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.

Posted By ATI on 10/17/2006 2:14 PM
 much like rapid firing twice prevents assault.

Minor OT correction there. Firing a Rapid Fire weapon at all prevents assaulting, not just firing two shots.

I agree in regards to the Eversor assassin.

- Greenie

Is says "... to fire twice..." You are reading it as "... and fires twice..." So yes, it does matter if he remained stationary in order to fire twice, because that is the only thing that prevents him from assaulting. Simply firing twice while he's stationary will not prevent him from assaulting.

And once again, if he can always fire twice no matter whether he moved in the Movement phase or not then he did not remain stationary in order to fire twice because he does not need to remain stationary in order to do so. 

It seems like it depends on where you want to put emphasis on the rules...

Okay:
Eversor moves 1" (movement phase)
Eversor fires his pistol twice, counting as if he'd never made that 1" move (shooting phase)
Eversor charges, because he's no longer firing his pistol and therefore no longer counts as having been stationary.  The guy moved 1" in the movement phase, thus negating the exclusion to charging (because he wasn't stationary).

If you can make a break in this logic, then please do so.  This is the root issue that's in question here.

If this logic holds, then it really doesn't matter if he moves that 1" or not - if it makes you feel any better just assume that the Eversor dances around in a little circle during the movement phase instead of not moving.  It doesn't make a lick of difference, because standing still is not what is letting him shoot twice; it's the special rule that the character has that's letting him shoot twice.

(edited P.S. - who really cares if an Eversor gets that extra shot before charging?  Who really has a problem fighting against Eversors to begin with?  I thought there was a reason we'd stopped seeing assassins in most lists - because by and large they aren't worth the points.  Is this really a big ticket issue, or is it just an excuse to practice logical maneuvering on a discussion board... ?  C'mon, be honest... )

And page 36 still says that he can't assault anyway, because he fired twice with a pistol

Posted By insaniak on 10/17/2006 9:29 PM
And page 36 still says that he can't assault anyway, because he fired twice with a pistol

Yup, shoddy rules writing strikes again!

But I still stand by my edited post script...

Exceot being stationary is not what prevents him from assaulting. It's being stationary in order to fire his pistol twice. So does he need to remain stationary in order to fire his pistol or not? If hte answer is no, then there is nothing preventing him from assaulting even if he did not move.

Posted By Ghaz on 10/17/2006 9:34 PM
 If hte answer is no, then there is nothing preventing him from assaulting even if he did not move.

...except for page 36, which prohibits a model from charging if it fired a pistol twice...

Posted By kwade on 10/17/2006 9:25 PM
(edited P.S. - who really cares if an Eversor gets that extra shot before charging?  Who really has a problem fighting against Eversors to begin with?  I thought there was a reason we'd stopped seeing assassins in most lists - because by and large they aren't worth the points.  Is this really a big ticket issue, or is it just an excuse to practice logical maneuvering on a discussion board... ?  C'mon, be honest... )

Well, I did already mention (several times) that I would allow the shots in-game...

Posted By insaniak on 10/17/2006 9:46 PM

Posted By Ghaz on 10/17/2006 9:34 PM
 If hte answer is no, then there is nothing preventing him from assaulting even if he did not move.

...except for page 36, which prohibits a model from charging if it fired a pistol twice...

Which is where the Fast Shot rule comes into play.

Page 36 may not allow him to charge after firing his pistol, but the rules for pistols do not.

Posted By Ghaz on 10/17/2006 9:55 PM

Which is where the Fast Shot rule comes into play.

Page 36 may not allow him to charge after firing his pistol, but the rules for pistols do not.

Pardon...?


Fast Shot says nothing about assaulting.

The rules for pistols prohibit assaulting if the firer remained stationary to fire twice.
Page 36 prohibits a model from assaulting if they fired a pistol twice.

Two seperate situations. One relies on the model having remained stationary to fire. The other simply relies on the number of times the pistol was fired.

So he's still stuck with no assaulting if he fires the pistol twice, regardless of whether or not he moves.

Ghaz your problem is that you aren't addressing my post. Just because he is count "AS IF" stationary does not extend the rules exception to firing a pistol twice. In this case if he fires a pistol twice he still is subject to the full force of the rule, that he may no longer assault. Any model that fires a pistol twice ends up losing their assault ability unless expressely stated otherwise. The Eversor assassin rule allows for the assassin to bypass a different part of the pistol rule, the first clause. So lets break up the pistol rule into two clauses:

1st: If a unit remains stationary and is equipped with pistols then it may fire twice
2nd: If a unit fires a pistol twice then it is not allowed to assault.

Your rules exception only applies to clause 1 and NOT to clause 2. Like I said you need language allowing you to fire your pistol and then assault. Until then you are stuck in the mud. As Insaniak and I have argued through and through you haven't addressed this clause at all.

Your argument is that if the unit remains stationary clause 2 takes effect. Because the Eversor assassin moved, it can ignore clause two. Even if I grant you this argument you haven't addressed my argument. By the rules he is counted AS IF he is stationary this means that for all rules interpretation he is counted as being stationary even if the assassin has moved. Thus your attempt to move around the rules doesn't work. the as if portion of your exception makes the model equal to any other model that remained stationary to fire a pistol twice. This therefore, makes the eversor assassin liable to lack of assault after firing a pistol twice.

And again, you've failed to realize that it is NOT firing the pistol twice that prevents you from assaulting, but remaining stationary so that you can fire the pistol twice that prevents you from assaulting. Your second clause is false.

Actually, according to pg 36 it is firing the pistol twice that makes it so you can not assault. I was totally on board w/ya Ghaz, until I cracked the book open and looked at pg 36. The only movement part on that page is for heavy weapons - for pistols it's the number of shots for some slowed reason.

As stated above - I think it's slowed the way it's written so I wouldn't so much as bat an eye if someone shot twice with an Eversor and then assaulted with him in an actual game.

For those too lazy to check for themselves (like I was on the first couple of pages of this post ") ):

Pg 36 BGB:

Under Shooting and Assaulting

An infantry unit that fired twice with pistols or which shot with rapid fire weapons or which remained stationary to fire heavy weapons may not charge at all in the assault phase.

Sorry Ghaz you're wrong.

I think that without a doubt the intent was to let him shoot twice at all times, even when he is about to charge. However, if you go by the RAW policy (which isnt exactly a great policy when the rules in question arent always very clear and contradict one another...) then he cannot assault after firing twice. I know in a friendly game id have no problem letting my opponent fire twice and assault - its an imperial assassin after all they are supposed to be a bit outside the rules.

GW should have stated one way or the other whether or not he could assault after firing twice.

I am a bit curious about the "cannot charge after firing twice" rule was this in the 3rd edition rules day one or did this come about later? If this was a later amendment you probably have GW still re-using a special rule conceived in the early days of 3rd edition word for word without anyone having vetted it for the changes made to the game since 1998

Posted By ATI on 10/18/2006 8:43 AM
Sorry Ghaz you're wrong.

No, it is you who is wrong.  Try reading the rules for pistols and tell us exactly where it says that firing a pistol twice prevents you from assaulting.  It says no such thing.  It is remaining stationary to fire twice that prevents you from assaulting, not the action of firing twice.

kwade, while you are correct about page 36, I still stand by my statement that the rules for pistols themselves do not prevent an Eversor from assaulting if he remains stationary and fires twice.  Page 36 makes it illegal for the Eversor to assault at all, movement or no.

Ghaz, yes you're right that it's not the pistols themselves that prevent the Eversor.

But pg 36 kicks in and the end result is the same: no assault.


With the limited info originally given, you're correct. But it doesn't matter as not all of the info was included.



Kinda like arguing that a naked human completely wrapped in a seal skin could survive at the bottom of the arctic ocean because his body heat would be conserved to keep him warm....

.... and completely ignoring the fact that he has no oxygen supply.

Hahahahhaaha. Oh wow. Well there you go.

However, Ghaz I have to say that I don't disagree that your interpretation is probably what GW intended to have, their poor rules creation however, have claimed another victim. In a game where this comes up, I'd let you have it without arguing.

It sounds like we have a wrap on this one no matter how you spin it.

And like I said, although page 36 does indeed prevent you from assaulting if you fired a pistol twice whteher you moved or not you will see that in the link provided that page 36 never came up and that some people insisted that the rules for pistols themselves prevented an Eversor from assaulting if he remained stationary to fire twice. That assumption is not correct.

"you will see that in the link provided that page 36 never came up "

Actually it was mentioned several times. You just chose to ignore it.


"and that some people insisted that the rules for pistols themselves prevented an Eversor from assaulting if he remained stationary to fire twice."

...which they do.

Kwade managed to present an intelligable case as to how he can assault if he moves. The rules are still against him if he doesn't move though.

Like ATI said if I played you i would give iot to you as thats what the intention of GW was so you would be right. If i was a picky rule rules rules type then i would not as the rules go against you unfortunatly.

If it did then people were misreading it as well claiming that they could still assault after firing twice if they moved because the wording on page 36 does not allow that.