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.

I've played a number of games now, and when we do our shooting phases there is not much structure to it other than you pick a unit, declare who it is firing at, then measure distance, then roll dice, etc. on down the list. Once that shooting for that one squad is resolved, then you pick another squad/unit and do the same, and keep doing this until all your squads/units have fired.....

But yesterday at our FLGS a guy came in and said we have been doing it all wrong. Then HE says the way you are supposed to do shooting is to declare all shots first, then go back to each individual squad/unit and do the resolution, etc. Now thats not such a hard thing in a 1500 point marine on marine battle, but 1500 points of Imperial Guard is a hell of a lota squads to do that with. Plus I asked him "What if I have 3 squads firing on that 1 man unit and the first squad kills it, do I just lose the other 2 squads shooting phase then?" and he couldnt give me a definite answer.

Can any of you long time 40k players help me with this rules interp? I think I've been doing it right, but this guy is one of those "know-it-all" asses, so I'd really like to have my facts straight before I challenge him next weekend at the store (if I'm right that is).

Ask him to show you, in the rules, where it says that.

He will not be able to.

What you should of done is shown him pg.15 (the first page in the shooting phase section of the rule book) and tell him to explain himself after that.

You are right, he was WAAAAY wrong. You do the shooting 'sequence' for each unit. What is true, and what I see a lot of, is doing a shooting from a unit that can target multiple units and they shoot one gun, go through the rest of their armies shooting, then come back and finish that units shooting, which of course is wrong.

Yeah padixon is right, says it right there, black on white.
Nuff said
Case closed
Any one for soda?


//Edge

I've seen this one crop up from time to time as far back as second edition.

I suspect it's a result of previous editions requiring you to declare all of your units charging into close combat at the start of the phase, and people just assuming (or simply being confused) that it should apply to the shooting phase as well.

if you've done it for so long, and someone says your different, pull out a rullbook and kick them in the planters

He's doing it the way it was done in 2nd edition.

@Brian P: Is that Giordano's I see??? Yum!

thats what i thought was done back in 2nd edition. But I didnt have rule book with me, so like I said I wanted to bounce it off you learned scholars before I confronted him with it. I reread the shooting phase of the rulebook and I was 99.99% sure I was right, but always nice to get confirmation of it from others...thanks.

Brian P wrote:He's doing it the way it was done in 2nd edition.

yep this is true, He's doing it just like someone playing 2nd edition wrong.

I often hesitate to use the word fether but it maybe appropriate to describe this chap, what you need to do is get your rule book out and get him to show you where it says to do that.

then beat him to death with his own models

I'd suggest you tell him which of his moels you will be beating him to death with beforehand, and if he dies too early just carry on until you've done all the models, he'd want it that way

hehe, thank you for all the backup. I'll be at the FLGS this saturday, so you may read about me in the papers sunday. I'll be the guy getting arrested for assaulting another man by shoving small metal and plastic gaming models up his arse until his colon ruptures. hehe.

Thanks again mates!

dr vompire wrote:I often hesitate to use the word

Then, maybe you shouldn't?

Would arseclown be more politically correct?

dr vompire, you actually have it correct, your term more accurately describes the individual's malfunction.

Your root word, tard, accurately depicts his mental capability as he cannot differentiate from one edition to the next and/or properly comprehend written word. The prefix you attached enables us to confirm that the individual royally the OP and anyone else in earshot.

Lesson to be learned: Keep your big mouth shut unless you actually know what you are saying is accurate when in a FLGS.

And people wonder why Dakka gets a bad reputation...

Seriously people, sometimes players just get a little muddled on the rules. There's no call for the sorts of hystrionics going on here. Just point out the error, and move on. Save the name-calling for things that actually matter.

dornsfist wrote:Would arseclown be more politically correct?

Not to me.

Dakka gets a bad rep from much worse, but you are right, name-calling is inappropriate. My apologies.

However, this is not a case of muddling the rules a little, insaniak. This guy seemed confident that he was correct about something that he was disgustingly wrong about and was telling people that they were playing wrong all along.

The OP and others in the store own some responsibility to straighten this guy out with a quick reference to the rules, I will not belabor it or add anymore to the discussion but c'mon, the arrogance is ridiculous.

It is a mistake.... it may be an important mistake, but it isn't like he was killing your firstborn.

pull out a rullbook and kick them in the planters

fether but it maybe appropriate to describe this chap

then beat him to death with his own models

Your root word, tard, accurately depicts his mental capability

Pretty harsh for a simple mistake. It isn't like he is refusing to read the book, or listen to reason. He just understands the rules wrong.

the worst bit is I was using irony when I used the phrase "I hesitate to use the word..."

That's what makes it funny.