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.

insaniak wrote:

Ridcully wrote:I'm certain i can pull up numerous 40k (including BRB) rules that use "wounds suffered" to refer to wounds that have been rolled for (rolled to wound), but haven't had their saves taken.

You might be able to, but it wouldn't make any difference. Until the unit fails its save, it hasn't actually taken any wounds. So doesn't have to take a pinning test until that point.

Any model attacking the vehicle with flechette discharges is wounded on a d6 roll. As each vehicle is being attacked, and is equipped, each may trigger their flechette dischargers.

Good point. Works for me. So still not a RAW issue, and I would disagree with the INAT ruling, personally.

The HQ entry says to take the usual weapon/support set-up, then continues to say they may take additional items from the wargear list, including 'Special Issue systems'.

Gotcha. Had forgotten about that one. (Was still on my first coffee of the morning, so that'll do as an excuse...)

So yes, by RAW the Commander can't actually take SI weapons. Most players (I would venture to say 'all' really) have been ignoring that as simply dodgy wording since the codex was released.

And the bit on the next page with crisis suits only specifies 'Special Issue wargear', which doesn't meet the requirements listed in the special issue items entry by not saying 'Special Issue systems'. It seems most people take this as a typo allowing Shas'vre to take anything special issue, including weapons and support systems.

If I recall correctly, when this was dicussed back when the codex was released, the general concensus was that the Shas'vre's wording was deliberate, to allow him access to SI Wargear only, not SI weapons and support systems.

The dodgy wording of the Commander and Bodyguard entries does give an argument for the interpretation you suggest, though.

The wording isn't great, period. Had it said "models with access to the wargear list" it would make sense. No models specify access to the Armoury, but all models may select from the armoury. All sections of the armoury have limits, including wargear. All models have access to the armoury.

It's poorly written, but still fairly clear. Models have access to only those sections of the armoury specifically granted in their rules. In the case of regular suits, that means only weapons and support systems, as specified by the Armoury itself.

It could be argued either way. A model with "a" etc.

It can be, but similar arguments on stacking around here have always gone the same way. ie: It only stacks if it specifically says that it stacks.

FWIW.

Looks like i only really need to reply on the pulse carbine bit... and possibly the drone controller. The pulse carbine specifies under what conditions the target squad must take a pinning test. What this means by RAW is that even if no models actually take unsaved wounds, if the unit suffered any wounds (before saves) they need to take a test. The only difference between that and regular pinning is in cases where no models actually die or have wounds removed.

I need an example of stacking that can be compared to a piece of gear that allows you to take 2 drones.

As for the rest, i think you might have misunderstood what i meant by RAW issues. I didn't mean every one of them didn't function by RAW like the target lock, i merely meant how people play it is different to the strict RAW or other RAW interpretations. Oh and Yakface has also said he plays that Shas'vre class may take special issue weapons etc.

insaniak wrote:You might be able to, but it wouldn't make any difference. Until the unit fails its save, it hasn't actually taken any wounds. So doesn't have to take a pinning test until that point.

BRB Page 20. Armour Saves: "Roll a D6 for each wound the model has suffered", so a model has clearly suffered a wound before making an armour save, which matches perfectly with the pulse carbine's wording: "Any unit suffering at least one wound from pulse carbine fire must test for pinning."

Just had a thought. Since the Pulse Carbine has that phrase about the pinning test, and is also classed as a pinning weapon, wouldn't that mean that a unit taking pulse carbine fire would by RAW have to test pinning once for just a successful wound roll and a second time if there were any unsaved wounds from pulse carbines per the usual pinning rules?

Do you mean the pinning test for suffering a certain percentage of wounds, or the pinning test for being wounded by a pinning weapon?

If the first, I would say yes, certainly a pinning weapon causes two pinning tests if it inflicts enough wounds.

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you mean the pinning test for suffering a certain percentage of wounds, or the pinning test for being wounded by a pinning weapon?

If the first, I would say yes, certainly a pinning weapon causes two pinning tests if it inflicts enough wounds.

I was working on the assumption that a single unit can only inflict 1 pinning test on each enemy unit it fires at in a turn. The RAW is admittedly vague but this seems to be how most people play it.

What I referred to is that the Pulse Carbine has it's own phrase in it's rules saying "Any unit suffering at least one wound from pulse carbine fire must test for pinning." which I maintain, by RAW, would mean as soon as a to-wound roll succeeds the enemy will be eligible for that pinning test. Furthermore the weapon has the Pinning special rule, which would allow it to inflict an additional pinning test for an unsaved wound, based on the pinning rules in the BRB.

Essentially it would allow a single pulse carbine shot (albeit a lucky one) to hit, wound, and have the save failed, causing two pinning tests.

Drunkspleen wrote:

insaniak wrote:You might be able to, but it wouldn't make any difference. Until the unit fails its save, it hasn't actually taken any wounds. So doesn't have to take a pinning test until that point.

BRB Page 20. Armour Saves: "Roll a D6 for each wound the model has suffered", so a model has clearly suffered a wound before making an armour save, which matches perfectly with the pulse carbine's wording: "Any unit suffering at least one wound from pulse carbine fire must test for pinning."

I was going to point out that the rules for casualty removal make it clear that the wound isn't actually applied until that point... but after another look, I think I'll have to change my mind. The casualty removal section very definitely refers to failed saves as causing an 'unsaved wound'... differentiating it from simply a wound.

So yes, by RAW the pulse cardbine will cause a pinning check as a result of a successful To Wound roll. I would still be using the 5th edition Pinning rule for them instead, though.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you mean the pinning test for suffering a certain percentage of wounds, or the pinning test for being wounded by a pinning weapon?

If the first, I would say yes, certainly a pinning weapon causes two pinning tests if it inflicts enough wounds.

I was working on the assumption that a single unit can only inflict 1 pinning test on each enemy unit it fires at in a turn. The RAW is admittedly vague but this seems to be how most people play it.

What I referred to is that the Pulse Carbine has it's own phrase in it's rules saying "Any unit suffering at least one wound from pulse carbine fire must test for pinning." which I maintain, by RAW, would mean as soon as a to-wound roll succeeds the enemy will be eligible for that pinning test. Furthermore the weapon has the Pinning special rule, which would allow it to inflict an additional pinning test for an unsaved wound, based on the pinning rules in the BRB.

Essentially it would allow a single pulse carbine shot (albeit a lucky one) to hit, wound, and have the save failed, causing two pinning tests.

Okay, I get your meaning.

This is just another example of GW's sloppy style. I don't believe GW meant for pulse carbines to have two pinning checks, they just verbosely, unnecessarily and imprecisely restated the Pinning USR within the codex description.

The way I would prefer to play, a pinning weapon forces a pinning check if a wound is inflicted (even if saved) and any weapon (including pinning) can force a check if there are enough casualties. So, a pinning weapons which causes enough casualties forces two pinning checks. That seems a reasonable benefit for the points cost paid for the Pinning rule.

However, as with any debatable piece of rules, I am open to persuasion or D6ing it if someone disagrees.

Like i said, it's not like anyone actually plays that the pulse carbine works like in the RAW.

But no, i don't really see any need for extra pinning effects. One pinning test is enough, and the morale test caused by taking too many casualties is fine.

Lukus83 wrote:Hi everyone, played a game yesterday against a friend and had a debate that became quite heated. Put simply he wanted to use his target lock without taking any test. I said no, 4+ it or roll a LD test. I just want to do this poll to see what the general consensus is. Please be polite and don't insult other people's opinions...I just want your poll answer and a reason. I went through the Tau Codex FAQ and have seen that GW still havent updated it, so this is the next best thing (IMHO).

Thanks

The sad truth may be found in the following errata, the last point:http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2030054_40k_Rulebook_March_2009.pdf" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2030054_40k_Rulebook_March_2009.pdf

Just in case the link didn't work; here's what it says:
"Q. If my Codex includes some options (or other
rules) that seem to have no effect in the new
edition (like the Thornback biomorph, which
makes the model count as double the number of
models for the purposes of outnumbering the
enemy in combat resolution), are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something
else that does work?
A. No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no
effect, like in the case of the example above, it
simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just
leave it until the next edition of the Codex rather
than change its effects through an errata."

Thanks, GW, for making the army I purchased as unusable as possible. What a bunch of a-holes.

I think before saying that the target lock simply does nothing let's look at why a target priority test is taken.

In 4th edition a target priority test was taken by any unit that was not shooting at the closest enemy unit. Basically for the purposes of determining if the shooting unit was disiplined enough to ignore a closer enemy and obey orders to shoot at a further off enemy.

The target lock allows you to fire at two or more units so by it's very nature in 4th edition you would be required to make a target priority test as you would be firing at two different units, one farther than the other away. Even if the line talking about the target priority test were absent form the wargear description, one would have to have made a target priority test anyway in 4th edition.

5th edition takes away the need for units to take a target priority test and allows them to shoot at whatever is within their range and LOS regardless of whether another unit may be closer. So I think the best and most fair way to play this is #1, ignore the need to roll anything as there are no more rolls for target priority at all.

I would settle with somebody and make a ld role if they wanted to press the issue in the spirit of finishing a game.

I think the third option is really an example of where playing by the strictest RAW breaks down.

Don't forget other Tau rule problems like:
1) What counts as a "Tau" unit as per Farsight's conferred Preferred Enemy against Orks. Do Drones count as a "Tau" unit?
2) What constitues a Battle Suit Weapon System as per the Multitracker's entry and can it work as a Hard Wired option with other units that can't take Battlesuit Weapons (like Firewarrior Shas'ui's and Broadsides)?
3) Can a Multitracker be fire a twin-linked weapon with a regular weapon or fire two twin-linked weapons?

agnosto wrote:

Lukus83 wrote:Hi everyone, played a game yesterday against a friend and had a debate that became quite heated. Put simply he wanted to use his target lock without taking any test. I said no, 4+ it or roll a LD test. I just want to do this poll to see what the general consensus is. Please be polite and don't insult other people's opinions...I just want your poll answer and a reason. I went through the Tau Codex FAQ and have seen that GW still havent updated it, so this is the next best thing (IMHO).

Thanks

The sad truth may be found in the following errata, the last point:http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2030054_40k_Rulebook_March_2009.pdf" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2030054_40k_Rulebook_March_2009.pdf

Just in case the link didn't work; here's what it says:
"Q. If my Codex includes some options (or other
rules) that seem to have no effect in the new
edition (like the Thornback biomorph, which
makes the model count as double the number of
models for the purposes of outnumbering the
enemy in combat resolution), are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something
else that does work?
A. No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no
effect, like in the case of the example above, it
simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just
leave it until the next edition of the Codex rather
than change its effects through an errata."

Thanks, GW, for making the army I purchased as unusable as possible. What a bunch of a-holes.

This is more for complete rule changes, like the DH Teleport Homer doo-hickey that mentions using a pie-plate for scattering deep strikers. Since the rules for Deep striking have completely changed, this old piece of wargear has no effect. It's quite a stretch to say Target Locks don't work. However, no one in my club would try to pull this so I don't feel I need to convince anybody here why it should still work. The easiest thing to do is just play it the way it's (gasp) intended to work.

The multi-tracker one i only remembered the day after my last post

But yeah, by RAW a broadside can't fire its railgun without purchasing a multi-tracker.

Ridcully wrote:The multi-tracker one i only remembered the day after my last post

But yeah, by RAW a broadside can't fire its railgun without purchasing a multi-tracker.

Or any suit that takes a Multitracker and a twin linked weapon by its wording. The only saving grace to a Broadside is that its Railgun isn't defined as a Battle Suit Weapon.

Most people are cool in working around these issues with intention. I used to get so worked up arguing them with certain RAW enthusiasts on here. Now I realize I will never play a game with them so convincing them that I'm right is a moot point!

synchronicity wrote:Now I realize I will never play a game with them so convincing them that I'm right is a moot point!

So you think it needs debate?

agnosto wrote:

Lukus83 wrote:Hi everyone, played a game yesterday against a friend and had a debate that became quite heated. Put simply he wanted to use his target lock without taking any test. I said no, 4+ it or roll a LD test. I just want to do this poll to see what the general consensus is. Please be polite and don't insult other people's opinions...I just want your poll answer and a reason. I went through the Tau Codex FAQ and have seen that GW still havent updated it, so this is the next best thing (IMHO).

Thanks

The sad truth may be found in the following errata, the last point:http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2030054_40k_Rulebook_March_2009.pdf" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2030054_40k_Rulebook_March_2009.pdf

Just in case the link didn't work; here's what it says:
"Q. If my Codex includes some options (or other
rules) that seem to have no effect in the new
edition (like the Thornback biomorph, which
makes the model count as double the number of
models for the purposes of outnumbering the
enemy in combat resolution), are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something
else that does work?
A. No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no
effect, like in the case of the example above, it
simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just
leave it until the next edition of the Codex rather
than change its effects through an errata."

Thanks, GW, for making the army I purchased as unusable as possible. What a bunch of a-holes.

It just means the Target Lock doesn't have to roll a leadership test to work, because that is part of the target priority test which doesn't exist any more. The ability of Target Lock to split the unit's fire isn't affected.

kirsanth wrote:

synchronicity wrote:Now I realize I will never play a game with them so convincing them that I'm right is a moot point!

So you think it needs debate?

Not with you!

Outdated rule the way everyone plays it at my local hobby shop is that you can choose to fire at different targets without any test needed. So each model with Target Lock may fire at a seperate unit than that of the rest of his squad.

Ridcully wrote:The multi-tracker one i only remembered the day after my last post

But yeah, by RAW a broadside can't fire its railgun without purchasing a multi-tracker.

Huh, I'm not seeing this. Even if the railgun isn't a "battlesuit weapon system" the broadside is entitled to fire 1 weapon a turn, like any model. In fact, I think it not being a battlesuit weapon system would potentially have an alternate effect, which is that if you somehow had a broadside with 3 weapons, and a multi tracker, it could fire all 3 (2 battlesuit weapon systems per the multi tracker entry, and the 1 normal weapon).

I'm not sure what you guys are talking about with the "railgun not being a weapon" thing. As far as i'm concerned, it is a weapon and listed as such in the armoury. My point was just expanding on the multi-tracker RAW issue, which states that it can be used to fire two weapon systems. The RAW of twin-linked weapon systems clearly say that twin-linked weapons count as two systems. Therefore a broadside can't fire his Railgun (which counts as two systems) unless he purchases a multi-tracker.

A team of 3 broadsides with A.S.S would therefore only have one member capable of firing the tl-railgun by RAW, as he can buy a hard-wired multi-tracker, which shows why no one plays the RAW. Broadsides are what show the RAW to be definitively false because they are bought with twin-linked weapons.

Ridcully wrote:I'm not sure what you guys are talking about with the "railgun not being a weapon" thing. As far as i'm concerned, it is a weapon and listed as such in the armoury. My point was just expanding on the multi-tracker RAW issue, which states that it can be used to fire two weapon systems. The RAW of twin-linked weapon systems clearly say that twin-linked weapons count as two systems. Therefore a broadside can't fire his Railgun (which counts as two systems) unless he purchases a multi-tracker.

A team of 3 broadsides with A.S.S would therefore only have one member capable of firing the tl-railgun by RAW, as he can buy a hard-wired multi-tracker, which shows why no one plays the RAW. Broadsides are what show the RAW to be definitively false because they are bought with twin-linked weapons.

Let me indulge you fellow follower of the greater good. The Tau Codex states that a Multitracker "enables the model to fire two battlesuit weapon systems in the same turn." You are correct in saying that a contradiction exits between twin-linked Battlesuit Weapons and single Battlesuit Weapons. According to the MT rules, you need it to fire a Twin-Linked weapon!

The contradiction of this comes in the form of a sentence under the Battlesuit Armory on p25 of the Codex; "and a twin-linked weapon counts as two [battlesuit weapon systems]," in reference to Twin-linked battlesuit weapons systems. Clearly the rules are not working together.

However, the Railgun is not listed as a Battlesuit Weapon System (p25, upper left corner list of the Battlesuit Armory). Therefore, it can be treated as a normal twin-linked weapon, and Battlesuit Weapons Systems rules (i.e. Multitrackers) don't apply to it. A Broadside always has a twin-linked Railgun, which is just one regular weapon, and can be fired as such.

In conclusion, a Multitracker only affects Crisis Suit weapons, as far as Twin-linking goes, listed on p25. My pressing question is: If a Broadside pays for Twin-linked Plasma and a Multitracker in addition to its standard Railgun, can it fire both using the MT? Can a MT allow you to fire two Twin-Linked weapons, even if neither is defined as a "Battlesuit Weapon System."

RAW lends itself to "no," but I think it is intended to allow you to fire other weapons in addition to the BWS's, because why would they make it possible for a Firewarrior Shas'ui or Stealth Shas'ui have access to a Hard Wired Multitracker? Logic will tell you, "So they can fire their main weapon in addition to the Markerlight they pay for." However, neither of those systems is a "Battlesuit Weapon System!" So frustrating!!!

Oh I see the problem now regarding why firing a twin linked weapon system doesn't work with a multi-tracker, although I still don't think it would cause problems without them, while a twin linked weapon is said to "count as two [battlesuit weapon systems]" this has no bearing on the rules that are normally used for firing, so a model with a twin linked weapon system (like a broadside) could still fire that twin linked system, it's just that buying a multi-tracker for that unit would have no use, because he is already firing two "battlesuit weapon systems" by following the normal firing rules.

synchronicity wrote:My pressing question is: If a Broadside pays for Twin-linked Plasma and a Multitracker in addition to its standard Railgun, can it fire both using the MT? Can a MT allow you to fire two Twin-Linked weapons, even if neither is defined as a "Battlesuit Weapon System."

Why would twin linked Plasma not be a "Battlesuit Weapon System", it's listed right there on the battlesuit weapon systems list. (by RAW it would actually be 2 Battlesuit Weapon Systems)

Drunkspleen wrote:Oh I see the problem now regarding why firing a twin linked weapon system doesn't work with a multi-tracker, although I still don't think it would cause problems without them, while a twin linked weapon is said to "count as two [battlesuit weapon systems]" this has no bearing on the rules that are normally used for firing, so a model with a twin linked weapon system (like a broadside) could still fire that twin linked system, it's just that buying a multi-tracker for that unit would have no use, because he is already firing two "battlesuit weapon systems" by following the normal firing rules.

Correct!

Drunkspleen wrote:

synchronicity wrote:My pressing question is: If a Broadside pays for Twin-linked Plasma and a Multitracker in addition to its standard Railgun, can it fire both using the MT? Can a MT allow you to fire two Twin-Linked weapons, even if neither is defined as a "Battlesuit Weapon System."

Why would twin linked Plasma not be a "Battlesuit Weapon System", it's listed right there on the battlesuit weapon systems list. (by RAW it would actually be 2 Battlesuit Weapon Systems)

synchronicity wrote:

Ridcully wrote:I'm not sure what you guys are talking about with the "railgun not being a weapon" thing. As far as i'm concerned, it is a weapon and listed as such in the armoury. My point was just expanding on the multi-tracker RAW issue, which states that it can be used to fire two weapon systems. The RAW of twin-linked weapon systems clearly say that twin-linked weapons count as two systems. Therefore a broadside can't fire his Railgun (which counts as two systems) unless he purchases a multi-tracker.

A team of 3 broadsides with A.S.S would therefore only have one member capable of firing the tl-railgun by RAW, as he can buy a hard-wired multi-tracker, which shows why no one plays the RAW. Broadsides are what show the RAW to be definitively false because they are bought with twin-linked weapons.

Let me indulge you fellow follower of the greater good. The Tau Codex states that a Multitracker "enables the model to fire two battlesuit weapon systems in the same turn." You are correct in saying that a contradiction exits between twin-linked Battlesuit Weapons and single Battlesuit Weapons. According to the MT rules, you need it to fire a Twin-Linked weapon!

The contradiction of this comes in the form of a sentence under the Battlesuit Armory on p25 of the Codex; "and a twin-linked weapon counts as two [battlesuit weapon systems]," in reference to Twin-linked battlesuit weapons systems. Clearly the rules are not working together.

However, the Railgun is not listed as a Battlesuit Weapon System (p25, upper left corner list of the Battlesuit Armory). Therefore, it can be treated as a normal twin-linked weapon, and Battlesuit Weapons Systems rules (i.e. Multitrackers) don't apply to it. A Broadside always has a twin-linked Railgun, which is just one regular weapon, and can be fired as such.

There's nothing to say that the only battlesuit weapon systems are those listed in the purchasable section of the armoury. Weapons like markerlights and railguns can't be bought under normal armoury circumstances, and are therefore not included in the list. Both require a multi-tracker to be fired in conjunction with other weapons however.

In conclusion, a Multitracker only affects Crisis Suit weapons, as far as Twin-linking goes, listed on p25.

Twin-linked battlesuit weapons count as two weapon systems, and still affects the railgun.

@Drunkenspleen: As it's defining twin-linked weapons for battlesuits as 'counting as two weapon systems', virtually saying the opposite of p31 BRB, this would overrule BRBs definition of a twin-linked weapon in general. Without the aide of a multi-tracker, battlesuits can only fire one weapon system.

Ridcully wrote:@Drunkenspleen: As it's defining twin-linked weapons for battlesuits as 'counting as two weapon systems', virtually saying the opposite of p31 BRB, this would overrule BRBs definition of a twin-linked weapon in general. Without the aide of a multi-tracker, battlesuits can only fire one weapon system.

It's not defining them as "two ranged weapons" which is what the BRB deals with, it's saying they are two "battlesuit weapon systems", a battlesuit weapon system is something entirely internalised by the Tau Codex, the only time where a battlesuit weapon system is relevant is for the multi-tracker and the battlesuit rule which says "All models with battlesuits must take a number of battlesuit weapons and/or support systems, as detailed in their army list entry."

If you choose to buy the twin linked weapon systems, you may still fire them, because the BRB says a twin linked weapon counts as a single weapon which re-rolls the to-hit dice, but they take up two slots on a battlesuit, and by RAW if you take a multi-tracker it offers no benefit because you are already firing two "battlesuit weapon systems" by firing the single twin-linked weapon.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Ridcully wrote:@Drunkenspleen: As it's defining twin-linked weapons for battlesuits as 'counting as two weapon systems', virtually saying the opposite of p31 BRB, this would overrule BRBs definition of a twin-linked weapon in general. Without the aide of a multi-tracker, battlesuits can only fire one weapon system.

It's not defining them as "two ranged weapons" which is what the BRB deals with, it's saying they are two "battlesuit weapon systems", a battlesuit weapon system is something entirely internalised by the Tau Codex, the only time where a battlesuit weapon system is relevant is for the multi-tracker and the battlesuit rule which says "All models with battlesuits must take a number of battlesuit weapons and/or support systems, as detailed in their army list entry."

If you choose to buy the twin linked weapon systems, you may still fire them, because the BRB says a twin linked weapon counts as a single weapon which re-rolls the to-hit dice, but they take up two slots on a battlesuit, and by RAW if you take a multi-tracker it offers no benefit because you are already firing two "battlesuit weapon systems" by firing the single twin-linked weapon.

I'll concede that, yes.

Ridcully wrote:I'm not sure what you guys are talking about with the "railgun not being a weapon" thing. As far as i'm concerned, it is a weapon and listed as such in the armoury. My point was just expanding on the multi-tracker RAW issue, which states that it can be used to fire two weapon systems. The RAW of twin-linked weapon systems clearly say that twin-linked weapons count as two systems. Therefore a broadside can't fire his Railgun (which counts as two systems) unless he purchases a multi-tracker.

A team of 3 broadsides with A.S.S would therefore only have one member capable of firing the tl-railgun by RAW, as he can buy a hard-wired multi-tracker, which shows why no one plays the RAW. Broadsides are what show the RAW to be definitively false because they are bought with twin-linked weapons.

A twin linked weapon counts as two weapon systems for the point of only having three support systems but nowhere does it say that firing a twin-linked weapon counts as firing two seperate weapons. Firing a twin-linked weapon has always and will always count as firing a single weapon. Sometimes the RAW crowd around here seems to want to purposely break the game.

augustus5 wrote:Sometimes the RAW crowd around here seems to want to purposely break the game.

augustus5 wrote:Sometimes the RAW crowd around here seems to want to purposely break the game.

How can we break the game when it is GW who writes it?

Gwar! wrote:

augustus5 wrote:Sometimes the RAW crowd around here seems to want to purposely break the game.

How can we break the game when it is GW who writes it?

I bet they have less arguments than us too.

Obviously they have less arguments.

1. They play for fun and thus choose the most scenematic solution for any problems.

2. They can just nip into the office next door and ask the designer.