in a false argument that because you can shoot twice you can use it twice. The rule does not say you can use it instead of firing a weapon, or for each weapon you can fire you may substitute Master of Machines. It says you may do it instead of firing one weapon. Once you've done that, you've used up the allotment of "instead of"'s that you can do it with. They did acknowledge that you can replace either weapon in the rule, but said nothing about both. They said instead of one, fully realizing you have two weapons you can fire. This is basic Games Workshop language here.

Now, to quote you and turn your comments back onto you, until you adhere to the actual language and logic being used in the rule, your argument is invalid. You might as well drop this, as you think my argument is invalid, and I, along with all the other people who posted here criticizing you - as an aside, given that number of people critical of your argument, shouldn't you feel some obligation to examine your argument to see what might be wrong with it, as it was clearly not convincing people) see your argument as plainly ignoring what the rule states, trying to read in from other rules while ignoring part of the rule that would prevent you from doing so, and coming up with a conclusion that is entirely unjustified based on the rule.

EDIT: Oh, and "


doctortom wrote:


You substitute for using one weapon - you use Master of Machines as you have not done Master of Machines instead of firing one weapon.



Incorrect. You subsitute for "firing one of his weapons" which is an OCURRENCE or ACTION that happens TWICE in the Shooting Sequence.

Let's be super clear here. The Master of Machines rule does not replace "one weapon". The Master of Machines rule replaces "firing one of his weapons".

Until you adhere to the actual language and logic being used in the rule, your argument is invalid.

doctortom wrote:

You go to fire the second weapon. Is there a second weapon available to fire? Yes. Can you substitute Master of Machines? You go back to the rule and it says that in each shooting phase you may do it instead of firing one weapon. So, have you already substituted it for firing one weapon? Yes. That means no, you cannot substitute it again to do it a second time. You do not have permission to substitute a second time, and all your rationalizatiions are trying to do an end run around the limitation established in the Master of Machines rule itself.



I can use it a second time because the Dominus is "firing one of his weapons" when he goes to shoot the second weapon.

doctortom wrote:

Your video game jibber jabber is just an obfuscation showing that you do not comprehend what the Master of Machines rule is saying, because it clearly states using it instead of firing one weapon each shooting phase. Substituting it twice instead of firing two weapons is not substituting it once instead of firing one weapon. Since you only have permission to use Master of Machines instead of firing one weapon, you do not get to substitute it more than once, no matter how many weapons you get to fire. You continue to ignore this fundamental limitation in the rule.



The thread should take note that doctortom has refused to address the video game example which utterly disproves his argument. Dodging a simple logical analysis like that is basically conceding the argument. " Childish behavior on your part. Let the people in the thread note that you have offered an invalid argument that does not directly correlate with the rules we are dealing with here. Once you can cope with "Each shooting phase" and "instead of firing one weapon" in conjunction with each other, maybe you'll have a valid argument worth addressing. "instead of firing one weapon each shooting phase" is not adding to the rules. Go back and read the rule. You have "In each of your shooting phases" at the start, and "instead of firing one of your weapons" in the same sentence. It is not reading into it to say using it instead of firing one weapon each shooting phase. If you think that is reading into you, you are having a major failure of your reading comprehension skills, and there's no helping you.

 doctortom wrote:


I AM adhering to the actual language; you are the one who isn't. You look at "firing one of his weapons", but are completely ignoring the first clauase of the sentence, "In each of your Shooting phases". and "instead of firing one of his weapons". So, in each of your shooting phases there is something you can do instead of firing one weapon. It does not say in each of you shooting phases" "instead of firing a weapon", which is what your interpretation boils down to. You only have permission to use Master of Machines instead of firing one weapon. You do not have permission to use it instead of firing two weapons. When it comes time to fire the second weapon, have you already used Master of Machines instead of firing one weapon? If so, then you have already used it instead of firing one weapon, and you do not get to use it again. That's clear to every single sentient person who has read the rule, except for you. It does not invoke the shooting sequence to see how many times you cana shoot, because you only have permission to use it once and therefore don't need to try to bring in a false argument that because you can shoot twice you can use it twice. The rule does not say you can use it instead of firing a weapon, or for each weapon you can fire you may substitute Master of Machines. It says you may do it instead of firing one weapon. Once you've done that, you've used up the allotment of "instead of"'s that you can do it with. They did acknowledge that you can replace either weapon in the rule, but said nothing about both. They said instead of one, fully realizing you have two weapons you can fire. This is basic Games Workshop language here.

The Master of Machines rule gives me permission to use the Master of Machines rule on any occasion of the Dominus "firing one of his weapons". Since the Dominus has two weapons and a Mechadendrite harness, he can fire each of his weapons on separate occasions in the Shooting Sequence; therefore, I have permission to use the Master of Machines rule TWICE.

No where in the Master of Machines rule does it say 'once per shooting phase'.

"In each of you shooting phases" does not mean 'once per shooting phase'.


Let's revisit the Video Game example

Let's say you were playing a video game which had controls like this:

Press "X" to select a new weapons.

Press "A" to fire one your weapons.

Hold down SHIFT and press "A" to jump instead of firing one of your weapons.


Now in each of your Shooting Phases in this video game you can fire as many times as you like. [There are other phases in the game, such as a fighting phase where you slug it out but do no shooting, etc.]

Your argument is that the phrase "instead of firing one of your weapons" carries with it somehow a notion of "once" or "one and only one" such that in the video game you could only jump once per game.

However, I hope it is obvious to you that that is not the correct read of the situation described above at all and that your argument is ill-founded. You can jump as many times as you like in the video game.

This example proves that the phrase "instead of firing one of your weapons" carries no restriction as to how many times it can be invoked.

"In each of your Shooting phases" is simply an arbitrary stretch of time where actions are allowed. It could just as easily say "in each of your bathroom breaks". So having the video game adopt GW's arbitrary temporal division has no consequence to the argument.

The only difference between the above example game and 40k is that I have changed a single term (the number of times you can fire) to infinity to prove that neither "in each of your Shooting Phases" nor "instead of firing one of your weapons" will restrict the Jump action to one occurence per Shooting Phase as your argument would have it.

In order for Jump (or the Master of Machines rule) to be restricted to one occurrence, there must be a logical restriction in the Jump rule (or the Master of Machines rule) along the lines of "once per Shooting Phase".

The video game example proves that your argument is invalid.

Actually, it doesn't. You consistently ignore GW's other rules when they have used "instead of one" or "replace one weapon" or anything involving replacing an item or action with something else and saying "one". You violate their rules with what you do. I can see there's no reasoning with the fundamentally unreasonable, however, so I don't see any reason to continue this with you any more.

 doctortom wrote:
Actually, it doesn't. You consistently ignore GW's other rules when they have used "instead of one" or "replace one weapon" or anything involving replacing an item or action with something else and saying "one". You violate their rules with what you do. I can see there's no reasoning with the fundamentally unreasonable, however, so I don't see any reason to continue this with you any more.

Oddly enough your decision to no longer participate in this rule discussion coincides with my presenting you with a video game example that analytically proves your argument is invalid. So I will take your decision to no longer continue as a concession on your part since you left the video game example completely unanswered for.

Should you decide to rejoin the discussion (as I would encourage you to do so), I would ask that you be ready to analyze the logical statements involved as I have done.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Actually, it doesn't. You consistently ignore GW's other rules when they have used "instead of one" or "replace one weapon" or anything involving replacing an item or action with something else and saying "one". You violate their rules with what you do. I can see there's no reasoning with the fundamentally unreasonable, however, so I don't see any reason to continue this with you any more.

Oddly enough your decision to no longer participate in this rule discussion coincides with my presenting you with a video game example that analytically proves your argument is invalid. So I will take your decision to no longer continue as a concession on your part since you left the video game example completely unanswered for.

Should you decided to rejoin the discussion (as I would encourage you to do so), I would ask that you be ready to analyze the logical statements involved as I have done.

Don't try to read into it, it has nothing to do with that argument of yours that actually doesn't prove anything. My decision to no longer continue has nothing at all to do as a concession, except a concession that I am arguing with someone who has his mind made up despite any facts placed in front of him, the lack of reading comprehension to know when that what he is saying is wrong, the muleheadedness to not care, and condescension dripping from his statements such as the one here implying I have not analyzed it logically. Automatically saying other people's arguments are invalid even when they have presented things logically (I count more than myself here) does not earn you the right to be condescending like that. Everybody else left the conversation because they got tired of trying to deal with you; it had nothing at all to do with them thinking you might be right (you aren't). So, if you want to claim victory by being the only one left behind because everybody else sees that it's futile trying to get a horse to drink the water once he's been led to the trough, feel free to imagine that you're a big boy on the playground and crow about how you outlasted everyone.

 doctortom wrote:
Don't try to read into it, it has nothing to do with that argument of yours that actually doesn't prove anything. My decision to no longer continue has nothing at all to do as a concession, except a concession that I am arguing with someone who has his mind made up despite any facts placed in front of him, the lack of reading comprehension to know when that what he is saying is wrong, the muleheadedness to not care, and condescension dripping from his statements such as the one here implying I have not analyzed it logically. Automatically saying other people's arguments are invalid even when they have presented things logically (I count more than myself here) does not earn you the right to be condescending like that. Everybody else left the conversation because they got tired of trying to deal with you; it had nothing at all to do with them thinking you might be right (you aren't). So, if you want to claim victory by being the only one left behind because everybody else sees that it's futile trying to get a horse to drink the water once he's been led to the trough, feel free to imagine that you're a big boy on the playground and crow about how you outlasted everyone.

And yet you refuse to address the video game example that analytically disproves your argument.

So your argument as it stands now has been disproved.

You are choosing to leave the argument at the moment your argument has been disproved.



So at this point my argument is proven and is uncontested.

Per the Shooting Sequence rules, the occasion of 'firing one of his weapons' happens twice for the Dominus; therefore Master of Machines can be used twice.

The video game argument is laughable and proves nothing other than people are able to push buttons more than once. It doesn't actually apply to being told you can do a thing instead of one thing. No video game says "can jump instead of shooting." It's just "press A to jump."

Coming up with ridiculous analogies and claiming they somehow prove you right doesn't actually mean they do prove you right. It's actually better to let you think you won an internet argument than to engage any further, and much healthier for everyone else.

"Analytically disproves." Simply amazing mental gymnastics.

Jacksmiles wrote:
The video game argument is laughable and proves nothing other than people are able to push buttons more than once. It doesn't actually apply to being told you can do a thing instead of one thing. No video game says "can jump instead of shooting." It's just "press A to jump."

And yet, some video games are set up in their core so that you cannot shoot while the character is jumping.

But that is that engine, and not 40K. Something the Ignored One forgets and takes out of context and relevance. We do not take some of the rules from Warmachine to prove the rules here any more than we take the rules for Final Fantasy, XCom, or Halo to prove the rules in 40K.

 Charistoph wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
The video game argument is laughable and proves nothing other than people are able to push buttons more than once. It doesn't actually apply to being told you can do a thing instead of one thing. No video game says "can jump instead of shooting." It's just "press A to jump."

And yet, some video games are set up in their core so that you cannot shoot while the character is jumping.

But that is that engine, and not 40K. Something the Ignored One forgets and takes out of context and relevance. We do not take some of the rules from Warmachine to prove the rules here any more than we take the rules for Final Fantasy, XCom, or Halo to prove the rules in 40K.

True and correct. Video games coding still doesn't apply here, especially because even in games where you jump and are unable to shoot, do they have a predetermined window of time a la "shooting phase" or are you able to shoot again ad infinitum as soon as you hit the ground again, only until you jump. Or is it that you can jump all round, but then are unable to fire one of your weapons? In your case where you can't shoot while jumping, is it that you can't shoot "one weapon" while jumping, or that you can't shoot any weapons at all? Is a certain poster attempting to posit that even though a video game character may carry 2 weapons, if that character jumps he is unable to fire both regardless of wording of "may jump instead of shooting one weapon?" In that case, I guess I agree with him that if the Dominus uses Master of Machines, it may not fire any weapon at all while jumping.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Don't try to read into it, it has nothing to do with that argument of yours that actually doesn't prove anything. My decision to no longer continue has nothing at all to do as a concession, except a concession that I am arguing with someone who has his mind made up despite any facts placed in front of him, the lack of reading comprehension to know when that what he is saying is wrong, the muleheadedness to not care, and condescension dripping from his statements such as the one here implying I have not analyzed it logically. Automatically saying other people's arguments are invalid even when they have presented things logically (I count more than myself here) does not earn you the right to be condescending like that. Everybody else left the conversation because they got tired of trying to deal with you; it had nothing at all to do with them thinking you might be right (you aren't). So, if you want to claim victory by being the only one left behind because everybody else sees that it's futile trying to get a horse to drink the water once he's been led to the trough, feel free to imagine that you're a big boy on the playground and crow about how you outlasted everyone.

And yet you refuse to address the video game example that analytically disproves your argument.

So your argument as it stands now has been disproved.

You are choosing to leave the argument at the moment your argument has been disproved.



So at this point my argument is proven and is uncontested.

Per the Shooting Sequence rules, the occasion of 'firing one of his weapons' happens twice for the Dominus; therefore Master of Machines can be used twice.

I haven't been disproven, it's that you haven't been willing to acknowledge when you have been disproven, and just automatically dismiss any argument, even legitimate ones, so further conversation is useless. Your video game argument's been debunked by the others who posted since this (since you didn't want to accept my "it doesn't apply"). I's singing off because you're never going to admit that you aren't right, have shown a fundamental willingness to twist and distort other peoples' argument, and distort or ignore things that the the rulebook actually says. As I imagine that arguing with a 5 year old who just wants to automatically deny anything I say would give me the same feeling I have here, there's little reason for me to continue. Everyone else here would realize that this is why I am leaving. It has nothing to do with your arguments, and you continuing to want to crow about my planning on leaving the discussion just emphasizes your "character" in these arguments. I wouldn't have even come back for this post except for the vain hope that you might realize some of the problems of your behavior in this and can mend your ways. I suspect it won't do any good, but I can hope that you can evolve into somebody it might be worth having a conversation with. Until then there's little point in arguing with you. Good bye, and I apologize to the other people who have had to endure all of this. Jacksmiles, good luck if you decide to continue.

As it's endlessly cycling, probably needs locking anyway. Mod?

Jacksmiles wrote:
The video game argument is laughable and proves nothing other than people are able to push buttons more than once. It doesn't actually apply to being told you can do a thing instead of one thing. No video game says "can jump instead of shooting." It's just "press A to jump."

Coming up with ridiculous analogies and claiming they somehow prove you right doesn't actually mean they do prove you right. It's actually better to let you think you won an internet argument than to engage any further, and much healthier for everyone else.

"Analytically disproves." Simply amazing mental gymnastics.

The video game argument uses the same language as the Dominus example and demonstrates that the phrases "in each of your shooting phases" and "instead of firing one of your weapons" do not apply a restriction along the lines of "once per shooting phase".

My argument is proved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:


I haven't been disproven, it's that you haven't been willing to acknowledge when you have been disproven, and just automatically dismiss any argument, even legitimate ones, so further conversation is useless. Your video game argument's been debunked by the others who posted since this (since you didn't want to accept my "it doesn't apply"). I's singing off because you're never going to admit that you aren't right, have shown a fundamental willingness to twist and distort other peoples' argument, and distort or ignore things that the the rulebook actually says. As I imagine that arguing with a 5 year old who just wants to automatically deny anything I say would give me the same feeling I have here, there's little reason for me to continue. Everyone else here would realize that this is why I am leaving. It has nothing to do with your arguments, and you continuing to want to crow about my planning on leaving the discussion just emphasizes your "character" in these arguments. I wouldn't have even come back for this post except for the vain hope that you might realize some of the problems of your behavior in this and can mend your ways. I suspect it won't do any good, but I can hope that you can evolve into somebody it might be worth having a conversation with. Until then there's little point in arguing with you. Good bye, and I apologize to the other people who have had to endure all of this. Jacksmiles, good luck if you decide to continue.

Instead of making veiled insults as to my 'character', why don't you instead address the video game example which proves you wrong?

If you cannot address my video game example it proves your argument is incorrect and based on false premises.


At this point my argument is proven and is uncontested.

Per the Shooting Sequence rules, the occasion of 'firing one of his weapons' happens twice for the Dominus; therefore Master of Machines can be used twice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
The video game argument is laughable and proves nothing other than people are able to push buttons more than once. It doesn't actually apply to being told you can do a thing instead of one thing. No video game says "can jump instead of shooting." It's just "press A to jump."

And yet, some video games are set up in their core so that you cannot shoot while the character is jumping.

But that is that engine, and not 40K. Something the Ignored One forgets and takes out of context and relevance. We do not take some of the rules from Warmachine to prove the rules here any more than we take the rules for Final Fantasy, XCom, or Halo to prove the rules in 40K.

Since you are not actually reading any of my posts, your posts have no weight in this discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JamesY wrote:
As it's endlessly cycling, probably needs locking anyway. Mod?

Instead of endlessly avoiding the video game example, why don't you simply address it?

The video game example proves that your argument is based on false premises and is therefore invalid.