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.

My guess is that for RAW it probably can be read either way. My personal opinion is more in the 'not having to fire all weapons' camp.

However, for the RAI, I think that puma713's explanation just makes a lot more sense. One for the FAQ's I guess.

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:SECOND EDIT: Jason's argument still holds water. You and Gwar! have stated that if you can fire all, then you must. An Immobilized tank can fire all, therefore it must. It cannot draw LOS to a target from its right, therefore it cannot fire its right sponson. Since it cannot fire ALL of its weapons, and it CANNOT fire ONLY SOME of its weapons, it CANNOT FIRE its weapons. Which contradicts the Predator's example on page 58.

If you had bothered to read our arguments, you would see that we have said the rulebook tells you to fire all available weapons. If a Weapon cannot fire (because of distance moved, Weapon Destroyed, cannot get los ETC) it attempts to fire but fails.

I like how it degrades into personal attacks when you're confronted with an equally valid argument. Don't be simple - of course I "bothered to read your arguments". You think I just came up with all of this on a whim? I just posted time after time without reading anything?

You captured the point in your statement above - "you would see that we have said the rulebook tells you to fire all available weapons."

That's my problem. You have said. Not the rulebook. The only time I see where it tells you to fire all available weapons is when it is talking about not separating shots. And "it attempts to fire but fails?" Everywhere I see, it says "cannot fire". It doesn't say "attempts to fire but fails". Once again you've made up your own interpretation of the rules and then posted them as fact. If you move Flat Out, you don't "attempt to fire your weapons but fail". You simply cannot fire. So, when the predator on page 58 fires its left sponson and turret at the Trukk, it is only firing SOME of its weapons. Hence, you've CHOSEN to fire SOME of your weapons. Therefore, a choice can be made.

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:SECOND EDIT: Jason's argument still holds water. You and Gwar! have stated that if you can fire all, then you must. An Immobilized tank can fire all, therefore it must. It cannot draw LOS to a target from its right, therefore it cannot fire its right sponson. Since it cannot fire ALL of its weapons, and it CANNOT fire ONLY SOME of its weapons, it CANNOT FIRE its weapons. Which contradicts the Predator's example on page 58.

If you had bothered to read our arguments, you would see that we have said the rulebook tells you to fire all available weapons. If a Weapon cannot fire (because of distance moved, Weapon Destroyed, cannot get los ETC) it attempts to fire but fails.

Technically, it doesn't say that. Reread the section on moving. It provides an explicit exception to the rule that you do not have to fire with all available weapons. It limits you to certain weapons. The line of sight section doesn't provide this exception. You are inferring that a weapon that can't get LOS on the unit attempts to fire but it fails. Even the Line of Sight section doesn't make this clear. "If the target unit happens to be in cover from only some of the vehicles weapons, then work out if the target gets cover saves exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing model in a normal unit." There are many ways to approach this. First, they say "firing weapon" implying that not all weapons will fire. Whether this is because of moving or ordinance or because you can elect to not fire with all weapons or because of Line of Sight issues isn't clear (see this thread). Furthermore, the sentence only applies to cover, which doesn't mean the weapon is out of line of sight.

Either way, the rule book says that all weapons must fire at a single unit. They give explicit exceptions for moving and ordnance weapons. Where does it say if you cannot fire a weapon because of line of sight that the vehicle may still fire it's remaining weapons (the same way it provides the exception in the moving and ordnance section).

I'm not really preaching this idea. Rather, I'd be surprised if you were forced to fire all available weapons. After all, limited fire weapons would be dramatically hindered. Tau are a prime example with a missile system that would be seriously hampered if they had to fire it as soon as their tank fire the first time.

Edit: I'd just like to point out that I have read all your arguments, and you've made several statements that directly conflict with anything I've found in the BRB, at least as far as the Written rule goes.

Wow, so by RAW logic a Skyray would have to launch every available seeker missle (all 6 at once) the first time it shoots?

So I guess mounting a HK missle on an anti-infantry vehicle as a backup tank hunter is a moot point because first time it shoots at an infantry squad it must launch the HK. That's just some convoluted logic.

I see the context of that statement implying if you fire any vehicle weapon that all weapons you choose to fire MUST fire at the same target, PoTMS not withstanding of course.

I mean, an M1A1 is not going to fire it's MG at a tank that it's firing it's main cannon at as it's a waste of ammo and would most likely result in the tanks gunner getting reprimanded for shooting hundreds of rounds at a target it can't hurt. LOL.

Fateweaver wrote:Wow, so by RAW logic a Skyray would have to launch every available seeker missle (all 6 at once) the first time it shoots?

Errrm... You do know how seeker missiles work right? You need a markerlight for each one fired?

-Ignores rest of post after epic failure-

Should we also ignore youre posts after youre epic failure at the subject of this thread?

Or is it possible for you to accept a different opinion ?

1hadhq wrote:Should we also ignore youre posts after youre epic failure at the subject of this thread?

Or is it possible for you to accept a different opinion ?

Ignore my posts all you want. I have no problem with it

Now I admit I could have made my point there better, but if someone is trying to refute my argument, at least try and make it one that works.

Just trying to work through the rules in the book which pertain to how many weapons a vehicle may fire, let's see what the are.

First, we find the general rule on page 15, "Normally each model in a firing unit can fire a single weapon. Some models, including vehicles, may be able to fire more than one weapon, as detailed later."
Later, on page 58, we find the rule which Gwar! has fixated on, "When a vehicle fires, ... all its weapons must fire at a single target unit." just under the VEHICLE SHOOTING heading.
Just below that, we find the rules for moving and shooting vehicles. The MOVING AND SHOOTING VEHICLE WEAPONRY exhaustively covers how many weapons a vehicle may fire based on how far the vehicle moved, and whether or not an ordnance weapon is being fired.

The most specific rule which appears to apply to a stationary vehicle firing at a target are the MOVING AND SHOOTING VEHICLE WEAPONRY rules. In other words, "may fire all of their weapons" is more specific than "all its weapons must fire" which is more specific than "can fire a single weapon." Note that the "all its weapons must fire" rule can't override the vehicle shooting rules because it would come into direct conflict with the "may fire a single weapon" clause under MOVING AND SHOOTING.

So, first the "Your understanding of English differs from my understanding" argument.

The difference between "You must X all the Y" and "You may X all the Y" according to my understanding of English is that "You may X all the Y" is equivalent to "You may X any of the Y", while "You must X all the Y" instead is at best all or nothing. Should we have a poll to discover what the common understanding of the phrase "You may X all the Y" means, or would that be too off topic?

Second, is the original rule on page 15 ever explicitly invalidated? Page 15 says that the general case is that a unit can fire a single weapon, and some units can fire more than one weapon. Where is this statement overridden by the vehicle rules? It can't be overridden by the first statement on page 58 because every other rule on page 58 limits the effective scope of that statement to "all its weapons [which are fired] must fire at a single target". So that means that the general rule which applies to a stationary vehicle without ordnance weapons is that it can fire a single weapon, and the specific rule is that it can in addition fire all of its weapons. Or is there some formal rule of RAW which this construction oversteps?

Gwar! wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Should we also ignore youre posts after youre epic failure at the subject of this thread?

Or is it possible for you to accept a different opinion ?

Ignore my posts all you want. I have no problem with it

How ironic.

jasonlotito wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:SECOND EDIT: Jason's argument still holds water. You and Gwar! have stated that if you can fire all, then you must. An Immobilized tank can fire all, therefore it must. It cannot draw LOS to a target from its right, therefore it cannot fire its right sponson. Since it cannot fire ALL of its weapons, and it CANNOT fire ONLY SOME of its weapons, it CANNOT FIRE its weapons. Which contradicts the Predator's example on page 58.

If you had bothered to read our arguments, you would see that we have said the rulebook tells you to fire all available weapons. If a Weapon cannot fire (because of distance moved, Weapon Destroyed, cannot get los ETC) it attempts to fire but fails.

Technically, it doesn't say that. Reread the section on moving. It provides an explicit exception to the rule that you do not have to fire with all available weapons. It limits you to certain weapons. The line of sight section doesn't provide this exception. You are inferring that a weapon that can't get LOS on the unit attempts to fire but it fails. Even the Line of Sight section doesn't make this clear. "If the target unit happens to be in cover from only some of the vehicles weapons, then work out if the target gets cover saves exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing model in a normal unit." There are many ways to approach this. First, they say "firing weapon" implying that not all weapons will fire. Whether this is because of moving or ordinance or because you can elect to not fire with all weapons or because of Line of Sight issues isn't clear (see this thread). Furthermore, the sentence only applies to cover, which doesn't mean the weapon is out of line of sight.

Either way, the rule book says that all weapons must fire at a single unit. They give explicit exceptions for moving and ordnance weapons. Where does it say if you cannot fire a weapon because of line of sight that the vehicle may still fire it's remaining weapons (the same way it provides the exception in the moving and ordnance section).

I'm not really preaching this idea. Rather, I'd be surprised if you were forced to fire all available weapons. After all, limited fire weapons would be dramatically hindered. Tau are a prime example with a missile system that would be seriously hampered if they had to fire it as soon as their tank fire the first time.

Edit: I'd just like to point out that I have read all your arguments, and you've made several statements that directly conflict with anything I've found in the BRB, at least as far as the Written rule goes.

Interesting read.

However, just to get this out there, gw does not use precedents (or if they do, it's very inconsistent) on how rules interact. Taking rules from one section discussing one thing and trying to apply that to a similar situation is...well...moot in most instances.

GW does not set or use precedents for the most part. Period.

imweasel wrote:However, just to get this out there, gw does not use precedents (or if they do, it's very inconsistent) on how rules interact. Taking rules from one section discussing one thing and trying to apply that to a similar situation is...well...moot in most instances.

GW does not set or use precedents for the most part. Period.

Except I'm only looking at one section. These different rules are all under the same basic section.

Again, for me, it's not so much arguing a side as much as looking at the extreme ways rules can be interpreted. In my case, I'm merely taking the rules as written, no further.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Should we also ignore youre posts after youre epic failure at the subject of this thread?

Or is it possible for you to accept a different opinion ?

Ignore my posts all you want. I have no problem with it

Now I admit I could have made my point there better, but if someone is trying to refute my argument, at least try and make it one that works.

I've done that already. The rule book says that all weapons must fire at a single unit. They give explicit exceptions for moving and ordnance weapons. Where does it say if you cannot fire a weapon because of line of sight that the vehicle may still fire it's remaining weapons (the same way it provides the exception in the moving and ordnance section)? I've looked and haven't found it. Maybe I missed it.

I'm pretty sure you can always elect not to fire a weapon. If you told me I had to fire my Battle Cannon at a Terminator squad deep striking 3" in front of my line because I declared I was firing the 3 heavy bolters at it, you wouldn't see another game with me. The "must fire" sentence is intended to prevent splitting fire, not to say that your crew is a bunch of blundering idiots and can't make tactical decisions for themselves.

"All weapons must fire at a single target" - Can't split fire
"Vehicles that remained stationary may fire all of their weapons" - You MAY fire all of your weapons. You don't have to.

Prod wrote:I'm pretty sure you can always elect not to fire a weapon. If you told me I had to fire my Battle Cannon at a Terminator squad deep striking 3" in front of my line because I declared I was firing the 3 heavy bolters at it, you wouldn't see another game with me.

With that Attitude, I would be glad of it

The "must fire" sentence is intended to prevent splitting fire, not to say that your crew is a bunch of blundering idiots and can't make tactical decisions for themselves.

So, did you write the rulebook? I mean, if you know what they intended you must have written it, yes?

"All weapons must fire at a single target" - Can't split fire
"Vehicles that remained stationary may fire all of their weapons" - You MAY fire all of your weapons. You don't have to.

The old dozer blade re-rolling the difficult terrain test for super-charged engines made more sense than what you are proposing.

Prod wrote:"All weapons must fire at a single target" - Can't split fire
"Vehicles that remained stationary may fire all of their weapons" - You MAY fire all of your weapons. You don't have to.

Yes, may fire. As in, if one weapon has been destroyed, or you moved 6", you may fire, because you cannot fire all your weapons.

Again, please provide credentials if you are going to argue intent. I argue the rules.

Ok, how about this. "When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units - all its weapons must fire at a single target unit."

Now, go to shooting for all units, as referenced above:

"A player may choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers (as some models may have one-shot weapons, for example). This must be declared before checking range, as all of the models in the unit fire at the same time."

Case in point.

Prod wrote:Ok, how about this. "When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units - all its weapons must fire at a single target unit."

Now, go to shooting for all units, as referenced above:

"A player may choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers (as some models may have one-shot weapons, for example). This must be declared before checking range, as all of the models in the unit fire at the same time."

Case in point.

A Vehicle can have 9001 Guns, but it is still one model. Thank you for proving my point. Nothing there suggests you may choose to fire only 1 weapon. All it says is that MODELS can choose to not fire. The Vehicle rules state that "All weapons must fire". So it is an All or nothing situation, RaW.

It specifies that you may not want to fire a model with a one-shot weapon. Define model. I could argue that I have a heavy bolter model mounted on my Leman Russ.


Perhaps this may clear something up:

Em dash

The em dash (—), or m dash, m-rule, etc., often demarcates a parenthetical thought—like this one—or some similar interpolation.

When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units (all its weapons must fire at a single target unit).

Hmm. I don't really see proof from either side on this one.

"All its weapons must fire at a single target" doesn't really work, "all its weapons" makes more sense in reference to all of the weapons firing than it does for all of the weapons mounted on the vehicle. And the "must" in "must fire at a single target" seems to compel the weapons to fire at a single target, not to fire period.

"Must fire to full effect and cannot reduce its weapon's firepower" only refers to a single weapon being reduced in firepower, not the full capabilities of the model. That just leaves "full effect", which is difficult to use as a requirement, if you're talking about a situation where firing an additional weapon would cause less damage to the enemy unit (reducing the effect of the model's firing).

Really it just seems to come down to whether "may fire all of its weapons" is using "all" inclusively or exclusively.

Prod wrote:It specifies that you may not want to fire a model with a one-shot weapon. Define model. I could argue that I have a heavy bolter model mounted on my Leman Russ.


Perhaps this may clear something up:

Em dash

The em dash (—), or m dash, m-rule, etc., often demarcates a parenthetical thought—like this one—or some similar interpolation.

When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units (all its weapons must fire at a single target unit).

Please read the rules of YMTC, especially the bit about dictionaries. GW can hardly write English, they most certainly wouldn't use Em Dashes.

The dictionary meaning of the m dash happens to be relevant. Even so, show me how may = must.

"Vehicles that remained stationary may fire all of their weapons" Sure, if a weapon is destroyed, or not within LOS, I'm not going to fire it. But if I didn't want to fire it, that's also exercising the "may", is it not? We can go back and forth all day, I don't think either of us can win this argument on RAW, because it's too ambiguous.

Chimera, ML/HB and a HK missile, stationary. Squad of Orks is the target. Show me how "may fire all my weapons" forces me to fire the HK missile.

Prod wrote:Chimera, ML/HB and a HK missile, stationary. Squad of Orks is the target. Show me how "may fire all my weapons" forces me to fire the HK missile.

You may fire all your weapons, or you may fire none of your weapons. There are no rules to say you may fire some of your weapons. Permissive rule-set and all that jazz.

"A vehicle that moved at combat speed can fire all of its defensive weapons in addition to the single weapon it is usually allowed to fire."

Now, defensive weapons, are, by definition, weapons. "Can" implies that the player has the option of firing them or not. A direct contradiction to "must fire" in the context that you are suggesting. So I'm pretty sure "must fire" doesn't apply as you are suggesting.

So why is it that your "Can" is better than "Must"?

And again, you Can fire them in addition to the single weapon, or you can choose to not fire at all.

Do you understand now?

What is not clear about "can fire in addition to"?

You're taking small bits of text out of context, and arranging them contrary to what is absolutely common sense. There's enough to support my position as valid per RAW. You can argue your position until you're blue in the face, but that won't make you right. Nor can I declare you wrong. I've never seen a rulebook or codex from GW that is 100% clear all the way through. This matter is too ambiguous for a clear cut ruling. So the best solution is to come to an agreement with your opponent and decide which interpretation you want to use before the game begins.

Yeah, it can fire IN ADDITION TO the Single Weapon you pick because you moved. It does not say you may fire the defensive weapons and not the main. The rules say all weapons must fire, thus all weapons able to fire must fire.

Or, you can choose to not fire, as per page 16.

I can choose to fire defensive weapons in addition to the main weapon, or I can choose not to fire the defensive weapons. But I may fire a main weapon. That's exactly RAW.

When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units (all its weapons must fire at a single target unit).

I have nothing further.

Prod wrote:I can choose to fire defensive weapons in addition to the main weapon, or I can choose not to fire the defensive weapons. But I may fire a main weapon. That's exactly RAW.

When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units (all its weapons must fire at a single target unit).

I have nothing further.

Well, if you want to play the "all other units" card, All other units cannot move and fire Heavy Weapons. Nor can All units fire more than 1 weapon.

So which one takes precedence?
You have yet to show me a rule that says "You may fire 1 weapon". It says you may fire all your weapons. This is not the same as you may fire any number of weapons.

An interesting example is the diagram on page 58, where the caption reads "The Predator is firing at the Trukk. The weapn the right spons cannot draw a line of sight to the chosen target, and so it cannot be fired."

So, does the Predator get to fire the other weapons? Lack of line of sight in previous sections means "unable to fire" instead of "automatically misses", so in this case the conclusion would be "The Predator tries to fire at the Trukk, but is unable to do so because one of the weapons is blocked."

Turn your tank backwards and none of the heavy bolters can shoot but your turret still can