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.

Page 28 of the Daemonhunters Codex claims that the Eversor Assassin's Fast Shot rule allows him to "never count as moving when firing his Executioner pistol (so it may always fire twice)". My question is that can it still fire twice, now that 5th Edition has changed the pistol rules to single shot. I would say yes, as this is another example of "Codex beats Rulebook", however, I would say no because the part which states "it may always fire twice" is in brackets and is just an example for the rule, and so the Fast Shot rule would change as the rules for pistols change.

Can someone please help me on this?

Thanks,

Valkyrie

I'd apply the current rules.

According to the Witch Hunters FAQ, 'Fast Shot' doesn't work in 5th edition.

insaniak wrote:According to the Witch Hunters FAQ, 'Fast Shot' doesn't work in 5th edition.

The FAQ is also wrong and, by GWs own admission, not relevant. By the rules, you can fire it twice. If you want to ignore a very clear rule that says you can fire twice, I won't stop you, but it won't be by the rules.

Although it's strage why it's only mentioned in the Witch Hunter FAQ but not the Daemonhunter one.

Valkyrie wrote:Although it's strage why it's only mentioned in the Witch Hunter FAQ but not the Daemonhunter one.

More proof why 99% of GW FAQs need to be ignored for the tripe that they are.

I agree with Gwar.

G

Valkyrie wrote:Although it's strage why it's only mentioned in the Witch Hunter FAQ but not the Daemonhunter one.

They do that from time to time. Some issues they remember to duplicate in both, some they don't.

Well, it's a nice, clear FAQ answer at least.

... moral of this story take the DH Eversor and shoot twice.

Tri wrote:... moral of this story take the DH Eversor and shoot twice.

Yay! When I'm more awake I'll put photos of my new Eversor on here. I think I've done a really good job painting it.

Tri wrote:... moral of this story take the DH Eversor and shoot twice.

Or not.

Personally, I'd take the fact that the statement about shooting twice is a direct result of counting as stationary (which gave two shots in previous editions) as meaning that it no longer applies, FAQ or No.

insaniak wrote:Personally, I'd take the fact that the statement about shooting twice is a direct result of counting as stationary (which gave two shots in previous editions) as meaning that it no longer applies, FAQ or No.

I'd take the fact that they Codex very clearly, 100% undeniably says "may always fire twice" to mean that the Assassin may indeed always shoot twice.

Just a bit crazy I know but I feel the need to throw these insane theories out there!

It's not like it's overpowering. The temple that reports to Ordo Malleus must spend more time at the shooting range.

G

...or maybe it's that the Eversor is so drugged up he can fire many more times than normal.

(those who think I'm talking BS about the drugged up Eversor, read the fluff about them. They are nasty things indeed)

Valkyrie wrote:...or maybe it's that the Eversor is so drugged up he can fire many more times than normal.

As if his charge range and number of bonus attacks didn't give it away. ;-)

Gwar! wrote:I'd take the fact that they Codex very clearly, 100% undeniably says "may always fire twice" to mean that the Assassin may indeed always shoot twice.

Context is important.

What the codex is saying is that he can fire twice because he counts as stationary.

While you could (if ignoring previous rules editions) claim that means that he can fire twice now, if you take it in its original context as a rule written for a previous edition in which pistols could be fired twice if the firer was stationary, it seems clear that the bit about firing twice is a clarification, not a change to an existing rule.

So shifting that rule into the current edition where pistols only fire once even if the firer is stationary, Fast Shot doesn't do anything. A position backed up by the WH FAQ.

insaniak wrote:[So shifting that rule into the current edition where pistols only fire once even if the firer is stationary, Fast Shot doesn't do anything. A position backed up by the WH FAQ.

But not by the DH FAQ where he gets 2.

Why would they put in a statement where the rule was crystal clear? It does not say 'when he remains stationary' but that he counts as being stationary.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Why would they put in a statement where the rule was crystal clear? It does not say 'when he remains stationary' but that he counts as being stationary.

G

and may fire twice. My god that's game breaking.

The moral of this story... if GW was as good as creating paradoxes in the laws of creation as they are in the laws of their games, we would all be warp-food by now.
Also, DH Eversor wins.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I'd take the fact that they Codex very clearly, 100% undeniably says "may always fire twice" to mean that the Assassin may indeed always shoot twice.

Context is important.

What the codex is saying is that he can fire twice because he counts as stationary.

While you could (if ignoring previous rules editions) claim that means that he can fire twice now, if you take it in its original context as a rule written for a previous edition in which pistols could be fired twice if the firer was stationary, it seems clear that the bit about firing twice is a clarification, not a change to an existing rule.

So shifting that rule into the current edition where pistols only fire once even if the firer is stationary, Fast Shot doesn't do anything. A position backed up by the WH FAQ.

Agree with the above. Context is important. Given that the codex gives the one as the reason for the other, clarifying for the purpose of a now-defunct rule, I don't think that justifies ignoring a more-recent FAQ, which specifically addresses the edition change.

As much as some folks dislike the FAQs, and as much as some of the things GW does with the FAQs annoy me too, it's bad practice to ignore them. Particularly when they give a direct answer to the exact same question, just from another codex. If it's the same rule situation, precedent certainly bears some weight in questions about other codices.