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.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Not so much. You pick your targets based on the specific weapons you intend to shot at those specific targets.

SJ

And you still need to identify which weapons are firing at which target, anyway.

Say a Knight is facing off against a squad of Hormagaunts, Termagaunts, and Warriors. It's carrying the Battlecannon, carapace missiles, and 2 Stubbers. If you plan on firing the Stubbers last, one Stubber at the Hormagaunts and the other Stubber at the Termagaunts, but leave the rest to the weapons to the Warriors, you still need to declare which are which for each Stubber. Weapon selection. The rules don't actually place any specific requirement of timing of target declaration here, save that they be announced by the time the Stubbers selection comes around.

Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Not so much. You pick your targets based on the specific weapons you intend to shot at those specific targets.

SJ

And you still need to identify which weapons are firing at which target, anyway.

Say a Knight is facing off against a squad of Hormagaunts, Termagaunts, and Warriors. It's carrying the Battlecannon, carapace missiles, and 2 Stubbers. If you plan on firing the Stubbers last, one Stubber at the Hormagaunts and the other Stubber at the Termagaunts, but leave the rest to the weapons to the Warriors, you still need to declare which are which for each Stubber. Weapon selection. The rules don't actually place any specific requirement of timing of target declaration here, save that they be announced by the time the Stubbers selection comes around.

You just agreed with me.

SJ

notredameguy10 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Not so much. You pick your targets based on the specific weapons you intend to shot at those specific targets.

SJ

that is 100% incorrect and an assumption. I can pick whoever the heck i want for my targets. step 2 merely states that I have to pick target in LoS. If I follow your logic and pick my targets all at once, I DO NOT CHOOSE WEAPONS YET in step 2. Therefore, if you want to change it to selecting multiple targets before any weapons enter into the equation then I can pick as many targets as I want

It cannot be "incorrect" when you have no support for your rules change either.

CHanging step 2 is the least change required. Your method requires changing steps 2 and 7, at a minimum. One is simpler.

There is no correct answer here, the rules simply do not tell us what to do.

Selecting a target for each weapon in step 2 is the smallest change, the less powerful interpretation and it's how previous editions did it. As such, it's much less likely to start an argument with your opponent.

Selecting targets as you go might be what was intended but without any rules to support it you might well find that people object to that method.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

It cannot be "incorrect" when you have no support for your rules change either.

It could be incorrect without having any support for an alternate position. If you want to analyse something logically you should analyse each proposition on its own merits. The lack of a supported alternative does not count as evidence for a proposed option.

Evidence such as 4th -> 6th edition SH/GC rules and the "least powerful" interpretation (or contra profentorum, sor tof - when changing rules that are unclear, you should not chaneg them to disadvantage others)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Evidence such as 4th -> 6th edition SH/GC rules and the "least powerful" interpretation (or contra profentorum, sor tof - when changing rules that are unclear, you should not chaneg them to disadvantage others)

That's better these are arguments in support of a position. They can then be evaluated, quite different from claiming that something cannot be incorrect if an alternative is unsupported.

Contra proferentem is, of course, not evidence for the validity of a stance, but rather an argument on which stance to take should there be equal support or lack thereof for conflicting interpretations. Its a good yardstick to use in this case I think as I cannot see either alternative as having any actual rules support, so using contra proferentem to select between house rules is a solid choice.

4th - 6th rules are not relevant, as the discussion is about 7th and the rules have changed. Using them as a guide for developing a house rule to cover the situation is again a solid option though.

Well, the ARE relevant - as you just poiinted out. They are not a direct source of evidence, but give some clue given the hole the current rules have in them.

The issue with 4th->6th is that you had to declare what weapons fired at the start, 7th has changed that. So the interpretation that allows selecting per weapon follows that pattern better and requires less of a rules change as changing just a single word in each steps 2 & 7 isless than a complete rewrite of step 2 and some additional verbiage on step 3.

Apologies nosferatu1001 I was less than clear in that sentence, in that I was stating they are not relevant to the RAW, I thought that was implied, but I was evidently insufficiently clear.

FlingitNow you appear to be advocating that the simplest, or least, change is preferable as a house rule is this correct?

Using both contra proferentem and the principle of simplicity together may lead us to the best interpretation.

I'm advocating the solution that most closely follows the existing processes/restrictions we have is the best solution. Least change was offered by Nos as a basis hence why I mentioned it.

jeffersonian000 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Not so much. You pick your targets based on the specific weapons you intend to shot at those specific targets.

SJ

And you still need to identify which weapons are firing at which target, anyway.

Say a Knight is facing off against a squad of Hormagaunts, Termagaunts, and Warriors. It's carrying the Battlecannon, carapace missiles, and 2 Stubbers. If you plan on firing the Stubbers last, one Stubber at the Hormagaunts and the other Stubber at the Termagaunts, but leave the rest to the weapons to the Warriors, you still need to declare which are which for each Stubber. Weapon selection. The rules don't actually place any specific requirement of timing of target declaration here, save that they be announced by the time the Stubbers selection comes around.

You just agreed with me.

SJ

Yes, and no. The paragraph I quoted did not mention timing, while I was clarifying that. Even if you announced every target in Step 2, you would have to reannounce the pertinent target(s) every time you selected a new weapon group. The assertion you prefer fails to take that in mind without announcing all the weapons at the same time you announce targets, which would be changing Step 2 AND Step 3 AND Step 6.

Scott-S6 wrote:There is no correct answer here, the rules simply do not tell us what to do.

Selecting a target for each weapon in step 2 is the smallest change, the less powerful interpretation and it's how previous editions did it. As such, it's much less likely to start an argument with your opponent.

Selecting targets as you go might be what was intended but without any rules to support it you might well find that people object to that method.

Smallest change? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Selecting targets as you go would really only change Step 2 and Step 6 to account for multiple target selection and go back to reselecting targets instead of selecting the next weapon group. Considering how the Shooting Sequence was changed, this actually matches more with the new process as well.

Whereas, in order to announce all targets at Step 2, would still require announcing the specific targets of the Weapon Group after Step 3, or reverting the Shooting Sequence back to 6th Edition or prior where all weapons are announced at the same time.

As it is, even when firing at a single target, the current Shooting Sequence can allow for the unit to preserve one-shot Weapons if they delay using them till after their continual use weapons, which is a huge difference compared to previous editions.

Charistoph wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:There is no correct answer here, the rules simply do not tell us what to do.

Selecting a target for each weapon in step 2 is the smallest change, the less powerful interpretation and it's how previous editions did it. As such, it's much less likely to start an argument with your opponent.

Selecting targets as you go might be what was intended but without any rules to support it you might well find that people object to that method.

Smallest change? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Selecting targets as you go would really only change Step 2 and Step 6 to account for multiple target selection and go back to reselecting targets instead of selecting the next weapon group. Considering how the Shooting Sequence was changed, this actually matches more with the new process as well.

Whereas, in order to announce all targets at Step 2, would still require announcing the specific targets of the Weapon Group after Step 3, or reverting the Shooting Sequence back to 6th Edition or prior where all weapons are announced at the same time.

As it is, even when firing at a single target, the current Shooting Sequence can allow for the unit to preserve one-shot Weapons if they delay using them till after their continual use weapons, which is a huge difference compared to previous editions.

We can still allow for that same preservation of single shot weapons. Assign a target for each weapon (2) and then step through the weapons (3-7) in any order. If the target for the single use weapons is gone before you get to them then you can't fire it (or you don't kill that target and you choose not to select that weapon).

It's not an ideal solution but I think it is the best compromise.

I'm curious how ITC, Nova, etc. handle it since their FAQs don't mention it...

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:There is no correct answer here, the rules simply do not tell us what to do.

Selecting a target for each weapon in step 2 is the smallest change, the less powerful interpretation and it's how previous editions did it. As such, it's much less likely to start an argument with your opponent.

Selecting targets as you go might be what was intended but without any rules to support it you might well find that people object to that method.

Smallest change? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Selecting targets as you go would really only change Step 2 and Step 6 to account for multiple target selection and go back to reselecting targets instead of selecting the next weapon group. Considering how the Shooting Sequence was changed, this actually matches more with the new process as well.

Whereas, in order to announce all targets at Step 2, would still require announcing the specific targets of the Weapon Group after Step 3, or reverting the Shooting Sequence back to 6th Edition or prior where all weapons are announced at the same time.

As it is, even when firing at a single target, the current Shooting Sequence can allow for the unit to preserve one-shot Weapons if they delay using them till after their continual use weapons, which is a huge difference compared to previous editions.

We can still allow for that same preservation of single shot weapons. Assign a target for each weapon (2) and then step through the weapons (3-7) in any order. If the target for the single use weapons is gone before you get to them then you can't fire it (or you don't kill that target and you choose not to select that weapon).

It's not an ideal solution but I think it is the best compromise.

I'm curious how ITC, Nova, etc. handle it since their FAQs don't mention it...

Or, you know, just pick a target, pick a weapon, and repeat like previously mentioned. As the sequence is 2) Pick a target (singular) 3) shoot a weapon.... 7(repeat 3-6). Now that I do not want to shoot at that target anymore, the shooting sequence is done. Now I pick another target and repeat

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:There is no correct answer here, the rules simply do not tell us what to do.

Selecting a target for each weapon in step 2 is the smallest change, the less powerful interpretation and it's how previous editions did it. As such, it's much less likely to start an argument with your opponent.

Selecting targets as you go might be what was intended but without any rules to support it you might well find that people object to that method.

Smallest change? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Selecting targets as you go would really only change Step 2 and Step 6 to account for multiple target selection and go back to reselecting targets instead of selecting the next weapon group. Considering how the Shooting Sequence was changed, this actually matches more with the new process as well.

Whereas, in order to announce all targets at Step 2, would still require announcing the specific targets of the Weapon Group after Step 3, or reverting the Shooting Sequence back to 6th Edition or prior where all weapons are announced at the same time.

As it is, even when firing at a single target, the current Shooting Sequence can allow for the unit to preserve one-shot Weapons if they delay using them till after their continual use weapons, which is a huge difference compared to previous editions.

We can still allow for that same preservation of single shot weapons. Assign a target for each weapon (2) and then step through the weapons (3-7) in any order. If the target for the single use weapons is gone before you get to them then you can't fire it (or you don't kill that target and you choose not to select that weapon).

It's not an ideal solution but I think it is the best compromise.

I was comparing it to the previous system where every weapon was to be declared at the same time, as they all fired at the same time. In this previous version of the game, declaring all targets at the same time was required, since all shooting by the unit was performed at the same time. One shot Weapons could not be saved till later in the Phase (with a couple very rare exceptions).

In the current Shooting Sequence, Weapons are only declared when you actually intend to fire them, and only one group at a time. And so, even if you declare all Targets at Step 2, they have to be specified again for each Weapon you fire as you select them to fire.

Not necessarially. If hou declare each target for each weapon, then go through each weapon per target, you follow tge rules as written without gaining any advantage.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Not necessarially. If hou declare each target for each weapon, then go through each weapon per target, you follow tge rules as written without gaining any advantage.

SJ

Then you are disregarding the entire order of the shooting phase, doing step 3 before step 2

So this thread hasn't been about the OSC in several pages...

LockeWatts wrote:
So this thread hasn't been about the OSC in several pages...

No, this horse is quite dead.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:There is no correct answer here, the rules simply do not tell us what to do.

Selecting a target for each weapon in step 2 is the smallest change, the less powerful interpretation and it's how previous editions did it. As such, it's much less likely to start an argument with your opponent.

Selecting targets as you go might be what was intended but without any rules to support it you might well find that people object to that method.

Smallest change? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Selecting targets as you go would really only change Step 2 and Step 6 to account for multiple target selection and go back to reselecting targets instead of selecting the next weapon group. Considering how the Shooting Sequence was changed, this actually matches more with the new process as well.

Whereas, in order to announce all targets at Step 2, would still require announcing the specific targets of the Weapon Group after Step 3, or reverting the Shooting Sequence back to 6th Edition or prior where all weapons are announced at the same time.

As it is, even when firing at a single target, the current Shooting Sequence can allow for the unit to preserve one-shot Weapons if they delay using them till after their continual use weapons, which is a huge difference compared to previous editions.

We can still allow for that same preservation of single shot weapons. Assign a target for each weapon (2) and then step through the weapons (3-7) in any order. If the target for the single use weapons is gone before you get to them then you can't fire it (or you don't kill that target and you choose not to select that weapon).

It's not an ideal solution but I think it is the best compromise.

I'm curious how ITC, Nova, etc. handle it since their FAQs don't mention it...

Or, you know, just pick a target, pick a weapon, and repeat like previously mentioned. As the sequence is 2) Pick a target (singular) 3) shoot a weapon.... 7(repeat 3-6). Now that I do not want to shoot at that target anymore, the shooting sequence is done. Now I pick another target and repeat

Yes, that will work but it's a significant power boost for super heavies and you might well find that it's a point of contention.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Not necessarially. If hou declare each target for each weapon, then go through each weapon per target, you follow tge rules as written without gaining any advantage.
SJ

Then you are disregarding the entire order of the shooting phase, doing step 3 before step 2

No, because step 3 is selecting the weapon that you're about to shoot. Allocating targets to weapons in step 2 does not change the shooting phase sequence - you're still free to select the order you use your weapons and to not select some of them if you wish.

Yes, that will work but it's a significant power boost for super heavies and you might well find that it's a point of contention.

Why would it be a point of contention? I'm sure my opponent would be happy to get to use his GMC/SH in such a way and it seems the most likely intent, closest to RaW and requires least made up rules interpretation.

Can we make a new thread to talk about whatever the heck you guys are talking about? I keep seeing 'unread' in this thread and it's not OSC related at all.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Yes, that will work but it's a significant power boost for super heavies and you might well find that it's a point of contention.

Why would it be a point of contention? I'm sure my opponent would be happy to get to use his GMC/SH in such a way and it seems the most likely intent, closest to RaW and requires least made up rules interpretation.

I would disagree that it's closest to RAW - it's a significant change to how the shooting phase works that is not explicitly permitted.

A lot of players are assuming that it works as per previous editions because the rules just don't specify. If you assume that you can use an interpretation that is significantly more powerful you will run into people that are not onboard for that.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Yes, that will work but it's a significant power boost for super heavies and you might well find that it's a point of contention.

Why would it be a point of contention? I'm sure my opponent would be happy to get to use his GMC/SH in such a way and it seems the most likely intent, closest to RaW and requires least made up rules interpretation.

I would disagree that it's closest to RAW - it's a significant change to how the shooting phase works that is not explicitly permitted.

A lot of players are assuming that it works as per previous editions because the rules just don't specify. If you assume that you can use an interpretation that is significantly more powerful you will run into people that are not onboard for that.

It is by far the least change to the RaW I thought that was well covered before. It is also closest to the existing processes, and therefore most likely RaI (as you can now see if a weapon kills your target before committing other weapons or choose to stop with weapons still to fire if you want yo have something left alive to charge).

Also why would someone be less likely to agree to having their unit be more powerful than it be less powerful? Also as power level is all comparative by choosing the less powerful option for this unit type you are making all other units types more powerful. So of as you believe people want to make everything less powerful then that is more reason to use this interpretation as it makes more stuff less powerful.

 Mulletdude wrote:
Can we make a new thread to talk about whatever the heck you guys are talking about? I keep seeing 'unread' in this thread and it's not OSC related at all.

I'm not a mod (not even kind of) but that does seem like a fair request - if we're talking about super-heavy targeting process, that's unrelated to OSC in every way (even if it did start off as a tangent from that topic). Probably worth creating a new topic to discuss it further.