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.

Hmmm, after searching through the rules, shooting attack is used interchangeably for a unit's fire and a weapon being fired. So the answer to what is "a normal shooting attack" is at best ambiguous. Either it's a full round of fire from a unit minus the restriction of firing only one weapon or it's permission for a unit firing a weapon on each model. There is nothing to say that overwatch is a shooting phase so that's not in play.

Since lines one and two of rolling to hit equates firing with all of the available shots in a weapon. I'm for option two but I can see that option one is just as valid.

LOL so funny. Arguing about a normal shooting attack. It's overwatch people not the end of the world. They need sixes to hit.

What is normal for a space marine, vs a MC , OR A Tau battle suit are different. One shoots 1 gun, the other two shoot two, cause see that's normal shooting attack, though in the opponents assault phase.


It's not rocket surgery.

Chas

How can you post "LOL so funny" about people arguing over a topic and then post your version of the arguement straight after.

I was about to post something, but then I realized this argument was one of the ones that will never end. It'll keep and going on and on my friends...

But really, sometimes I wish forums like these had a report for stupidity button...

Crazyterran wrote:
I was about to post something, but then I realized this argument was one of the ones that will never end. It'll keep and going on and on my friends...

But really, sometimes I wish forums like these had a report for stupidity button...

Actually RAI is always over RAW. Check every major tournament FAQ. This question will mostly not come up because we understand RAI.

So for the folks that think its a shooting phase, can I run instead?
Why did GW put the "in the shooting phase" restriction?

What is a normal shooting attack? It's not defined big surprise
Btw the "he can not fire both in the same shooting phase" doesn't apply to female models or models with 3 or more guns or outside the shooting phase. However the "Unless otherwise stated if a model has more than one shooting weapon, he must choose which one to shoot" does not saying anything about the shooting phase at all. Nor is it in the defined in the shooting phase section. It is however only a restriction on male models....

And to the poster that said 6s to hit you have clearly never played against tau gun line.

Kisada II wrote:
Btw the "he can not fire both in the same shooting phase" doesn't apply to female models...

It actually does.

He is a generic term for a male or a female.

Kisada II wrote:
So for the folks that think its a shooting phase, can I run instead?

No one has, so...

What is a normal shooting attack? It's not defined big surprise

So we go with a normal English definition. Which would be the same shooting attack that would get used absent any other special rules. Meaning, my god, MCs get 2 shots.

It really does come down to what "a normal shooting attack" is for a MC. Being able to fire two weapons might be considered two shooting attacks, or it might be a single shooting attack with two weapons. Until an FAQ tells us we can have no RAW resolution to this debate, simply what we think the RAI are meant to be.

I'm inclined to believe its the latter because both weapons fire simultaneously and are fired at the same target, mostly its the simultaneously though. In my head if I picture whats going on with say an action hero then the hero has a gun in each hand raining death upon his enemies. Looks like a single attack to me. However if he fired one weapon and dropped it then grabbed another weapon and fired that I would see that as two separate actions, or attacks. This is just my opinion and unfortunately we can't get anything more definitive than opinions on this,

If a shooting attack was considered to be only one weapon you could only fire with 1 model in a unit every time you make a shooting attack.

I thought this was a simple rule..............

Page 21

Resolve overwatch:

"An overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack."

However there are also restrictions laid out.

All shots are resolved as Snap Shots
Cannot cause morale or pinning checks

If you resolve overwatch as a normal shooting attack, Then you're units normal "shooting attack" can be put in place. So if you are able to fire more than 1 weapon in the shooting phase as part of your shooting attack then you can fire more than one weapon in the overwatch.

^ That's far too sensible and logical for half the people on YMDC.

Raven A shooting attack is described on page 12 as being things that a unit of models can make. On page 13 it's described in snap shots as a weapon firing. If you'd like to show a quote that clears up what GW means by a shooting attack it'd be great but in no way is it defined clearly as something a unit does that consists of firing multiple weapons.

It's rather unclear what a shooting attack is.

Rigeld, you didn't but someone that I probably should have on ignore too, keeps asserting that overwatch is a shooting phase.

Liturgies of Blood,
The issue with the ideal that a shooting attack equals an attack with a single weapon stems from the problems it would cause within the Shooting Sequence itself. The very first step on the sequence is to nominate a unit to shoot, and the restriction within that step is that they must not have already fired during that Shooting Phase. As the unit in question has carried out a shooting attack, it would be an illegal option to chose that unit again to carry out another Shooting attack, regardless of how many additional weapons it has permission to fire. It would need something more specific giving permission to be a legal choice to shoot a second time. I have seen only one or two rules that contain such terminology, and the general 'fire an additional weapon' do not match those rules.

Should it be deemed enough then it raises some other questions that lead to conclusions that are known to be incorrect. To use the most obvious example, if it is an entirely different Shooting Attack we would have no grounds to deny an opponent the ability to do all the steps in the Shooting sequence again. This would include the ability to nominate a target, with no stated restriction that it has to be the same as the target for the original weapon, so all models with rules to fire two weapons would be allowed to choose a secondary target as well. That makes me wonder why I am wasting points on Target Locks just to get to nominate a secondary target if I can already do so....

So while I understand that you want things to be made a little more clear by the writers, I fully agree that things should be undoubtedly precise when it comes to rules, the logical conclusion from your line of questioning leads to far more broken conclusions then the alternative ideal that permission to fire multiple weapons simply means permission to nominate a secondary weapon during that Step of a single Shooting sequence.

Jinx - units don't carry out shooting attacks from what I can tell, models do.

Rigeld2,
We both know that the shooting sequence is something done on both the 'unit level' and the 'model level,' so it is splitting hairs at this point.

All that matters is one simple fact: to carry out a shooting attack we follow a designated sequence. The very first step in this sequence is to nominate a unit that has not yet fired, which makes nominating a unit a second time illegal. Nominating the unit a second time during the Shooting Phase would be required to carry out a second shooting attack during this moment, like wise similar restrictions on which unit's are legally allowed to fire exist within over-watch as well. If firing a secondary weapon does not fall under the first shooting attack, then it renders all these 'may fire an additional weapon' Rules as irrelevant because there is no legal moment we can evoke these rules.

JinxDragon wrote:
The very first step in this sequence is to nominate a unit that has not yet fired,

"Nominated to make shooting attacks" is what the rule says.
It's fustratingly vague.
It says attacks, plural, not singular.
And is that one unit makes shooting attacks? Or are units plural too? Meaning many units make many shooting attacks?
If one unit makes shooting attacks, is that one attack per model? Per weapon?

Rigeld2 could well be right, it could be that an attack is per model. He could also be wrong, it's unfortuatly too unclear.

Yet the Overwatch rules require a unit to make a single shooting attack. So if each model makes a shooting attack then only 1 model from any unit can ever overwatch.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yet the Overwatch rules require a unit to make a single shooting attack. So if each model makes a shooting attack then only 1 model from any unit can ever overwatch.

That's the core of the problem.
"Shooting Attack" is just so poorly defined.

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yet the Overwatch rules require a unit to make a single shooting attack. So if each model makes a shooting attack then only 1 model from any unit can ever overwatch.

That's the core of the problem.
"Shooting Attack" is just so poorly defined.

Agreed.

Add it to the list, by all means, because it could be better defined.

 grendel083 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
The very first step in this sequence is to nominate a unit that has not yet fired,

"Nominated to make shooting attacks" is what the rule says.
It's fustratingly vague.
It says attacks, plural, not singular.
And is that one unit makes shooting attacks? Or are units plural too? Meaning many units make many shooting attacks?
If one unit makes shooting attacks, is that one attack per model? Per weapon?

Rigeld2 could well be right, it could be that an attack is per model. He could also be wrong, it's unfortuatly too unclear.

I would disagree with the "shooting attack" being SO vague...

IMO "shooting attack" refers to following the shooting sequence.
The phrase you refer to as plural is because one unit may "shooting attack" more than once, if it split fires for example, in which case it moves through the sequence twice.

JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,
We both know that the shooting sequence is something done on both the 'unit level' and the 'model level,' so it is splitting hairs at this point.

It's not splitting hairs - it's a very important point to understand.

All that matters is one simple fact: to carry out a shooting attack we follow a designated sequence. The very first step in this sequence is to nominate a unit that has not yet fired, which makes nominating a unit a second time illegal.

Not really a relevant point. You're not nominating a unit twice to have a model make multiple shooting attacks (which is actually possible - each weapon on a vehicle is a separate shooting attack).

Nominating the unit a second time during the Shooting Phase would be required to carry out a second shooting attack during this moment, like wise similar restrictions on which unit's are legally allowed to fire exist within over-watch as well. If firing a secondary weapon does not fall under the first shooting attack, then it renders all these 'may fire an additional weapon' Rules as irrelevant because there is no legal moment we can evoke these rules.

Absolutely false.
Assuming each weapon is a separate shooting attack:
I nominate unit Pikachu.
Pika 1 is a MC. He fires his Lightning Attack.
Pika 2 is a normal dude. He fires his Lightning Attack.
Pika 1 also fires his Poke-something attack.

3 shooting attacks, one nomination. Now, I don't believe this is the correct interpretation but your assertions aren't correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
The very first step in this sequence is to nominate a unit that has not yet fired,

"Nominated to make shooting attacks" is what the rule says.
It's fustratingly vague.
It says attacks, plural, not singular.
And is that one unit makes shooting attacks? Or are units plural too? Meaning many units make many shooting attacks?
If one unit makes shooting attacks, is that one attack per model? Per weapon?

Rigeld2 could well be right, it could be that an attack is per model. He could also be wrong, it's unfortuatly too unclear.

I would disagree with the "shooting attack" being SO vague...

IMO "shooting attack" refers to following the shooting sequence.
The phrase you refer to as plural is because one unit may "shooting attack" more than once, if it split fires for example, in which case it moves through the sequence twice.

No, it doesn't. You never nominate a unit twice, which is part of the shooting sequence.
Witchfires are also described as Psychic Shooting Attacks. Unless you're asserting those are used instead of a unit firing, it's models that make shooting attacks.

Rigeld2,
I'm starting to see ways that we could resolve multiple 'model level' shooting attacks within a single sequence but there is still problems that need to be thought on when I have reference material to review.

One of the questions I have is the following:
How does this prevent a single model from nominating a second weapon during their 'individual shooting attack?'

The problem I was trying to bring to the boards attention is that the sequence has to include the ability to nominate a second weapon, if the model has permission to do so, as there is no other way for it to function. That entire sequence is used once so we do not have the ability to calculate the second weapon unless it is included in the Shooting sequence. Therefore the individual model would still have permission to nominate a second weapon at that point in the sequence, even if the model's are the ones resolving the shooting attacks, and we need precise restrictions stating the model no longer has access to this choice.

Even if we stop the shooting attack from being a 'unit event' and instead state it is something a 'model' does, nothing has changed because the sequence is still the same.

JinxDragon wrote:
How does this prevent a single model from nominating a second weapon during their 'individual shooting attack?'

It doesn't. But using the correct ideas in your argument is important, even if the result is the same.
Show your work.

The 'work' I had behind the argument is simple:
I was trying to figure out how it would be possible for a secondary weapon to be denied during over-watch and worked backwards from there.

The only conclusion that I could come up with is that the secondary weapon must have some unique permission to use the Shooting sequence a secondary time. All other conclusions, that they are part of that shooting sequence, make it legal to nominate a secondary weapon during Over-watch and therefore go against the original premise. That above conclusion would make it possible to ban the secondary weapon from over-watch but had a negative side effect of making it illegal to use during the normal shooting sequence.

As it currently stands, I can not figure out a way that we would be able to deny secondary weapons during Over-watch which do not deny them during the standard Shooting Phase.

At that point I wasn't considering unit/model shooting angle, I fixated on how it could not be a valid conclusion because it would require the entire unit to be nominated a second time, which is an interesting line of thought. It creates it's own problems, the most of being that it doesn't prevent the weapon from being denied during over-watch which renders it even less useful a conclusion for the topic on hand. Still very interesting to think on, and does highlight the fact 'shooting attack' could be better defined which is what a few posters here are requesting. If only we had some sway with the editors but all the banana jokes have ensured they don't like us.....

JinxDragon wrote:
As it currently stands, I can not figure out a way that we would be able to deny secondary weapons during Over-watch which do not deny them during the standard Shooting Phase.

Exactly. I agree with your conclusion, but you were making statements that were incorrect. Just wanted to make sure your work in the middle was correct.

Rigeld2,
I was working off a flawed premise to begin with, one I don't personally believe in either. This makes it so I am not at all surprised that I over looked something, which I still feel is only a minor mistake, because I was looking at a far bigger flaw in the equation. The very premise itself is something not supported by any precise Rule, and no fundamental I can think on would change the resolution for over-watch without changing the resolution for attacks during the Shooting Phase. There is just nothing I can come up with which supports that point of view, however it is often one I have encountered as a Tau player, so I am still quite interested as to where it is coming from.

What is overwatch.

 megatombuscus wrote:
What is overwatch.

Check the Index of the 6th edition BRB for the Overwatch page number, this will tell you everything you need to know about Overwatch.