Switch Theme:

Shooting Phase: Must fire all weapons? Can't split 3 guns across 2 targets?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Norn Queen






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?

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/04/11 07:19:20


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN (115) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in gb
Wrathful Warlord Titan Commander






London

Here we go again...
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




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.

DFTT 
   
Made in de
Experienced Maneater






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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/11 07:19:59




 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/11 07:22:03


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN (115) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Sinewy Scourge




 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/11 07:28:47


 
   
Made in de
Experienced Maneater






"[...] 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.



 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






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".

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/11 07:33:04


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN (115) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

Can does not = must.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 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.

    Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
    +++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN (115) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
    +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
    Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
    Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
    Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
    Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
       
    Made in us
    Sinewy Scourge




     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.
       
    Made in gb
    Norn Queen






    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?

    Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
    +++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN (115) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
    +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
    Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
    Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
    Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
    Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
       
    Made in gb
    Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





    Cardiff

    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.)

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/11 08:25:59


     Stormonu wrote:
    For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
     
       
    Made in gb
    [DCM]
    Heroic Senior Officer





    Gone-to-ground in the craters of Coventry

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

    4000 pts - 3500 pts - 3500 pts - Harlies: 1000 pts - 1000 pts DS:70+S+G++MB+IPw40k86/f+D++A++/cWD64R+T(T)DM+
    IG/AM force nearly-finished pieces: http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/images-38888-41159_Armies%20-%20Imperial%20Guard.html
    "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing." - George Bernard Shaw (probably)
    Clubs around Coventry, UK 
       
    Made in de
    Witch Hunter in the Shadows



    Aachen

     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.

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/11 08:39:03


     
       
    Made in gb
    Longtime Dakkanaut




    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.

    DFTT 
       
    Made in gb
    Norn Queen






    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.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/11 09:05:42


    Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
    +++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN (115) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
    +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
    Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
    Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
    Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
    Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
       
    Made in de
    Chalice-Wielding Sanguinary High Priest






    Germany

    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.
       
    Made in fr
    Death-Dealing Dark Angels Devastator






    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.


    5500
    2500 
       
    Made in gb
    Norn Queen






     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.

    Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
    +++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN (115) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
    +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
    Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
    Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
    Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
    Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
       
    Made in fr
    Death-Dealing Dark Angels Devastator






     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.

    5500
    2500 
       
    Made in us
    Sinewy Scourge




     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.
       
    Made in gb
    Crazed Spirit of the Defiler




    Please leave my town.

    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.

    "Everyone in 40K is wrong." - ADB

    Wishing for other people's armies/factions to be squatted should be a bannable offence. 
       
    Made in de
    Witch Hunter in the Shadows



    Aachen

     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.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/11 12:00:12


     
       
    Made in us
    Clousseau





    East Bay, Ca, US

    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.

     Galas wrote:
    I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

    Bharring wrote:
    He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
     
       
    Made in us
    Preacher of the Emperor





    St. Louis, Missouri USA

    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.


     
       
    Made in us
    Terminator with Assault Cannon






    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.

    kill ALL the orks!

    1500 pts Legion of the Damned (Salamanders)
    1500 point Dewathwings  
       
    Made in nz
    Regular Dakkanaut




    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

       
    Made in gb
    Longtime Dakkanaut




    It would make a mockery of some super heavy tanks.

    DFTT 
       
    Made in us
    Captain of the Forlorn Hope





    Chicago, IL

    "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.

    "Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

    I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

    We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
     
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
    Go to: