So I was doing a little light reading as I am want to do and noticed two things I hadn't before.

One is that it seems you're forced to fire all your (non-pistol, non-grenade) weapons if you choose to fire at all, even if you might not want to.

If a model has several weapons, it can shoot all of them at the same target, or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit.

Notice that you're only given two options, you can fire them all at one target, or fire them all at different targets. Am I right in thinking that?

Furthermore, does the instruction "fire them all at different targets" preclude the ability to split 3 guns across two targets?

Say for example I have a Battle Cannon, a Lascannon and a Storm Bolter. I declare Units A and B as my targets in step 3.2. I declare that the Battle Cannon will be shooting Unit A, as per step 3.3. I declare that the the Lascannon is shooting Unit B. I then declare that the Storm Bolter is shooting Unit B. But the rules say that I must "fire them all at one target, or fire them all at different targets", and unit B is not a different target to the Lascannon, thus meaning I must shoot a 3rd unit within range by declaring a unit C in step 3.2?

This means if I have a unit with 3 guns, but only 2 units in range, I can't split fire since I don't have enough units to shoot all my weapons at different units. This also means I can't fire two "anti-tank" weapons at a 1st target while firing my single "anti-infantry" at a 2nd target, I would have to split my "anti-tank" across 2 different targets.

Edit: As usual due to the snarky replies, I must clarify that this is a serious and sincere rules question. I want to make sure I am playing the game correctly and not mistaking any rules.

Edit 2: This was also pointed out to me, this means single use weapons must be fired the first time a unit shoots, correct?

Here we go again...

Generally I do not think of Can as ever meaning must... But
there is a line in the first section which says you are expected to shoot all your weapons unless stated otherwise, so that seems ok (do one shot weapons state otherwise ? Worth a check).

I don't think the rule is saying you can't split weapons as you see fit, tho it is widely poorly to be sure.

If a model has several weapons, [...] it can shoot each at a different enemy unit.

This doesn't preclude a previously picked target to be targeted again. It just prevents a single weapon to be shot at multiple targets.

Normally, you can always forsake attacks even if the rules don't mention it. It is stated in the AoS FAQ.
So RAI, I think it's safe to assume you can skip a weapon if you don't want to shoot with it, but it's not in a FAQ yet, so RAW you would have to shoot all weapons or none at all.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Generally I do not think of Can as ever meaning must... But
there is a line in the first section which says you are expected to shoot all your weapons unless stated otherwise, so that seems ok (do one shot weapons state otherwise ? Worth a check).

I don't think the rule is saying you can't split weapons as you see fit, tho it is widely poorly to be sure.

The rule is saying you can split weapons as you see fit, but they must all be at different enemy units, otherwise you have to fire them all at the same unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hanskrampf wrote:

If a model has several weapons, [...] it can shoot each at a different enemy unit.

This doesn't preclude a previously picked target to be targeted again. It just prevents a single weapon to be shot at multiple targets.

Normally, you can always forsake attacks even if the rules don't mention it. It is stated in the AoS FAQ.
So RAI, I think it's safe to assume you can skip a weapon if you don't want to shoot with it, but it's not in a FAQ yet, so RAW you would have to shoot all weapons or none at all.

Isn't the very definition of different 'not the same'? If I fire Weapon 1 at A, Weapon 2 at B, then Weapon 3 at A, I'm not firing each weapon at a different enemy unit, I am firing two at the same and one at a different unit, which is not permitted by the rules.

Also AoS FAQs literally have no bearing on 40k rules so I don't know why you're mentioning them.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Generally I do not think of Can as ever meaning must... But
there is a line in the first section which says you are expected to shoot all your weapons unless stated otherwise, so that seems ok (do one shot weapons state otherwise ? Worth a check).

I don't think the rule is saying you can't split weapons as you see fit, tho it is widely poorly to be sure.

The rule is saying you can split weapons as you see fit, but they must all be at different enemy units, otherwise you have to fire them all at the same unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hanskrampf wrote:

If a model has several weapons, [...] it can shoot each at a different enemy unit.

This doesn't preclude a previously picked target to be targeted again. It just prevents a single weapon to be shot at multiple targets.

Normally, you can always forsake attacks even if the rules don't mention it. It is stated in the AoS FAQ.
So RAI, I think it's safe to assume you can skip a weapon if you don't want to shoot with it, but it's not in a FAQ yet, so RAW you would have to shoot all weapons or none at all.

Isn't the very definition of different 'not the same'? If I fire Weapon 1 at A, Weapon 2 at B, then Weapon 3 at A, I'm not firing each weapon at a different enemy unit, I am firing two at the same and one at a different unit, which is not permitted by the rules.

Also, AoS FAQs literally have no bearing on 40k rules so I don't know why you're mentioning them.

It says you can shoot each at a different enemy unit. If you fire Weapon one at Unit A and Weapon two at Unit B and Weapon three at UnitB then "each is being fired at a different enemy unit (to at least one other weapon)", but "each is not being fired at a different enemy unit (to every other weapon)." As they left off the clause saying what it has to be different to both those interpretations are valid. Also I guess they could each fire at a different enemy unit than any arbitrary enemy unit you care to choose that they are not firing at, such interpretation would mean they can either shoot all their weapons at Unit A or each weapon at Not Unit A. One of those interpretations makes the most sense, but any would be valid RAW.

"[...] it can shoot each (weapon) at a different enemy unit"
"Can" meaning it "can" but doesn't have to.

I'm mentioning the AoS FAQ because it's worded the same way as 40k when attacking (and 40k 8th is heavily based on AoS rules), but the FAQ states you still can skip attacks. If you read on, you'll notice I made an educated RAI guess, but included a RAW statement, because AoS FAQs have no bearing on 40k rules.

Drager wrote:
It says you can shoot each at a different enemy unit. If you fire Weapon one at Unit A and Weapon two at Unit B and Weapon three at UnitB then "each is being fired at a different enemy unit (to at least one other weapon)", but "each is not being fired at a different enemy unit (to every other weapon)." As they left off the clause saying what it has to be different to both those interpretations are valid. Also I guess they could each fire at a different enemy unit than any arbitrary enemy unit you care to choose that they are not firing at, such interpretation would mean they can either shoot all their weapons at Unit A or each weapon at Not Unit A. One of those interpretations makes the most sense, but any would be valid RAW.

I disagree, you can't just make up clauses to rules like that. By that logic I claim that the clause "A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply." has the implied clause of "Unless you're rolling pink dice." and therefore always hit my Necron Command Barges.

Simple question, is Unit A a different unit to Unit A?

The answer is No, so that is not a different target, and split fire requires you to "fire them all at different targets".

Can does not = must.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Can does not = must.

No, but the "all" does.

You're given two options.

can shoot all of them at the same target

it can shoot each at a different enemy unit.

So if you choose to fire, you MUST shoot all of them. Your choices are "Shoot all of them" or "shoot each of them at different enemies" or "don't shoot at all".

You're not given the option to "can shoot one" weapon.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Drager wrote:
It says you can shoot each at a different enemy unit. If you fire Weapon one at Unit A and Weapon two at Unit B and Weapon three at UnitB then "each is being fired at a different enemy unit (to at least one other weapon)", but "each is not being fired at a different enemy unit (to every other weapon)." As they left off the clause saying what it has to be different to both those interpretations are valid. Also I guess they could each fire at a different enemy unit than any arbitrary enemy unit you care to choose that they are not firing at, such interpretation would mean they can either shoot all their weapons at Unit A or each weapon at Not Unit A. One of those interpretations makes the most sense, but any would be valid RAW.

I disagree, you can't just make up clauses to rules like that.

Simple question, is Unit A a different unit to Unit A?

The answer is No, so that is not a different target, and split fire requires you to "fire them all at different targets".

Your interpretation also makes up an implicit clause, however, the "to every other weapon" clause. The reason the rule is ambiguous is that we don't know what each has to be different to. When we use the word different without a clause saying what it is different to we always add an implicit clause, usually based on the previous sentence or another clause in the same sentence, and, usually, this is unambiguous. If we apply that logic here the last option I gave, "shoot all their weapons at Unit A or each weapon at Not Unit A", is the natural reading, but that is also confusing as you first have to select a unit to not shoot at at all, which is so counterintuitive I'm pretty sure it's the wrong reading. That leaves us with two alternative possible readings, both add clauses, but one works the way people expect and the other does not.

No, my reading doesn't need an additional, made up clause. Different literally means just that, different.

If I give you 3 apples, and tell you to give each of them to different people, did you follow the instructions if you give 2 to Susan?

Susan is not in the RAW. I don't recall a Datasheet called "Susan". Must be a house rule?

Sigh. Another slow news week, huh?

You know full well this rule doesn't force you to fire at a separate target for each weapon carried, but hey, you do you...


(Honestly dude, you come up with some great stuff sometimes but threads like this wipe out any credibility you might have built up.)

Just shoot the unwanted weapons at something outside their range limit. You've used them, but 'oh dear, can't hit'.

 Skinnereal wrote:
Just shoot the unwanted weapons at something outside their range limit. You've used them, but 'oh dear, can't hit'.

That's not helping at all though.

Example:
You want to split the fire of your Tactical Squad (4 Bolters and a Lascannon) onto two targets: A squad of Infantry in front of you and a Leman Russ a bit farther away. BCBs reading (which is technically correct I guess) says you can target 1 bolter at the squad and 1 Lascannon at the tank OR you shoot all the bolters and the lascannon at the same target (eg. the Infantry squad).

It's clear how it's supposed to work, and as usual it's one of the things BCB likes to poke fun at while everyone else just goes "meh. I'll still play the game in a way that the rules make sense and the game doesn't break".

And somewhat offtopic: if you don't care for "issues" like this, why do you guys keep engaging BCB? Just skip the thread.

We're actually talking about multiple weapons on one model, not multiple weapons on one unit.
Looking at the "similarly if a unit contains more than one model , they can shoot at the same, or different targets as you choose ".
I think that clarifies the intended context of the previous statement.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
We're actually talking about multiple weapons on one model, not multiple weapons on one unit.
Looking at the "similarly if a unit contains more than one model , they can shoot at the same, or different targets as you choose ".
I think that clarifies the intended context of the previous statement.

Again, comparing apples to macro cannons. "different targets as you choose" is not the same as "different targets". And even then, "different targets as you choose" doesn't actually permit the doubling up of targets, so baring an errata or Special Snowflake FAQ, most of us (myself included) have been playing it wrong until now.

Skinnereal wrote:Just shoot the unwanted weapons at something outside their range limit. You've used them, but 'oh dear, can't hit'.

You cant do that.

2. Choose Targets
In order to target an enemy unit,
a model from that unit must be within
the Range of the weapon being used (as
listed on its profile) and be visible to the
shooting model.

nekooni wrote:
That's not helping at all though.

Example:
You want to split the fire of your Tactical Squad (4 Bolters and a Lascannon) onto two targets: A squad of Infantry in front of you and a Leman Russ a bit farther away. BCBs reading (which is technically correct I guess) says you can target 1 bolter at the squad and 1 Lascannon at the tank OR you shoot all the bolters and the lascannon at the same target (eg. the Infantry squad).

It's clear how it's supposed to work, and as usual it's one of the things BCB likes to poke fun at while everyone else just goes "meh. I'll still play the game in a way that the rules make sense and the game doesn't break".

And somewhat offtopic: if you don't care for "issues" like this, why do you guys keep engaging BCB? Just skip the thread.

You are not helping. Your example has nothing to do with BCBs question. He is talking about a one model unit with multiple weapons. You are talking about a unit with more than one model and multiple weapons. If a unit has more models they can shoot at the same or different targets as you choose.

A one model unit can shoot all of them at the same target, or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit.

3. Choose Ranged Weapon

The weapons a model has are listed
on its datasheet. If a model has several
weapons, it can shoot all of them at the
same target, or it can shoot each at a
different enemy unit. Similarly, if a unit
contains more than one model, they can
shoot at the same, or different targets as
you choose.

BCB is right about RAW, but no one plays it like that.

Vehicles......

When you have a predator with a twin linked las cannon and two hevay bolters.

You fire twin lascnanon at unit A then both the heavy bolters go into unit B.

So I would interpret you can split. it doesn;t have to be each weapon a different uni. It's if you split you split how you like as long as you declare before rolling anything.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
Vehicles......

When you have a predator with a twin linked las cannon and two hevay bolters.

You fire twin lascnanon at unit A then both the heavy bolters go into unit B.

So I would interpret you can split. it doesn;t have to be each weapon a different uni. It's if you split you split how you like as long as you declare before rolling anything.

Do you have a rules basis for this interpretation? I felt I laid out the rules pretty clearly.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
Vehicles......

When you have a predator with a twin linked las cannon and two hevay bolters.

You fire twin lascnanon at unit A then both the heavy bolters go into unit B.

So I would interpret you can split. it doesn;t have to be each weapon a different uni. It's if you split you split how you like as long as you declare before rolling anything.

Do you have a rules basis for this interpretation? I felt I laid out the rules pretty clearly.

Your pretty sarcastic aren't you. Whenever I see you post in other threads you never seem to try and actually help. You always call others out and lawer them. I really hope I don't game with you some day.

My vehicles post was to layout. When you see people splitting fire on vehicles. You see multiple weapons going into one unit. The split fire rule for Vehicles and a single model are the same. If you can split fire on vehicles and have multiple weapons going into a unit when you split, then one model with multiple weapons can too.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, my reading doesn't need an additional, made up clause. Different literally means just that, different.

If I give you 3 apples, and tell you to give each of them to different people, did you follow the instructions if you give 2 to Susan?

That implicit clause is really obvious in that sentence is all, so there is no ambiguity, it doesn't mean it is absent. I give you 3 apples and tell you to give them all to Susan or each to a different person. Now it's ambiguous again.

Regarding the difference between "can" and "must", it's actually irrelevant in this case.

The only difference between "you can do A or you can do B" and "you must do either A or B" is that the former gives you the option of doing nothing instead of A or B. It doesn't give you permission to do C, even if C is "kinda-sorta-halfway between A and B".

But I should maybe clarify that my point isn't that BCB is correct (although he is), but that GW continue to suck at writing clear rules that work as intended, and that nobody should try to play their games by strict RAW.

 p5freak wrote:

You are not helping. Your example has nothing to do with BCBs question. He is talking about a one model unit with multiple weapons. You are talking about a unit with more than one model and multiple weapons. If a unit has more models they can shoot at the same or different targets as you choose.

A one model unit can shoot all of them at the same target, or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit.

3. Choose Ranged Weapon

The weapons a model has are listed
on its datasheet. If a model has several
weapons, it can shoot all of them at the
same target, or it can shoot each at a
different enemy unit. Similarly, if a unit
contains more than one model, they can
shoot at the same, or different targets as
you choose.

BCB is right about RAW, but no one plays it like that.

I'm sorry, you're right - although you could just exchange the Tac Squad with a Predator (and the Bolters with 2 Heavy Bolters and the Lascannon with a Twin Lascannon) and my example works just fine.

Where you shoot them is the flexibility, not IF you shoot them. When you designate a unit is going to shoot it must fire all its weapons if it can legally do so, RAW. These kinds of things are important with chess clocks on the horizon. You can force an opponent to burn time by making them fire all of their guns. Oh you paid 10 points for 5 storm bolters across your 5 razorbacks? Roll for each. I'll wait. Happily.

If a model has several weapons, it can shoot all of them at the same target, or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit.

It hinges on "can".
You target unit (A) with w1. It can shoot all weapons at the same target.
Or... You can shoot w2 at a different enemy unit (B), so you do.
Or... You can shoot w3 at a different enemy unit (B, C, D, etc), but you choose not to.
w3 targets unit (A) by default.

I think you're interpretation is grouping the weapons together when it doesn't actually say it does.

You may fire them as different targets even if you have less targets then guns. There is nothing that implies or says each weapon must target a different units, it says 'can' meaning you have the option to target something else implying that you can split fire into the same unit with two guns.

If you have 3 guns and 2 units one gan can point at unit 1 the second gun can point at unit 2 and the third gun and point at either or.

This question is on par with "how much is an inch" question asked to GW.

OK. So BCB actually has some merit on this, For singular models or singular models with multiple weapons, one of two scenarios has to happen.

a) you declare all shooting weapons to one enemy unit

b) you declare each shooting weapon to one enemy unit.

For a unit on the other hand, each model can shoot at a different target, cause the second paragraph defines the abilities of units, not models.

So the rules are basically saying. If you have one model, you can either shoot all it's weapons to one unit, or between multiple units, but each weapon must have a diffferent target.

While units say each model can target a different unit.



Somehow i feel that single model units got the short end of the stick on this, cause multi model units have better split firing

It would make a mockery of some super heavy tanks.

"or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit."

It does not have to shoot each at a different enemy than the first if it does not want to, but it can...

Therefore you can shoot 3 weapons from a single model at either 1, 2, or 3 targets if you want.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit."

It does not have to shoot each at a different enemy than the first if it does not want to, but it can...

Therefore you can shoot 3 weapons from a single model at either 1, 2, or 3 targets if you want.

Agreed.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit."

It does not have to shoot each at a different enemy than the first if it does not want to, but it can...

Therefore you can shoot 3 weapons from a single model at either 1, 2, or 3 targets if you want.

Actually BCB has a point. If you have 3 weapons you can fire all 3 at one unit or you can fire one weapon each at 3 different units. They don't say the one model can fire multilple weapons at one unit and some weaspons at a second unit. Technically they would have to include that in the options of what you can do in order for you to have permission to do it.

Going by the sentence about multiple models in a unit getting to fire at different targets, the implication there is that you can split the fire how you want, making their intention clear for single models by saying "similarly", but if you go by what they said for the single firing alone you only get to fire either all weapons at 1 unit or 1 weapon at as many different units as you have weapons. Everybody plays it that you can mix and match shooting on units so that you can put multiple weapons on one and some on a second while not being forced to fire only one weapon at each unit if you want to shoot more than one. That's not what the RAW says for single models, however, it was poor wording on GW's part there. If you didn't have the subsequent sentence about what units "similarly" do, there wouldn't have been an indication that a single model can shoot multiple weapons at one unit and a weapon at a second unit.

Except that it can shoot each weapon at a different target, but it does not have to. It can...

So 3 weapons fired from a single model can target 2 units, or 1 unit, or 3 units.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except that it can shoot each weapon at a different target, but it does not have to. It can...

So 3 weapons fired from a single model can target 2 units, or 1 unit, or 3 units.

Sorry, you failed to address the issue. You have permission to fire all weapons at one target. You have permission to fire at different units with one weapon each. Saying "it does not have to" doesn't suddenly manufacture permission to do something they haven't given you permission to do. What you "can" do is one of the two choices they give by RAW. If you have 3 weapons, they give you permission to fire all 3 at one unit, or 1 weapon each at 3 different units. Please provide the rules quotation that specified that one model may fire multiple weapons, but not all weapons at one unit while firing another weapon at a second unit.

BCB has done it again!

Genuinely curious though - what does it take to actually spot these errors?

No, again there is an implicit added clause that bob is adding - that the weapons must fire at targets different to every other weapon. That clause does not exist in the actual rules, meaning their interpretation cannot be "raw"

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except that it can shoot each weapon at a different target, but it does not have to. It can...

So 3 weapons fired from a single model can target 2 units, or 1 unit, or 3 units.

Sorry, you failed to address the issue. You have permission to fire all weapons at one target. You have permission to fire at different units with one weapon each. Saying "it does not have to" doesn't suddenly manufacture permission to do something they haven't given you permission to do. What you "can" do is one of the two choices they give by RAW. If you have 3 weapons, they give you permission to fire all 3 at one unit, or 1 weapon each at 3 different units. Please provide the rules quotation that specified that one model may fire multiple weapons, but not all weapons at one unit while firing another weapon at a second unit.

I have addressed the issue, maybe I didn't make it clear to you, let me elaborate.

As long as a gun targets a unit that is different than the fist unit selected as a target, the rest of the guns are firing at a different enemy unit. Therefore there is permission to target 2 units with 3 weapons from a single model. What you "can" do is one of the two choices they give by RAW (Which includes targeting 2 units with 3 weapons from a single model)

They give you permission to fire all 3 at one unit, they also give you permission to fire 1 weapon each at 3 different units, they also give you permission to fire 1 at a unit, and 2 at a second unit because those two guns are firing at a different enemy unit than the first weapon.

The rules quote is right here "If a model has several weapons, it can shoot all of them at the same target, or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit." - BRB

If you have a model with 3 guns, 1 gun shooting unit A and 2 guns shooting unit B is allowed because guns 1 and 3, and guns 1 and 2 are each shooting at a different enemy unit.

 skchsan wrote:
BCB has done it again!

Genuinely curious though - what does it take to actually spot these errors?

He has not, because his argument is not correct

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, again there is an implicit added clause that bob is adding - that the weapons must fire at targets different to every other weapon. That clause does not exist in the actual rules, meaning their interpretation cannot be "raw"

Really?

"If a model has several weapons, it can shoot all of them at the same target, or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit. "

If you have 3 weapons, and fire two at one enemy unit and 1 at a second enemy unit, then you are not shooting each at a different enemy unit, are you? You have 2 weapons firing at the same unit.

Imagine that...another banal BCB thread. BCB should just full hog and post a YouTube video report and play the game in the weird magical realm as he reads it.

 doctortom wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, again there is an implicit added clause that bob is adding - that the weapons must fire at targets different to every other weapon. That clause does not exist in the actual rules, meaning their interpretation cannot be "raw"

Really?

"If a model has several weapons, it can shoot all of them at the same target, or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit. "

If you have 3 weapons, and fire two at one enemy unit and 1 at a second enemy unit, then you are not shooting each at a different enemy unit, are you? You have 2 weapons firing at the same unit.

It does not matter that you have 2 weapons firing at the same unit, both of those weapons are shooting at a different enemy unit than the first weapon. Therefore well within RAW to do so.

Gun 1 Selects unit A as a target. (It can shoot each [weapon] at a different enemy unit.)

Guns 2 and 3 must pick a different enemy unit instead of selecting the unit Gun 1 targeted... (This can both be Unit B or one can shoot unit B and one can shoot Unit C)

 doctortom wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, again there is an implicit added clause that bob is adding - that the weapons must fire at targets different to every other weapon. That clause does not exist in the actual rules, meaning their interpretation cannot be "raw"

Really?

"If a model has several weapons, it can shoot all of them at the same target, or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit. "

If you have 3 weapons, and fire two at one enemy unit and 1 at a second enemy unit, then you are not shooting each at a different enemy unit, are you? You have 2 weapons firing at the same unit.

Yes, you are firing at a different unit
Just not a different unit to every other weapon. At least one weapon is firing at a different unit, thus the second clause is satisfied

If you disagree, show the exact wording that forces every weapon to fire at a different unit to every other weapon. It doesn't 3sist, hence pointing out you are reading an implicit restriction that simply and literally does. Not. Exist.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except that it can shoot each weapon at a different target, but it does not have to. It can...

So 3 weapons fired from a single model can target 2 units, or 1 unit, or 3 units.

Sorry, you failed to address the issue. You have permission to fire all weapons at one target. You have permission to fire at different units with one weapon each. Saying "it does not have to" doesn't suddenly manufacture permission to do something they haven't given you permission to do. What you "can" do is one of the two choices they give by RAW. If you have 3 weapons, they give you permission to fire all 3 at one unit, or 1 weapon each at 3 different units. Please provide the rules quotation that specified that one model may fire multiple weapons, but not all weapons at one unit while firing another weapon at a second unit.

I have addressed the issue, maybe I didn't make it clear to you, let me elaborate.

As long as a gun targets a unit that is different than the fist unit selected as a target, the rest of the guns are firing at a different enemy unit.

Nope, sorry. "fire each at a different enemy unit" is not the same as "fire multiple weapons at one unit and a weapon at a different unit." Two weapons are firing at the same unit, not different units. By RAW, that sentence is not permission to fire multiple weapons at one unit and one weapon at another.

As I said before, the rule was poorly written for single models. The intention is clear that you can fire multiple weapons at one unit while still splitting fire off (thanks to the subsequent statement for multimodel units), but it's not in the RAW for single model units.

The resulting interaction is probably not what was intended by the rules writer... But as written, BCB is right in the most literal sense, without an ounce of assumption, possible.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, again there is an implicit added clause that bob is adding - that the weapons must fire at targets different to every other weapon. That clause does not exist in the actual rules, meaning their interpretation cannot be "raw"

Really?

"If a model has several weapons, it can shoot all of them at the same target, or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit. "

If you have 3 weapons, and fire two at one enemy unit and 1 at a second enemy unit, then you are not shooting each at a different enemy unit, are you? You have 2 weapons firing at the same unit.

Yes, you are firing at a different unit
Just not a different unit to every other weapon. At least one weapon is firing at a different unit, thus the second clause is satisfied

If you disagree, show the exact wording that forces every weapon to fire at a different unit to every other weapon. It doesn't 3sist, hence pointing out you are reading an implicit restriction that simply and literally does. Not. Exist.

"fire each weapon at a different unit"

I have 3 weapons. The first weapon fires at one unit. Okay.

The second weapon fires at a second unit. We're still okay.

The third weapon also fires at the second unit. But, each weapon fires at a different unit according to the statement, and the third weapon is not firing at a different unit than the other weapons, it's firing at the same unit as the second weapon. Therefore, each weapon is not being fired at a different unit. For what you are saying, it would have to say something on the lines "subsequent weapons after the first can be fired at a unit or units other than the first". You are reading in that there is a primary unit and a different unit. It says each fires at different units, which means each one has to hit a different unit - no duplications.

Which again begs the question, who cares?

BCB and similar folks seem to enjoy being "clever" and showing off on the internet how well they can read and disect rules, but to what end?

Do you guys (who do this ad nauseum) actually email GW and tell them you found what you believe to be a typographical error - or do you just posit it here on dakka to create exhaustingly stupid threads?

Is a service being provided to the community, when everyone else in the world reads the rule, understands its purposes and plays it as such? When, if asked, any TO in the entire world would judge it as most people read it, etc. There's no alternate version of 40K being played based on these supposed errors.

We've seen a handful of these silly rules interpretations addressed by FAQ's, errata and occasional messages to GW on facebook. Every single time, the answer has been in favour of the overall intent/general common sense consensus. GW has never once come out and said "Oh, our bad - we wrote that somewhat oddly...guess that's the rule now!". That's not a thing.

So is it typical epeenery and laziness which creates these constant silly threads? As witnessed above, if people agree BCB is "technically" right ---- who cares? No one will ever play it that way so it's a moot point. If someone can enlighten me to the greater purpose they believe is being achieved outside of "Look internet, I'm clever, yolo!" I'm all ears.

 Elbows wrote:
Which again begs the question, who cares?

BCB and similar folks seem to enjoy being "clever" and showing off on the internet how well they can read and disect rules, but to what end?

Do you guys (who do this ad nauseum) actually email GW and tell them you found what you believe to be a typographical error - or do you just posit it here on dakka to create exhaustingly stupid threads?

Is a service being provided to the community, when everyone else in the world reads the rule, understands its purposes and plays it as such? When, if asked, any TO in the entire world would judge it as most people read it, etc. There's no alternate version of 40K being played based on these supposed errors.

We've seen a handful of these silly rules interpretations addressed by FAQ's, errata and occasional messages to GW on facebook. Every single time, the answer has been in favour of the overall intent/general common sense consensus. GW has never once come out and said "Oh, our bad - we wrote that somewhat oddly...guess that's the rule now!". That's not a thing.

So is it typical epeenery and laziness which creates these constant silly threads? As witnessed above, if people agree BCB is "technically" right ---- who cares? No one will ever play it that way so it's a moot point. If someone can enlighten me to the greater purpose they believe is being achieved outside of "Look internet, I'm clever, yolo!" I'm all ears.

He's technically correct... The BEST KIND of correct.

Reading BCB's post is kind of like watching 'Best of Vine Compliations' on youtube. Some of them are so stupid you can't help but laugh.

 Elbows wrote:
Which again begs the question, who cares?

BCB and similar folks seem to enjoy being "clever" and showing off on the internet how well they can read and disect rules, but to what end?

Do you guys (who do this ad nauseum) actually email GW and tell them you found what you believe to be a typographical error - or do you just posit it here on dakka to create exhaustingly stupid threads?

Is a service being provided to the community, when everyone else in the world reads the rule, understands its purposes and plays it as such? When, if asked, any TO in the entire world would judge it as most people read it, etc. There's no alternate version of 40K being played based on these supposed errors.

We've seen a handful of these silly rules interpretations addressed by FAQ's, errata and occasional messages to GW on facebook. Every single time, the answer has been in favour of the overall intent/general common sense consensus. GW has never once come out and said "Oh, our bad - we wrote that somewhat oddly...guess that's the rule now!". That's not a thing.

So is it typical epeenery and laziness which creates these constant silly threads? As witnessed above, if people agree BCB is "technically" right ---- who cares? No one will ever play it that way so it's a moot point. If someone can enlighten me to the greater purpose they believe is being achieved outside of "Look internet, I'm clever, yolo!" I'm all ears.

You could say the same thing about the people who are saying that he's wrong with the RAW when he's "technically" correct. That's where the multipage arguments start from; it takes more than one side to argue. If we go "uh huh, nice point on RAW, but that's not how the game is generally played" without arguing the RAW, you probably aren't going past the first page.

RAW is daft in a number of situations. Maybe this one should be added to the list: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/750856.page

 skchsan wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
[...] BCB and similar folks seem to enjoy being "clever" and showing off on the internet how well they can read and disect rules, but to what end?

Do you guys (who do this ad nauseum) actually email GW and tell them you found what you believe to be a typographical error - or do you just posit it here on dakka to create exhaustingly stupid threads?

Is a service being provided to the community, when everyone else in the world reads the rule, understands its purposes and plays it as such? When, if asked, any TO in the entire world would judge it as most people read it, etc. There's no alternate version of 40K being played based on these supposed errors. [...]

So is it typical epeenery and laziness which creates these constant silly threads? As witnessed above, if people agree BCB is "technically" right ---- who cares? No one will ever play it that way so it's a moot point. If someone can enlighten me to the greater purpose they believe is being achieved outside of "Look internet, I'm clever, yolo!" I'm all ears.

He's technically correct... The BEST KIND of correct.

Reading BCB's post is kind of like watching 'Best of Vine Compliations' on youtube. Some of them are so stupid you can't help but laugh.

I don't know whether BCB emails GW or not.

What I do know is that, if I were GW, I would read BCB's threads. Yeah, sometimes they're silly, sometimes they're overly nuanced, usually they're not going to change how anyone plays the game. But the fact is that more tightly-written rules benefit everyone. People abuse unclear rules. People find loopholes. And if I want to make sure that my rules are airtight, then I'm going to hope that there's someone like BCB out there to help make them that way.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
It would make a mockery of some super heavy tanks.

And that means what exactly? The rules are clear, you've just been playing them wrong.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
It would make a mockery of some super heavy tanks.

And that means what exactly? The rules are clear, you've just been playing them wrong.

And it’s clear you are wilfully misunderstanding the rules then using that as a soap box to attack others. But what’s new? You know what the rule means and how it’s played... proclaiming everyone to be “playing then wrong” is foolish.

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except that it can shoot each weapon at a different target, but it does not have to. It can...

So 3 weapons fired from a single model can target 2 units, or 1 unit, or 3 units.

Sorry, you failed to address the issue. You have permission to fire all weapons at one target. You have permission to fire at different units with one weapon each. Saying "it does not have to" doesn't suddenly manufacture permission to do something they haven't given you permission to do. What you "can" do is one of the two choices they give by RAW. If you have 3 weapons, they give you permission to fire all 3 at one unit, or 1 weapon each at 3 different units. Please provide the rules quotation that specified that one model may fire multiple weapons, but not all weapons at one unit while firing another weapon at a second unit.

I have addressed the issue, maybe I didn't make it clear to you, let me elaborate.

As long as a gun targets a unit that is different than the fist unit selected as a target, the rest of the guns are firing at a different enemy unit.

Nope, sorry. "fire each at a different enemy unit" is not the same as "fire multiple weapons at one unit and a weapon at a different unit." Two weapons are firing at the same unit, not different units. By RAW, that sentence is not permission to fire multiple weapons at one unit and one weapon at another.

As I said before, the rule was poorly written for single models. The intention is clear that you can fire multiple weapons at one unit while still splitting fire off (thanks to the subsequent statement for multimodel units), but it's not in the RAW for single model units.

Your argument is not correct. neither is BCB's.

If at least one weapon is firing at a different unit the second clause is satisfied.

"it can shoot each at a different enemy unit." is not the same as "Must fire every weapon at a different unit to every other weapon" you are saying the second is true without any rules backing.

 doctortom wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


If you disagree, show the exact wording that forces every weapon to fire at a different unit to every other weapon. It doesn't 3sist, hence pointing out you are reading an implicit restriction that simply and literally does. Not. Exist.

"fire each weapon at a different unit"

I have 3 weapons. The first weapon fires at one unit. Okay.

The second weapon fires at a second unit. We're still okay.

The third weapon also fires at the second unit. But, each weapon fires at a different unit according to the statement, and the third weapon is not firing at a different unit than the other weapons, it's firing at the same unit as the second weapon. Therefore, each weapon is not being fired at a different unit. For what you are saying, it would have to say something on the lines "subsequent weapons after the first can be fired at a unit or units other than the first". You are reading in that there is a primary unit and a different unit. It says each fires at different units, which means each one has to hit a different unit - no duplications.

I bolded the bit you didn't actually address. At all.

The third weapon is firing at a different unit to the first weapon. Pstatement is entirely complied with.

You are STILL adding a restriction that does not exist. At all.

If you disagree, show the wording that requires every weapon to fire at. A different unit to every other weapons. Page and para please.

All that is required to counts as having fired at "different" targets is for all weapons to not fire at the "same" target.

Situation: weapons A & B fire at target X and weapon C fires at target Y,

Weapon A DID fire at a different target than weapon C
Weapon B DID fire at a different target than weapon C
Weapon C DID fire at a different target than weapons A or B.

All weapons can be said to have fired at a different target. Even though A & B fired at the same target, it was still a different target than C.

-

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except that it can shoot each weapon at a different target, but it does not have to. It can...

So 3 weapons fired from a single model can target 2 units, or 1 unit, or 3 units.

Sorry, you failed to address the issue. You have permission to fire all weapons at one target. You have permission to fire at different units with one weapon each. Saying "it does not have to" doesn't suddenly manufacture permission to do something they haven't given you permission to do. What you "can" do is one of the two choices they give by RAW. If you have 3 weapons, they give you permission to fire all 3 at one unit, or 1 weapon each at 3 different units. Please provide the rules quotation that specified that one model may fire multiple weapons, but not all weapons at one unit while firing another weapon at a second unit.

I have addressed the issue, maybe I didn't make it clear to you, let me elaborate.

As long as a gun targets a unit that is different than the fist unit selected as a target, the rest of the guns are firing at a different enemy unit.

Nope, sorry. "fire each at a different enemy unit" is not the same as "fire multiple weapons at one unit and a weapon at a different unit." Two weapons are firing at the same unit, not different units. By RAW, that sentence is not permission to fire multiple weapons at one unit and one weapon at another.

As I said before, the rule was poorly written for single models. The intention is clear that you can fire multiple weapons at one unit while still splitting fire off (thanks to the subsequent statement for multimodel units), but it's not in the RAW for single model units.

Your argument is not correct. neither is BCB's.

If at least one weapon is firing at a different unit the second clause is satisfied.

"it can shoot each at a different enemy unit." is not the same as "Must fire every weapon at a different unit to every other weapon" you are saying the second is true without any rules backing.

Can shoot each at a different enemy unit means exactly that - each weapon is shooting at a different enemy unit. You have permission to do that. You haven't demonstrated how firing 3 weapons at 2 units is firing each weapon at a different enemy unit. It doesn't say firing other weapons at a unit other than the first unit, which is how you are interpreting that.

 Galef wrote:
All that is required to counts as having fired at "different" targets is for all weapons to not fire at the "same" target.

Situation: weapons A & B fire at target X and weapon C fires at target Y,

Weapon A DID fire at a different target than weapon C
Weapon B DID fire at a different target than weapon C
Weapon C DID fire at a different target than weapons A or B.

All weapons can be said to have fired at a different target. Even though A & B fired at the same target, it was still a different target than C.

-

That isn't what the rule is asking for though.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


If you disagree, show the exact wording that forces every weapon to fire at a different unit to every other weapon. It doesn't 3sist, hence pointing out you are reading an implicit restriction that simply and literally does. Not. Exist.

"fire each weapon at a different unit"

I have 3 weapons. The first weapon fires at one unit. Okay.

The second weapon fires at a second unit. We're still okay.

The third weapon also fires at the second unit. But, each weapon fires at a different unit according to the statement, and the third weapon is not firing at a different unit than the other weapons, it's firing at the same unit as the second weapon. Therefore, each weapon is not being fired at a different unit. For what you are saying, it would have to say something on the lines "subsequent weapons after the first can be fired at a unit or units other than the first". You are reading in that there is a primary unit and a different unit. It says each fires at different units, which means each one has to hit a different unit - no duplications.

I bolded the bit you didn't actually address. At all.

The third weapon is firing at a different unit to the first weapon. Pstatement is entirely complied with.

You are STILL adding a restriction that does not exist. At all.

If you disagree, show the wording that requires every weapon to fire at. A different unit to every other weapons. Page and para please.

I did address it. It says fire each weapon at a different unit. It doesn't say fire a weapon at a unit, and fire your other weapons at a different unit. "Fire each weapon at a different unit" IS athe wording requiring each weapon to be fired at a different unit - exactly as it states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
All that is required to counts as having fired at "different" targets is for all weapons to not fire at the "same" target.

Situation: weapons A & B fire at target X and weapon C fires at target Y,

Weapon A DID fire at a different target than weapon C
Weapon B DID fire at a different target than weapon C
Weapon C DID fire at a different target than weapons A or B.

All weapons can be said to have fired at a different target. Even though A & B fired at the same target, it was still a different target than C.

-

It doesn't say that all weapons do not have to fire at the same target, it says that each weapon has to fire at different targets. Weapon B has to fire at a different target than weapon A since firing a weapon at A would be firing at the same target. Weapon C has to fire at a target other than weapon A or weapon B in order to fire at a target other then each of the other weapons - EACH weapon has to fire at a different target. It's not a case of a main target then getting to fire at a different target - each one has to have a different target, which means no duplication of targets.

Does it say that all weapons must fire at a wholly different and seperate target than all other weapons? Or does choosing a different target that at least 1 of the weapons chose suffice (which is my argument)

If all weapons DID NOT choose the same target, than all weapons chose different targets. It is that simple (or at least GW seems to think so, with the way they write rules).
Even if 2 weapons select the same target, as long as a different target is chosen for the 3rd weapon, than "different" targets were selected by all weapons.

If the rule is asking us to chose different targets, that satisfies this requirement. And this is how everyone has read it for over a year now.

EDIT: Btw BaconCatBug, I am not saying your interpretation of this rule is wrong, simply that it is not as absolute as you are claiming. If either interpretation is valid, than the most permissive can be used.

-

After saying you can fire all weapons at one unit, it says you can fire each weapon at a different unit. It does not say you fire one weapon at a target and fmay fire other weapons at different targets, which is what it would need to say for your interpretation to be RAW. Since it says each weapon may fire at a different target without making a reference to firing the first weapon, then saying each weapon fires at a different target means firing at a different target from all the other weapons, not just the first weapon (which is not mentioned in their statement at all.) If 2 weapons target the same unit, then they aren't firing at different units, and you aren't following what the rule says. It says "each" weapon, not just "weapons may be fired at different units". It's the "each" that's forcing a new unit as a target for each weapon.

As I pointed out earlier, the subsequent statement about multiple models just firing and saying "similarly" provided context on what the RAI is for this, and people played by the RAI for over a year now.

But all you need to satisfy the "each" weapon fires at a different target is for it to select a different target from at least 1 other weapon.
It doesn't matter if weapons A and B select the same target, as long as weapon C selects a different target, then "each" weapon has selected a different target from the perspective of at least one other weapon.

We are given permission to select the same target.
We are given permission to select different targets.
The rules do not make the above sentences exclusive.

-

But it doesn't say different target from the perspective of at least 1 other weapon, it says each weapon may fire at a different target. That means different from all other weapons, not just from one other weapon. You are adding text to the statement that isn't there.

We are given permission to fire all weapons at the same target.
We are given permission for each weapon to fire at different units.
We are not given permission to fire more than one weapon at a unit when firing at different units.

Weapon A & B select target X
Weapon C selects target Y

Weapon A selected a different target from Weapon C
Weapon B selected a different target from Weapon C
Weapon C selected a different target from Weapons A & B

Therefore ALL weapons have selected different targets.

-

 Galef wrote:
Weapon A & B select target X
Weapon C selects target Y

Weapon A selected a different target from Weapon C
Weapon B selected a different target from Weapon C
Weapon C selected a different target from Weapons A & B

Therefore ALL weapons have selected different targets.

-

Incorrect. Weapon A and Weapon B have not selected different targets from each other. They have selected the same target. Therefore you do not have each weapon firing at a different target. That should be obvious.

You just added the "from each other" bit. I don't see how the ruling is requiring each weapon to select a different target from all other weapons. You just need to select "different targets"

You should ask "did a weapon select a different target?" If you can answer "Yes" in any way (such as when comparing to ANY other weapon), than you have satisfied the rule that "each weapon select a different target".
It doesn't matter if A & B choose the same target as each other. They both chose a different target than weapon C, so they DID chose a different target. That's all the rule wants.

I know I might not be explaining it very well, but the way I see it, nothing forces you to split your weapons in a way that every individual weapon must select a target that is completely separate and not selected by another weapon.

-

 Galef wrote:
You just added the "from each other" bit. I don't see how the ruling is requiring each weapon to select a different target from all other weapons. You just need to select "different targets"

You should ask "did a weapon select a different target?" If you can answer "Yes" in any way (such as when comparing to ANY other weapon), than you have satisfied the rule that "each weapon select a different target".
It doesn't matter if A & B choose the same target as each other. They both chose a different target than weapon C, so they DID chose a different target. That's all the rule wants.

I know I might not be explaining it very well, but the way I see it, nothing forces you to split your weapons in a way that every individual weapon must select a target that is completely separate and not selected by another weapon.

-

Okay, I ask "did a weapon select a different target?" With your example, I get "no" for weapon B, as it did not select a different target from weapon A. Presumably Weapon A would be the first weapon since it's at the beginning of the alphabet.

If you can reverse the order of the weapons and get a "no", then it's a "no" for have you selected a different target no matter which weapon you say is first.

Sequencing of weapon selection does not matter, not does the "no".
My point is that this is a permissive rule set.
We get both a "No" and a "Yes" in the situation. As the rule only cares about the "Yes", we can proceed.

The rule would have to say something like "if each weapon does not select a different target from all other weapon, than all weapon must select the same target"

At the end of the day, this is an English language interpretation issue, not a rules issue. "Each" can mean "all" or "any". I am arguing that it means "any" and it appears to me that you are arguing that it must mean "all".

-

 Galef wrote:
Sequencing of weapon selection does not matter, not does the "no".

Sequencing not mattering means it shouldn't matter what order you look at the weapons, they should always have a different unit as a target no matter what order you look at them in. If there is one sequence in which I look at weapon A then weapon B from your example and ask the question "have they picked different targets?" I get back NO for an answer.

 Galef wrote:
My point is that this is a permissive rule set.
We get both a "No" and a "Yes" in the situation. As the rule only cares about the "Yes", we can proceed.

But that's your fallacy there - if you get a "no" back, you don't get to proceed - you don't have a "yes" and a "no". You are asking the question "does each weapon have a different target than 1 other weapon" for your yes and no answers. That isn't the question. The question is "is each weapon shooting at a different target". You only get a yes or a no answer, you don't get both. If weapon A and weapon B are shooting at the same unit, then the answe is NO and you do NOT get to proceed.


EDIT: You're right about "any" vs "all", but I don't see "any" as a valid interpretation with more than 2, that you have to go with all. But, I doubt we're going to convince each other of the proper way to read that. I'm willing to agree to disagree, especially since the RAI is obvious for this.

 doctortom wrote:
But, I doubt we're going to convince each other of the proper way to read that. I'm willing to agree to disagree, especially since the RAI is obvious for this.

Agreed. My mistake is always trying to force the RAW to somehow reflect the very obvious RAI. They should always be the same, but are often not.

-

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
It would make a mockery of some super heavy tanks.

And that means what exactly? The rules are clear, you've just been playing them wrong.

I'm a faceless nobody - so while my opinion doesn't matter, I'm siding with BCB on this issue.

Is the rule that each weapon must target a different enemy unit? Yes. This remains unsatisfied if two weapons shoot at the same unit, as they are not "different enemies".
Is this how the rule should be played? That's up to GW.

I for one, full-heartedly support BCB's inquires into the rules of the game - personally, I love reading/discussing technicalities such as this; and if people are ultimately playing the game wrong, that's on them.

Just because you thought the game was played a certain way, and everyone else around you thought the same (probably because they were taught by a similar group of people), does not make it the correct way to play the game. Games have rules, its important to follow them to the letter, otherwise; what's the point of rules in the first place?

There are two options:
1) Shoot everything at a single target
2) Shoot each weapon at a different target

There is no ambiguity there, just dubious semantics being presented as a reasonable argument. Ultimately - it's up to GW. If there's an OFFICIAL battlereport that shows an interpretation one way or the other; please present it, I'd love to see it.

And personally? I feel the "Susan" argument that was presented earlier makes the rules quite clear - you can't give 2 apples to the same person, and one to another, if you were explicitly told to "it can GIVE (shoot) all of them at the same target, or it can GIVE (shoot) each TO (at) a different enemy unit" - you aren't giving 3 apples to "a different enemy unit", if two end up in the same place.

Except no-one has played it that way, official battle rep or casual game, tournament or Power Level pickup game, in the almost-year since 8th came out. No-one. Maybe BCB, but no-one else, and given it’s suddenly a revelation to him I doubt he’s been playing it that way... more that it’s a way to get a rise out of people.

I mean, sure, play semantics for fun, but telling everyone (GW’s own channels included) that they’re “playing it wrong” because you’ve decided your super-literal reading of a rule we all understand the meaning of is the Only Correct Way is... well, misguided at best and plain tedious at worst.

Simply put, whatever BCB thinks, no-one plays it how he says. If that means 99% of the gaming world, GW included, is “house ruling it” so be it. Who cares what you call it - RAI, non-douchey, whatever - the rule is that you can shoot a model’s weapon’s at whoever you want. There’s no “all together or all separate”.

Just know that if you rock up to a game and trip out this “well, technically” line of thinking you’ll simply be laughed at.

To be fair, the rule does go on to say different models can shoot at different units without saying "each" model, so they don't have the limitation there. They also started it with "Similarly", so the implication is they meant the single model rules to work the same way.

There's a difference between pointing out that a rule is incorrectly written and telling people they're playing the game wrong. A huge difference.

If you have to isolate the sentence to make a weird interpretation work then it isn't that interesting. The sentence you're quoting is ambiguous and the next sentence clears it up since it says that the rules for multiple models works the same and uses different wording that doesn't have the same ambiguity.

Even with just the original sentence, it doesn't strongly indicate what level of uniqueness you have to satisfy.

Are we seriously arguing that a multiple weapon vehicle can only fire all of its guns at a single target or a different one for each weapon, rather than, in the you know:

USING COMMON SENSE.

I can see both sides to the argument, but since 8th has been out for a year and NO ONE WHATSOEVER has played the rules as mentioned previously, from individual club games to big tournaments, I'm guessing this was done more to stir up trouble than a legit rules question.

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Are we seriously arguing that a multiple weapon vehicle can only fire all of its guns at a single target or a different one for each weapon, rather than, in the you know:

USING COMMON SENSE.

I can see both sides to the argument, but since 8th has been out for a year and NO ONE WHATSOEVER has played the rules as mentioned previously, from individual club games to big tournaments, I'm guessing this was done more to stir up trouble than a legit rules question.

Yuppppp.

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Are we seriously arguing that a multiple weapon vehicle can only fire all of its guns at a single target or a different one for each weapon, rather than, in the you know:

USING COMMON SENSE.

I can see both sides to the argument, but since 8th has been out for a year and NO ONE WHATSOEVER has played the rules as mentioned previously, from individual club games to big tournaments, I'm guessing this was done more to stir up trouble than a legit rules question.

Common sense says to apply modifiers before re-rolls. Common sense says plasma doesn't explode more at night. Common sense says my Marines are Toughness 20 and have 30 wounds each.

You either play by the rules or you don't, imho. Nothing wrong with making up rules if you want, if both players agree. I just feel that the majority of players, myself included, like playing by the rules set out in the rulebooks.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Are we seriously arguing that a multiple weapon vehicle can only fire all of its guns at a single target or a different one for each weapon, rather than, in the you know:

USING COMMON SENSE.

I can see both sides to the argument, but since 8th has been out for a year and NO ONE WHATSOEVER has played the rules as mentioned previously, from individual club games to big tournaments, I'm guessing this was done more to stir up trouble than a legit rules question.

Common sense says to apply modifiers before re-rolls. Common sense says plasma doesn't explode more at night. Common sense says my Marines are Toughness 20 and have 30 wounds each.

You either play by the rules or you don't, imho. Nothing wrong with making up rules if you want, if both players agree. I just feel that the majority of players, myself included, like playing by the rules set out in the rulebooks.

So how do you square away with the fact that the majority of players *do not* play this the way you are telling us is the only correct way? Did you stop to consider you might be... wrong? Or does it suit your personal agenda to believe that every pick up game, store demo, White Dwarf batrep, YouTube pundit, gaming club and major tournament is ‘making up rules’?

This thread is one of your most baffling yet.

 Elbows wrote:
Is a service being provided to the community, when everyone else in the world reads the rule, understands its purposes and plays it as such? When, if asked, any TO in the entire world would judge it as most people read it, etc. There's no alternate version of 40K being played based on these supposed errors.

It is important to understand what the rules actually say vs. how you think they ought to work. Just because you think it's obvious how that should be interpreted doesn't mean that everyone you play will agree.

In handling that situation there is a big difference between "whilst it might seem to work like that notice that the rules actually say this" and "I know that's what the rules say but I always play it like this because... ".

We usually see people in these threads outraged at the suggestion that the rules don't backup how they believe it ought to work and declaring anyone who tries to play it that way as a donkey cave. To my mind those people are the problem.

I guess the interesting question here is - why does it bother you that people are discussing cases where the RAW doesn't match the common interpretation?

Discussing as a curious thing would be fine.

Telling everyone they’re “playing it wrong” or “not playing by the rules” however is disingenuous, in this instance plain wrong, and just attention-seeking.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Discussing as a curious thing would be fine.

Telling everyone they’re “playing it wrong” or “not playing by the rules” however is disingenuous, in this instance plain wrong, and just attention-seeking.

Again, just because you dislike it doesn't make it true.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Discussing as a curious thing would be fine.

Telling everyone they’re “playing it wrong” or “not playing by the rules” however is disingenuous, in this instance plain wrong, and just attention-seeking.

Again, just because you dislike it doesn't make it true.

Last I checked you aren't GW and don't get to tell the entire world they're wrong. But you do you!

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Discussing as a curious thing would be fine.

Telling everyone they’re “playing it wrong” or “not playing by the rules” however is disingenuous, in this instance plain wrong, and just attention-seeking.

Again, just because you dislike it doesn't make it true.

It is the rules that proves your argument incorrect.

That is what makes it true, and your argument false.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Discussing as a curious thing would be fine.

Telling everyone they’re “playing it wrong” or “not playing by the rules” however is disingenuous, in this instance plain wrong, and just attention-seeking.

Again, just because you dislike it doesn't make it true.

It is the rules that proves your argument incorrect.

That is what makes it true, and your argument false.

Except my argument is based off the rules as written, not rules as made up clauses.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Except my argument is based off the rules as written, not rules as made up clauses.

And as shown, is not the correct way to parse the rule.

You can fire 3 weapons from a single model at two target units.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Except my argument is based off the rules as written, not rules as made up clauses.

And as shown, is not the correct way to parse the rule.

You can fire 3 weapons from a single model at two target units.

And as I showed, this is not permitted. Your "interpretation" requires adding words where there are none, as "implied" words.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Discussing as a curious thing would be fine.

Telling everyone they’re “playing it wrong” or “not playing by the rules” however is disingenuous, in this instance plain wrong, and just attention-seeking.

Again, just because you dislike it doesn't make it true.

It is the rules that proves your argument incorrect.

That is what makes it true, and your argument false.

Except my argument is based off the rules as written, not rules as made up clauses.

OK, so do feel free to write to GW and tell them the ENTIRE WORLD is playing the rules wrong, GW themselves included. Let me know what their reply is. Thanks!

In defense to BCB, my competitive group actually play some of these rule he's mentionned in his sig this way (some we found by ourself and some we found online and talked about)

We had previously remarked that Kharn does in fact punch himself on a roll of 1, because if that doesn't work, then the whole character "aura" affecting itself just breaks down. My sorceror on a steed of slaanesh only has access to old index powers, and howling banshee can only charge up to 12", to give an example.
So while some people might agree that sometimes the RAI is obvious, and decide to play in the spirit of the game, as we also do, I think it's good to have someone making very technical reading of the rules. It also helps TO get ready for eventual corner-case where someone might bring a rule interaction that we never thought of and make call that respect the ruling of the book.

All in all, I don't think this thread merit BCB getting personally attacked. If it makes you mad, just don't read and/or comment his thread I guess.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Except my argument is based off the rules as written, not rules as made up clauses.

And as shown, is not the correct way to parse the rule.

You can fire 3 weapons from a single model at two target units.

And as I showed, this is not permitted. Your "interpretation" requires adding words where there are none, as "implied" words.

You have not correctly interpreted the rule. My interpretation does not add anything.

There is an implicit added clause that you are adding - that the weapons must fire at targets different to every other weapon.

That clause does not exist in the actual rules, meaning your interpretation cannot be RAW

Therefore your argument is the incorrect one.

It does not matter that you have 2 weapons firing at the same unit, both of those weapons are shooting at a different enemy unit than the first weapon. Therefore well within RAW to do so. Your argument fails to account for this.

If you disagree, show the exact wording that forces every weapon to fire at a different unit to every other weapon. But it does not exist, you are reading an implicit restriction that simply and literally does not exist.

There is an implicit clause that my Space Marines have 20 wounds each. Prove me wrong.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
There is an implicit clause that my Space Marines have 20 wounds each. Prove me wrong.

Their Wounds stat. Also the fact that even the niftiest grammar-twister could not claim there’s anything implicit in any of the rules to say that Marines have W20, so it’s just you being silly. Done. Next fallacy?

So BCB a couple of people( including one of the guys who takes your side on almost every one of these silly arguments) have mentioned how the very next sentence proves you wrong...what is your response to that

nekooni wrote:
There's a difference between pointing out that a rule is incorrectly written and telling people they're playing the game wrong. A huge difference.

Was that directed at me? (I have to assume so since it was posted directly after my post.) Show where I have said people are playing the game wrong. Go back and you'll see several times I've said the RAI is obvious from the following sentences about multiple models firing.

 doctortom wrote:

nekooni wrote:
There's a difference between pointing out that a rule is incorrectly written and telling people they're playing the game wrong. A huge difference.

Was that directed at me? (I have to assume so since it was posted directly after my post.) Show where I have said people are playing the game wrong. Go back and you'll see several times I've said the RAI is obvious from the following sentences about multiple models firing.

No, it was directed at BCB.

 UncleJetMints wrote:
So BCB a couple of people( including one of the guys who takes your side on almost every one of these silly arguments) have mentioned how the very next sentence proves you wrong...what is your response to that

It's not so much that the next sentence proves him wrong. The part of the statement talking about multiple models treats it differently, not saying "each" weapon fires at a different unit. The thing though is that they started by saying "similarly" when, if you actually read the rules, it's not similar. We treat the RAI for single models as the RAW for the multiple models, but the RAW for the single models is different despite them saying "similar". That doesn't prove BCB wrong, it just proves that there was a problem with the writing of the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

nekooni wrote:
There's a difference between pointing out that a rule is incorrectly written and telling people they're playing the game wrong. A huge difference.

Was that directed at me? (I have to assume so since it was posted directly after my post.) Show where I have said people are playing the game wrong. Go back and you'll see several times I've said the RAI is obvious from the following sentences about multiple models firing.

No, it was directed at BCB.

That's what I suspected, but given that BCB hadn't posted on that page of the thread before Nekooni's comment, it looked like a response to my comments.

Many of the anti-BCB posters in this thread seem to be overreacting... Now, I myself am not a supporter of BCB's shenanigans, and more often than not the way I play is not by the RAW, because the RAW simply doesn't work in those particular cases.

Back to the main point, you all make it sound like this is anything new. BCB does what BCB does - he find the sentences that are seemingly authored by a 1st grader who just learned about grammar. He is absolutely right in this case, because the wording & the word choices he's brought up means exactly what he says as long as you don't bring any ounce of bias or assumptions. It IS very poor writing.

Is it overarching, yes. But, is he right? Yes! (I cringe everytime I have to agree with BCB). All in all, I find many of BCB's posts quite humorous - let's just be thankful that this is an internet discussion and that we don't actually have BCB at our FLGS.

 doctortom wrote:

nekooni wrote:
There's a difference between pointing out that a rule is incorrectly written and telling people they're playing the game wrong. A huge difference.

Was that directed at me? (I have to assume so since it was posted directly after my post.) Show where I have said people are playing the game wrong. Go back and you'll see several times I've said the RAI is obvious from the following sentences about multiple models firing.

No, it wasn't directed at you. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Many of the anti-BCB posters in this thread seem to be overreacting... Now, I myself am not a supporter of BCB's shenanigans, and more often than not the way I play is not by the RAW, because the RAW simply doesn't work in those particular cases.

Back to the main point, you all make it sound like this is anything new. BCB does what BCB does - he find the sentences that are seemingly authored by a 1st grader who just learned about grammar. He is absolutely right in this case, because the wording & the word choices he's brought up means exactly what he says as long as you don't bring any ounce of bias or assumptions. It IS very poor writing.

Is it overarching, yes. But, is he right? Yes! (I cringe everytime I have to agree with BCB). All in all, I find many of BCB's posts quite humorous - let's just be thankful that this is an internet discussion and that we don't actually have BCB at our FLGS.

Yepp. It's not really about being wrong or right, it's mostly about attitude.