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.

Gwar! wrote:This is not the same as you may fire any number of weapons.

Vehicles may fire all of their weapons. . ."

To me, being an intelligent human, this says, "vehicles may fire any number of weapons." Why? Because "may" fire "all" is equal to "can choose to fire as many or as few as you'd like.".

^This is my line of thinking. If someone told me I may eat all of the Doritos in a bag, I would assume I could eat any amount of Doritos up to the entire bag.

Prod wrote:^This is my line of thinking. If someone told me I may eat all of the Doritos in a bag, I would assume I could eat any amount of Doritos up to the entire bag.

But in the far future there is only Lays Potato Chips

And, according to some (wrong) people, Lays is also the manufacturer of much of the Imperial Guard's weaponry.

Why is this even being debated?

Let's look at how the rules progress through page 58 of the rulebook.

First you have 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.

This reiterates that vehicles fire just like normal units. All weapons fire at the same target and can't split fire.

Then you have this:

The number of weapons a vehicle can fire in the Shooting phase depends on how fast it has moved in that turn's movement phase, as detailed below.

This tells you that the following defines even further how many weapons can fire.

Under this you have this:

Vehicles that remained stationary may fire all of their weapons.

And thus you come to this which tells a vehicle MAY fire all of their weapons. It doesn't say you must.

I thought it was obvious that you never had to fire all your weapons. It never even crossed my mind that anyone would think any different until I came here. But you found the sentence that I think seals the deal on this one:

"The number of weapons a vehicle can fire in the Shooting phase depends on how fast it has moved in that turn's movement phase, as detailed below."

Note that "can" is used rather than "may" or "must". This would suggest that it's a choice up to a maximum number of weapons specified.

Ironhide wrote:Under this you have this:

Vehicles that remained stationary may fire all of their weapons.

And thus you come to this which tells a vehicle MAY fire all of their weapons. It doesn't say you must.

We have a winner.
The use of all is in application to the number that may be fired, player choice, in addition to the hard rule ability of the specific weaponry to fire due to LOS, allow up to all but the discretion to refrain from any, of the weapons to fire.

The existance in the ruleset of compulsory rules and the fact that no such rule is listed anywhere in relation to this, proves that the number of weapons allowed to fire ie not bound by LOS restriction, that actually fire, is the choice of the controlling player.

Pointlessly stupid debate.
Of course you may shoot between 0 and as many weapons you are normally allowed to shoot.
Whilst certain people seem to be fond of applying incorrect emphasis to certain parts of sentences and pulling their meaning completely out of context, that is not the way the rules work.
I agree with Ironhide's opinion, and disagree with Gwar!'s opinion.

Trasvi wrote:Pointlessly stupid debate.
Of course you may shoot between 0 and as many weapons you are normally allowed to shoot.

So you just ignore the rules that say you must fire then eh?

Gwar! wrote:

Trasvi wrote:Pointlessly stupid debate.
Of course you may shoot between 0 and as many weapons you are normally allowed to shoot.

So you just ignore the rules that say you must fire then eh?

When it is taken out of context as you so adamantly continue to do, yes.

puma713 wrote:When it is taken out of context as you so adamantly continue to do, yes.

Except it is not just me. And anyway, I can prove it without needing the "must fire rule" (though why you would ignore it is beyond me).

It says you may fire all of your weapons. It does not say "You may Fire 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 weapons." nor does it say "You may fire Up to all your weapons". It says you may fire ALL your weapons.

If someone waves a wad of $100 bills in front of you and says "You may take all the money", you may take all the money, or none of it. There is provision to take some of the money.

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:When it is taken out of context as you so adamantly continue to do, yes.

Except it is not just me. And anyway, I can prove it without needing the "must fire rule" (though why you would ignore it is beyond me).

It says you may fire all of your weapons. It does not say "You may Fire 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 weapons." nor does it say "You may fire Up to all your weapons". It says you may fire ALL your weapons.

If someone waves a wad of $100 bills in front of you and says "You may take all the money", you may take all the money, or none of it. There is provision to take some of the money.

I haven't been ignoring your posts. See my post a page or two back. The big one. It explains the idea of "context".

And it's not the ALL I'm arguing. It's the MAY. Anyway, you still haven't answered the example on page 58 of the predator not being able to fire its right sponson. You said that "it tries to fire but fails", which is not what the book says to begin with. It says it cannot draw LOS therefore it cannot fire. Since you must choose all or none, as you have pointed out incessantly, then the predator cannot fire, even though the book shows its left sponson and turret firing. Therefore, it fired SOME of its weapons. I mean, that point is there in black and white.

Let's at least agree on one thing. Is the predator on page 58 firing some of its weapons?

Out of range/sight weapons can fire, they just miss automatically.

shrug

kirsanth wrote:Out of range/sight weapons can fire, they just miss automatically.

shrug

Page 58 says "cannot be fired". There is a unit of orks in front of the right sponson. If the right sponson fired, it would hit them.

I am reading from "The Shooting Phase", Pg 14+.

/cheer GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another diagram that causes problems with the text.

LOL

kirsanth wrote:I am reading from "The Shooting Phase", Pg 14+.

/cheer GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another diagram that causes problems with the text.

LOL

Well, if we're reading the RAW, as we both know Gwar! is, then the predator is, indeed, firing some of its weapons.

puma713 wrote:Well, if we're reading the RAW,

So what are you reading?

kirsanth wrote:

puma713 wrote:Well, if we're reading the RAW,

So what are you reading?

Page 58, the text on the paper. The same book you're reading. That example is an example of the RAW. It says "Cannot be fired." The only time I see "target unit misses automatically" is when it is talking about range.

Oh I see you words too.

I am just wondering what you think RAW is about if you think playing by the words on the page is different than what Gwar! refers to.

And as for LOS/cover (for vehicles), each weapon counts as a model.
100% cover = no shot.
Same page as that diagram.

Or did I miss something again?

Edited for vehicles. ^^

kirsanth wrote:Oh I see you words too.

I am just wondering what you think RAW is about if you think playing by the words on the page is different than what Gwar! refers to.

And as for LOS/cover (for vehicles), each weapon counts as a model.
100% cover = no shot.
Same page as that diagram.

Or did I miss something again?

Edited for vehicles. ^^

That's exactly my point. You cannot shoot with the predator's right sponson. Hence, you have shot with -some- of the vehicles weapons, no?

Note: I play Tyranids and miss more about vehicles than anything else.

To sum up, as I read it:

The vehicle declares fire. So it must fire as much as possible.
Every weapon is checked, since it is one model firing.
Lack of LOS allows weapons to not fire (or rather auto-miss).
Cover allows weapons on a vehicle not to fire, if they give 100% cover, as they are counted as seperate models at this stage.

All legally fired weapons in range and LOS must fire, if the vehicle is declared to fire.

(end questionable summary of that side)

kirsanth wrote:Note: I play Tyranids and miss more about vehicles than anything else.

To sum up, as I read it:

The vehicle declares fire. So it must fire as much as possible.
Every weapon is checked, since it is one model firing.
Lack of LOS allows weapons to not fire (or rather auto-miss).
Cover allows weapons on a vehicle not to fire, if they give 100% cover, as they are counted as seperate models at this stage.

All legally fired weapons in range and LOS must fire, if the vehicle is declared to fire.

(end questionable summary of that side)

Yes or no. Is the predator firing some of its weapons?

puma713 wrote:Yes or no. Is the predator firing some of its weapons?

No, it is firing all of its weapons. The LOS rules provide for a weapon being forced to not fire. You still cannot optionally choose to not fire it.

kirsanth wrote:To sum up, as I read it:

The vehicle declares fire. So it must fire as much as possible.
Every weapon is checked, since it is one model firing.
Lack of LOS allows weapons to not fire (or rather auto-miss).

There is absolutely nothing in the rulebook about an 'auto-miss', weapons that cannot fire are not fired.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the rulebook that states every weapon of the vehicle must be fired. The use of the word 'All' is in relation to targeting allocation.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:There is absolutely nothing in the rulebook about an 'auto-miss', weapons that cannot fire are not fired.

Wrong again, see page 17.

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:Yes or no. Is the predator firing some of its weapons?

No, it is firing all of its weapons. The LOS rules provide for a weapon being forced to not fire. You still cannot optionally choose to not fire it.

So, when a weapon "cannot be fired", it is firing? . . . It doesn't shoot, then check LOS then say, "Whoops, that weapon cannot be fired." Because that's what you're suggesting. Instead, the weapons check LOS and find that one cannot shoot. Hence, it doesn't fire it. You don't shoot first, check LOS later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:There is absolutely nothing in the rulebook about an 'auto-miss', weapons that cannot fire are not fired.

Wrong again, see page 17.

Under the RANGE heading? We're not talking about RANGE, we're talking about LOS. If you don't have LOS, you don't shoot - page 16.

STATE WHAT IT SAYS

puma713 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:Yes or no. Is the predator firing some of its weapons?

No, it is firing all of its weapons. The LOS rules provide for a weapon being forced to not fire. You still cannot optionally choose to not fire it.

So, when a weapon "cannot be fired", it is firing? . . . It doesn't shoot, then check LOS then say, "Whoops, that weapon cannot be fired." Because that's what you're suggesting. Instead, the weapons check LOS and find that one cannot shoot. Hence, it doesn't fire it. You don't shoot first, check LOS later.

No, you Declare Shooting first, then check LOS. Declaring Shooting is the key. You must declare all your weapons are firing at the target, you check LOS. If some do not have LOS, then they are forced to not fire.

puma713 wrote:Under the RANGE heading?

Why would I do that, if you read my post I was not refering to range in that line. The rest dealt with range.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:STATE WHAT IT SAYS

"If a target is beyond this maximum range, the shot misses automatically." Page 17, Main Rule Book.

Gwar! wrote:No, you Declare Shooting first, then check LOS. Declaring Shooting is the key. You must declare all your weapons are firing at the target, you check LOS. If some do not have LOS, then they are forced to not fire.

So they are not firing.