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.

... only applies to rapid fire weapons while...


... only applies to pistol weapons. It's simple context clues.

Posted By Ghaz on 06/27/2007 10:53 PM

Models carrying rapid fire weapons...

... only applies to rapid fire weapons while...

Actually, that part only limits the rule to applying to models carrying rapid fire weapons, which is exactly the issue.

"Models carrying rapid fire weapons that wish to charge into close combat in the Assault phase may not fire in the Shooting phase..."

"Models carrying pistol weapons can fire them once in the Shooting phase and still charge into close combat in the assault phase..."

The rules statement concerning rapid-fire weaponry says nothing to limit the "may not fire" effect to just the use of rapid-fire weapons.  By that wording, if you are even carrying a rapid-fire weapon , you may not fire and then assault.  And so, yes, it does conflict with the Pistol rules.

Posted By Ghaz on 06/27/2007 10:53 PM

Models carrying rapid fire weapons...

... only applies to rapid fire weapons while...

Models carrying pistol weapons...

... only applies to pistol weapons. It's simple context clues.

Ghaz, the point is that GW consistently choose their words poorly.  They used the word "carry" in the rule when a far better choice would have been "using". 

DA carry both rapid fire and pistol weapons, hence the 'trainwreck' comment.  If they had written "Models using rapid fire weapons..." instead then we would not be going around and around on this.  It just reiterates my previous point that the writers at GW are short-sighted and poorly educated as to the nuances of meaning in the rules they write. 

 If, in fact, they really do intend for the DA (and others?) to not be able to shoot at all prior to charging, for the simple reason that they have a r-f weapon slung on their back (a scenarion I seriously doubt), then they could far more clearly have stated that intent.

I agree with you though.  I think most people are clear-headed enough to see around GW's idiocy though, and, in my experience, only the most asinine of rules-lawyers (my opinion) actually assert that they may not fire their pistol if they want to charge just because they posses a rapid-fire weapon (although clearly not using it).   JMHO though...

But all this is really off topic....

Right, I agree with you 100%, Beast.

I was just trying to look at it from a RAW prospective.

Plus, an argument could be made that the pistol rule is more specific than the rapid fire rule, as it specifies a weapon type where the rapid-fire rule does not, and would therefore over-ride it.

Once again, try reading the context clues and don't pick and choose parts of the rules to support your position.


Carrying the rapid fire weapon is inconsequential. What alows you to charge? A model that wishes to charge in the close combat phase "... may not fire in the Shooting phase..." Now since the subject of the sentence is 'models carrying rapid fire weapons' why should we even begin to believe that it applies to 'models carrying heavy weapons' or anything else than the subject of the sentence? Simply not firing in the Shooting phase allows them to charge. What kind of weapon he's carrying is does not change this.

Posted By Ghaz on 06/27/2007 11:59 PM
Once again, try reading the context clues and don't pick and choose parts of the rules to support your position.

"Models carrying rapid fire weapons that wish to charge into close combat in the Assault phase may not fire in the Shooting phase...

Carrying the rapid fire weapon is inconsequential. What alows you to charge? A model that wishes to charge in the close combat phase "... may not fire in the Shooting phase..." Now since the subject of the sentence is 'models carrying rapid fire weapons' why should we even begin to believe that it applies to 'models carrying heavy weapons' or anything else than the subject of the sentence? Simply not firing in the Shooting phase allows them to charge. What kind of weapon he's carrying is does not change this.

Ghaz, I don't even think you understood my initial post. 

First, I don't have a "position", other than pointing out what I perceived to be a rules fault (and GW never has any of those...), and asking people how they would resolve it from a RAW perspective.

To restate for clarity's sake:

The issue at hand was this:  If you have a model that is carrying both a bolter and a boltpistol, may he fire the bolt pistol and then assault?

Frenrik pointed out this part of the rule:

"Models carrying rapid fire weapons that wish to charge into close combat in the Assault phase may not fire in the Shooting phase..."

The rule does not say that models carrying rapid-fire weapons can't fire the rapid-fire weapon and then assault.  Instead it says they can't fire and then assault.  Period.  The lack of specificity means that if they are carrying a rapid-fire weapon, they may not fire any weapon and then assault.  Is the model in question carrying a rapid-fire weapons?  Yes, he is ( a bolter).  May he fire his pistol and assault?  By the wording of this rule, no.

But, then, I noticed that the pistol rule says:

"Models carrying pistol weapons can fire them once in the Shooting phase and still charge into close combat in the assault phase..."

This rule specifically allows a model carrying a pistol to fire the pistol (specifically the pistol, and no other weapon) and then assault.  As our model is also carrying a pistol, this rule would allow him to fire it and then assault.

So, one rule that indisputably applies to our model says he may not fire his pistol and assault.  Another rule that also indisputably apples to our model says that he may fire his pistol and assault.  Both of these rules are placed at what I would consider an equal level of generality (or specificity) relative to each other.  Thus, IMHO, we have a conflict under RAW.

You trumpet "context clues" as the solution, as obviously, because the proscriptive rule is under the subheading of Rapid-Fire Weapons, it obviously must only apply to Rapid Fire weapons.  I disagree, for several reasons. 

First, the pistol rule is worded differently.  From a RAW point of view, differences in the wording of similar or related rules must be treated as significant.  With GW's track record, that's a fairly absurd assumption, but it seems to me that it's an assumption that's at the core of any RAW examination.  The wording matters. 

Second, there are many places throughout the BGB that you can find rules under one topic heading that affect rules under other headings, even in completely different sections.

Third, the rule is about models carrying rapid-fire weapons.  It's not about rapid fire weapons in and of themselves.

Fourth, I'm not saying that the Rapid-Fire rules apply to any models not actually carrying rapid-fire weapons, which (after rereading your last post about seven times) is what I think you are reacting to.  What I'm talking about is rules conflicts caused by a model carrying a rapid-fire weapon AND a pistol.  You say "context clues" and I say "Venn diagrams".

Also, you accuse me of picking and choosing rules.  What other part of the rapid-fire rules or pistol rules should I include?  The Rapid-Fire rules contain the following: Four sentences of fluff, three sentences of rules that descend back into fluff, and a example weapon stat line.  The first two sentences of rules cover weapon range.  The third sentence is essentially split in two.  The first half is my quote.  The second half is the "descent back into fluff" part which does explain, from a fluff standpoint, the thought process behind not being able to fire a rapid-fire weapon and then assault.  It could be argued that this example of why firing a rapid-fire weapon prevents you from assaulting indicates that the first half of the sentence only applies to rapid-fire weapons, but I don't think this argument overrides the goofiness of the previous wording.  It's a throw-away chunk of flavor text that essentially claims that when you don't shoot the rapid-fire weapon and assault, you really are shooting close range bursts as you charge, but it's included in the assault.  If you take that line as seriously meaningful, you should be asking why marines don't get AP5 in close combat on the charge (and no, I'm not in any way attempting to propose or defend such an idea).

 

So, if you are 8" away, but shoot your pistol, are you now allowed to assault? It says you can...

Of course not, you can only assault 6". The rule doesn't mean you can ignore all other rules.

So yes, you can assault, unless there is some other rule that prevents it.

Just because you shoot a pistol, doesn't mean you can assault a HT unless you also pass your Ld check. (Horror psy power)

Posted By coredump on 06/28/2007 5:39 AM
So, if you are 8" away, but shoot your pistol, are you now allowed to assault? It says you can...

Only if you shoot your pistol backwards so it pushes you that extra 2"...

And yet you want it to apply to any weapon at all with nothing to support your claims other than "it's the RAW". It's not. The subject of the sentence is 'models with rapid fire weapons'. That's the RAW. Not 'models with any type of weapon whatsoever'. You're taking the entire sentence completely out of context just because the author did not repeat himself unnecessarily.

Posted By Ghaz on 06/28/2007 8:37 AM

You trumpet "context clues" as the solution, as obviously, because the proscriptive rule is under the subheading of Rapid-Fire Weapons, it obviously must only apply to Rapid Fire weapons. I disagree, for several reasons.

And yet you want it to apply to any weapon at all with nothing to support your claims other than "it's the RAW". It's not. The subject of the sentence is 'models with rapid fire weapons'. That's the RAW. Not 'models with any type of weapon whatsoever'. You're taking the entire sentence completely out of context just because the author did not repeat himself unnecessarily.

Ummm, no he's not...

Models carrying rapid fire weapons that wish to charge into close combat in the Assault phase may not fire (does not reference RP weapons) in the Shooting phase..." (BGB p.29)

So if you carry a RP weapon and wish to assault you cannot fire in the Shooting phase.  This rule clearly implies that you must not shoot the RP weapon if you wish to assault, but it doesn't say that.  Instead it restricts  firing in total.  This rule should read "Models carrying rapid fire weapons that wish to charge into close combat in the Assault phase may not fire them in the Shooting phase."

However:

"Models carrying pistol weapons can fire them (references pistol weapons) once in the Shooting phase and still charge into close combat in the assault phase..." (BGB, p.29, two paragraphs below the first quote)

This rule is very clearly and well written.  It specifically references the Pistol type throughout and does not 'accidentally' cover any other weapon type.

Once again, you are likewise totally disregarding the subject of the sentence. It references rapid fire weapons just as well as the vague use of the word 'them' references pistols. 'Them' could as well indicate heavy weapons or anything else you want it to. So why can you use context clues to determine that 'them' refers to the subject of the sentence yet you can't use context clues to determine that 'may not fire' also refers to the subject of the sentence?

No I'm not disregarding the subject of the sentence. In fact that's the most important part of this issue. 'Them' must be included at the end of the sentence as a reflexive pronoun which specifically links the subject, and only the subject, to the action of the verb. Otherwise, the 'cannot fire' applies to all weapons.

Yes you are. You're totally disregarding the subject of the sentence. Here is what the rule actually says according to RAW:


Only rapid fire weapons are mentioned in the subject of the sentence ('models carrying rapid fire weapons') so by context when they talk about firing that's the only type of weapon they're talking about. However you insist on reading it as follows


So where do they talk about heavy or assault weapons? Are heavy or assault weapons a part of the subject of the sentence? No. Once again, you're totally ignoring the subject of the sentence and trying to apply it to others. When they're talking about 'models carrying rapid fire weapons' then that is what they're talking about. Not heavy weapons or anything else.

The problem, Ghaz, is that in no part of the sentence is "rapid firing weapon" the subject.

"Carrying rapid fire weapons" is a gerundic phrase acting as an adjective modifying the subject "model". It is a common usage simplification of a regular adjectival clause that would more properly be written "that are carrying rapid fire weapons." But in this case, the sentence reads more smoothly instead of having two clauses beginning with "that" modifying the same noun.

"That wish to charge into close combat" is a prepositional phrase that also acts as an adjective modifying the subject "models."

"In the assault phase" is a prepositional phrase acting as an adverb, modifying the other prepositional phrase "that wish to charge into close combat."

"May" is a modal auxilary that, in this case, grants permission to do something (as opposed to "might" that can be used to express uncertainty or possibility).

"Not" is an adverb modifying "may," in this case, denying permission.

"Fire" is the verb.

"In the shooting phase" is a prepositional phrase acting as an adverb modifying the verb "fire."

You can break the sentence by removing all the modifiers like this:

"Models may fire." (self explanatory)

Now we start adding the modifiers to get to the true meaning of the sentence.

"Models may fire in the shooting phase." (we now know that models are limited in time frame as to "when" can they fire.)

"Models carrying rapid fire weapons may fire in the shooting phase." (now we know that there is a certain category of models that may fire. The sentence has no grammatical relationship between the verb and the "rapid fire weapons" that is part of the adjectival clause modifying "models." It could just as well read "Models carrying daisies may fire in the shooting phase" and we wouldn't be making the assumption that the daisies are what's being fired.  A real world example of this type of word relationship can be seen often when companies run contests and have a restriction along the lines of  "Contestants belonging to competing organizations may not win."  We do not assume that the "competing organizations" are what may not be won.)

"Models carrying rapid fire weapons that wish to charge into close combat may not fire in the shooting phase." (further modification and restriction of permission. We have another restriction as to "what kind" of model we are talking about. "Not" negates the modal auxillary "may," denying permission to "fire in the shooting phase." We now know that models that satisfy two conditions, "carrying rapid fire weapons" and "that wish to charge into close combat," are restricted from carrying out the action, "fire."

"Models carrying rapid fire weapons that wish to charge into close combat in the assault phase may not fire in the shooting phase." (kind of an unneeded addition, as the assault phase is the only time that you can charge into combat, anyway.)

Since there is nothing in the sentence that modifies "fire" other than "in the shooting phase," we cannot assume there are any other restrictions or modifications to the verb. Since there is no specification as to what "may not [be] fire[d]," then there can be no firing whatsoever. Permission to fire has been denied.

Now, is this what they intended? I dunno. I kinda doubt it, as at that time, I don't think there were many models that could carry both a rapid firing weapon and a non-rapid firing ranged weapon at the same time that didn't already have some sort of rule describing their use (tau suits, I think?).

However, intentions aside, the sentence is, grammatically, very clear cut.

And before anyone starts with the accusations, yes, I did teach high school English in the past. Horrible experience, I wouldn't wish a room full of 16 year olds on my worst enemy.

Sal.

Posted By Ghaz on 06/28/2007 9:59 AM
Yes you are. You're totally disregarding the subject of the sentence. Here is what the rule actually says according to RAW:

Models carrying rapid fire weapons that wish to charge into close combat in the Assault phase may not fire (a rapid fire weapon) in the Shooting phase..."

What the rule actually states is "Models carrying rapid fire weapons that wish to charge into close combat in the Assault phase may not fire in the Shooting phase" It says perfectly specifically that the unit may not fire, full stop. It says absolutely nothing about your imaginary distinction between different types of weapons, just that the unit may not fire.

@Ghaz:

"Rapid-fire weapons" is not the subject of the sentence.  "Models carrying rapid fire weapons" are the subject of the sentence.  Grammatically, those are two very different things, and you are the one ignoring that.  If rapid-fire weapons were the subject of the sentence, then apparently guns would be capable of charging into close combat without requiring someone to carry them.

It appears that Saldiven has beat me to that point, and explained it far more clearly.  ")

And, why are you stuck on heavy weapons?   This issue has got nothing to do with heavy weapons.  It has to do with models who are carrying both a pistol and a rapid-fire weapon, and therefore are affected by both the pistol rules and the rapid-fire rules.  By the wording of the Assault weapon rules, any model carrying both an assault weapon and a rapid-fire weapon would suffer the same conflict.  The heavy weapon rule is worded completely differently, and in fact prevents the entire unit from charging if the heavy weapon is fired. 

@coredump:

I don't think anyone is attempting to claim that the pistol rule allows a model to charge in any way inconsistant with the actual assault phase rules.  So....what's your point?

Stick a fork in it, I think this thread is done...

I though this was about vehicles of some sort.

It is. We've concluded by RAW that Baal predators cannot shoot pistols and charge at the same time, since they aren't fast vehicles. Or something like that.

Wrong. The subject of the sentence is 'models carrying rapid fire weapons' So once again, why would they be talking about anything other than the weapon that is a part of the subject of the sentence? You have yet to prove that the sentence has anything at all to do with anything other than the subject and that is 'models carrying rapid fire weapons. It simply says that they can not fire, nowhere does it say that they can not fire any type of weapon whatsoever. You have to look at the context clues to determine what kind of weapon that they're talking about and the only weapon even mentioned in the sentence at all is rapid fire weapons.

Okay, this thread has veered far, far of course.