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.

That's interesting, but my gaming group of 10+ definitely seems to disagree with that

If I tried it, I might get a swift punch to the stomach

I'm fragile, so would like to avoid it.

So when a Tank makes a shooting attack in your group, it can only fire 1 weapon?

Sure, dude. Go ahead an puppetmaster that Baneblade.

Have fun explaining to the kid that you get to fire every weapon on the vehicle. I'll be off to the side.

I almost said Boneblade. Damn you, Boneblade!

Fragile wrote:
"a shooting attack" references the ability of a unit to shoot during its shooting phase. It does not mean a single attack.

Ahriman can "manifest three Witchfire powers in the same Shooting phase...." So his Shooting attack can consist of 3 witchfires instead of one.

Seriously though if GW took a bit more care in their writing/language use this wouldn't even come up.

Do I make a close combat attack if my profile says I have 3, or do I make close combat attacks?

nosferatu1001 wrote: it is one shooting attack with two weapons

Can you explain why you think this?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tangent wrote:

toxic_wisdom wrote:A good reference (pg49 - FMCs / Grounded Tests)

"...suffers one or more hits from a unit's Shooting attack..."

Great find but I don't think it helps much in this instance, unless I'm missing something that you could explain.

The unit owns the shooting attack - which can include more than one weapon.

I'm looking for a page number where it says that, but I can't find one.

Fragile wrote:""During the Shooting phase,a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks.""

""When a vehicle fires, it uses its own Ballistic Skill characteristic, and shoots like any other unit.""

There are a variety of other places that refer to Shooting Attacks from a unit... Out of Range/LOS. etc..

Yeah, I agree. Lots of other places. But none of this defines a shooting attack as being, essentially, one-per-model (regardless of how many weapons that model possesses or fires).

Fragile wrote:"a shooting attack" references the ability of a unit to shoot during its shooting phase. It does not mean a single attack.

Ahriman can "manifest three Witchfire powers in the same Shooting phase...." So his Shooting attack can consist of 3 witchfires instead of one.

You speak of a reference here... page number? I'm looking for an actual reference, oddly enough.

Fragile wrote:So when a Tank makes a shooting attack in your group, it can only fire 1 weapon?

That depends on how many weapons the tank has. If it has 1 weapon, then it can only make one shooting attack. If it has 2 weapons, then it can make 2 shooting attacks. Etc. The rules support either interpretation, in my opinion, unless there's a sentence somewhere in the rulebook that I'm missing which suggests one over the other.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Fragile wrote:
"a shooting attack" references the ability of a unit to shoot during its shooting phase. It does not mean a single attack.

Ahriman can "manifest three Witchfire powers in the same Shooting phase...." So his Shooting attack can consist of 3 witchfires instead of one.

Seriously though if GW took a bit more care in their writing/language use this wouldn't even come up.

Do I make a close combat attack if my profile says I have 3, or do I make close combat attacks?

Good question.

I should say that I benefit from most of your opinions on this, as I play Chaos, am always trying to get Puppet Master, and use very few vehicles. It's just that I honestly don't see a reference or a suggestion from the rules as written that this should be resolved in one way or another, and both viewpoints could be equally interpreted from what's written in the BRB.

As far as I can see, unfortunatly there is no way to get a RAW interpetation here.

Ok this is semi related, but puppet master is a focused witchfire, which requires you to roll 5 or under to manifest in order to actually hit your target with it. Otherwise it randomly selects another model in the unit. What happens if you roll... say... a 6 to manifest against a single vehicle?

It tryed to randomly select another model in the unit. There isn't one, so it hits the vehicle.

You are correct Tangent, there is no explicit definition of a "shooting attack".

Out of Range: As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the Shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range.

OUT OF SIGHT: If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends.

Empty Wound Pool:: When the Wound pool is empty, the shooting attack has been completely resolved. You can begin your next shooting attack, or proceed to the Assault phase

Note all of these reference the shooting attack of a unit. It makes no distinction about how many weapons are fired in the unit and the term shooting attack is singular in every case, despite talking about multiple shots...

 Niiai wrote:
It tryed to randomly select another model in the unit. There isn't one, so it hits the vehicle.

If the total is greater than 5 and the Psychic test is passed,randomly select a different rnodel in the same unit for the power to be resolved against.

Emphasis mine. Anyway, not relevant to current discussion.

I can see places where "a shooting attack" is used as a singular and as a plural, and this is different than the way they refer to "close combat attacks". So I don't see a clear answer; but it makes me wonder about the implications of USR's. Note the wording of rules like Armour/Fleshbane Poison, Shred, et al. "If a model makes a shooting attack... [they gain stated advantage]." It does not state that the dice for one specific weapon will gain any advantage, the shooting attack has the quality.

Therefor if a shooting attack is a singular item, using as many weapons as the rules permit you to fire (two for MC's; all for a stationary vehicle; etc), then all shots from all guns are one shooting attack. If any gun used in this single shooting attack has a USR worded as such, ALL shots from ALL guns would benefit from the USR in question.

If each weapon that a model uses is making it's own separate shooting attack, then that would not be the case.

Huh NeoParn. That is actualy a good catch. However I do think it is clear that this is a level of linguistics that GW just was not prepeared for.

If my razorwing fighter is shooting two rockets and a poisongun I do not think my oponent would allow my rockets to have the poisen rule.

Fragile wrote:You are correct Tangent, there is no explicit definition of a "shooting attack".

Out of Range: As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the Shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range.

OUT OF SIGHT: If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends.

Empty Wound Pool:: When the Wound pool is empty, the shooting attack has been completely resolved. You can begin your next shooting attack, or proceed to the Assault phase

Note all of these reference the shooting attack of a unit. It makes no distinction about how many weapons are fired in the unit and the term shooting attack is singular in every case, despite talking about multiple shots...

Each of these could be referring to a unit consisting of a single model with a single gun that fires multiple shots and be just as valid.

NeoParn wrote:I can see places where "a shooting attack" is used as a singular and as a plural, and this is different than the way they refer to "close combat attacks". So I don't see a clear answer; but it makes me wonder about the implications of USR's. Note the wording of rules like Armour/Fleshbane Poison, Shred, et al. "If a model makes a shooting attack... [they gain stated advantage]." It does not state that the dice for one specific weapon will gain any advantage, the shooting attack has the quality.

Therefor if a shooting attack is a singular item, using as many weapons as the rules permit you to fire (two for MC's; all for a stationary vehicle; etc), then all shots from all guns are one shooting attack. If any gun used in this single shooting attack has a USR worded as such, ALL shots from ALL guns would benefit from the USR in question.

If each weapon that a model uses is making it's own separate shooting attack, then that would not be the case.

Now THIS is a good point. The USRs seem to consider each gun as making its own separate shooting attack. I need to get home and take a look at my BRB, but this is the most convincing point I've seen so far.

Niiai wrote:Huh NeoParn. That is actualy a good catch. However I do think it is clear that this is a level of linguistics that GW just was not prepeared for.

If my razorwing fighter is shooting two rockets and a poisongun I do not think my oponent would allow my rockets to have the poisen rule.

Well of course not, but the point (of which I'm sure you're aware) is that if all other wording regarding "shooting attacks" in the BRB could be either singular or plural (which calls the definition of "shooting attack" into question) and the wording used with USRs is universally one or the other, then that heavily suggests that all shooting attacks should be considered in a certain way. In this case, it is that each gun makes its own shooting attack, regardless of the number of dice, models, or weapons being fired.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jms40k wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
It tryed to randomly select another model in the unit. There isn't one, so it hits the vehicle.

If the total is greater than 5 and the Psychic test is passed,randomly select a different rnodel in the same unit for the power to be resolved against.

Emphasis mine. Anyway, not relevant to current discussion.

It is generally accepted that targeting a unit consisting of a single model with a focused witchfire power will always be resolved against that model regardless of whether or not your psychic test is a 5 or less. You're right about the wording being odd, but I also think that this is probably how focused witchfire powers were intended to work.

Kevin949 struck gold!:

"It does define it, "The Shooting Sequence". Also, directly above that chart is the sentence "Once you have completed steps 1 through 5 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack..."

Pretty clearly defined there, Niiai. "

This means that rending probably is headed for an erate or a faq, puppet master is awsome and MC's can overwatch with all their guns. :-)

What I don't like about Puppetmaster is there is no limit to the number of times per turn this can be done to a single unit.

A friend of mine ran a Tyranid list that ended up having 4 models with puppetmaster. He promptly proceeded to have my defiler fire 4 times in his turn while I could only use it once per turn in mine. While legal RAW, it sure felt wrong. You could almost say, I felt .... wait for it.... defiled.

NeoParn wrote:
I can see places where "a shooting attack" is used as a singular and as a plural, and this is different than the way they refer to "close combat attacks". So I don't see a clear answer; but it makes me wonder about the implications of USR's. Note the wording of rules like Armour/Fleshbane Poison, Shred, et al. "If a model makes a shooting attack... [they gain stated advantage]." It does not state that the dice for one specific weapon will gain any advantage, the shooting attack has the quality.

Therefor if a shooting attack is a singular item, using as many weapons as the rules permit you to fire (two for MC's; all for a stationary vehicle; etc), then all shots from all guns are one shooting attack. If any gun used in this single shooting attack has a USR worded as such, ALL shots from ALL guns would benefit from the USR in question.

If each weapon that a model uses is making it's own separate shooting attack, then that would not be the case.

The following is direct quote from the Poison USR, "Similarly,if a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has the Poisoned special rule, it always wounds on a fixed number." In this sentence, "it" is an object pronoun referencing the weapon, not a subject pronoun referencing the model making the attack. NeoParn has redacted the relevant part of the USR from his argument. The wording is nearly identical in all the other referenced USRs. So, regardless of whether "shooting attack" references a single weapon being fired, or multiple weapons, you would only gain the benefit of the USR when firing a weapon that had that rule. It's also prudent to note that these USRs only reference the impact they have on melee attacks made by models bearing these rules, further implying that, in the shooting phase, Armourbane, Rending, etc., are a function of the specific weapon being fired, not the model firing the weapon. These rules are not impacted by ambiguity on what is or is not a shooting attack, nor are the impacted by the ambiguity of whether or not the term is singular or plural.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In regards to MC's in Overwatch "Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase." Overwatch shots are not fired during the Shooting phase, so their special permission to fire multiple weapons does not apply. Finally, puppet master is hella ambiguous and does need an FAQ to cover multiple weapons, and not just for vehicles, what about models carrying two pistols and the Gunslinger rule?

alienvalentine - This line from overwatch disagrees with you

"An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack
(albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase) and uses
all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and
so on."

 Kevin949 wrote:
alienvalentine - This line from overwatch disagrees with you

"An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack
(albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase) and uses
all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and
so on."

I'm pretty sure the underlined section of this quote actually proves my point. The MC's attack is being resolved in the enemy's assault phase. MCs have special permission to fire two weapons during each shooting phase. The normal rule for range, line of sight, cover saves, and so on, dictate that one model may only fire one weapon. The MC's special permission to fire multiple weapons would not apply in this situation, as the attack is not being resolved in a shooting phase.

 alienvalentine wrote:

The following is direct quote from the Poison USR, "Similarly,if a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has the Poisoned special rule, it always wounds on a fixed number." In this sentence, "it" is an object pronoun referencing the weapon, not a subject pronoun referencing the model making the attack. NeoParn has redacted the relevant part of the USR from his argument. The wording is nearly identical in all the other referenced USRs.

Fleshbane seems to be the exception here, which was the rule I was most familiar with. That led me to skim over the "it" in the other USR's assuming the wording to be uniform on "they"

PPg. 35 Fleshbane: second paragraph
Similarly, if a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has this special rule, they always wound on a 2+.

Armorbane, Poison, and Shread are written with an "it". Interestingly Rending is written a third different way, which is why left it off my first list.

Pg. 41 Rending: second paragraph
Similarly, if a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has the Rending special rule, a To Wound roll of 6 wounds automatically, regardless of Toughness, and is resolved at AP 2.

 alienvalentine wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
alienvalentine - This line from overwatch disagrees with you

"An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack
(albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase) and uses
all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and
so on."

I'm pretty sure the underlined section of this quote actually proves my point. The MC's attack is being resolved in the enemy's assault phase. MCs have special permission to fire two weapons during each shooting phase. The normal rule for range, line of sight, cover saves, and so on, dictate that one model may only fire one weapon. The MC's special permission to fire multiple weapons would not apply in this situation, as the attack is not being resolved in a shooting phase.

So would you say that walkers only get to fire one weapon for overwatch as well? Or those terminators that can fire storm bolters and another weapon?

 Kevin949 wrote:

 alienvalentine wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
alienvalentine - This line from overwatch disagrees with you

"An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack
(albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase) and uses
all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and
so on."

I'm pretty sure the underlined section of this quote actually proves my point. The MC's attack is being resolved in the enemy's assault phase. MCs have special permission to fire two weapons during each shooting phase. The normal rule for range, line of sight, cover saves, and so on, dictate that one model may only fire one weapon. The MC's special permission to fire multiple weapons would not apply in this situation, as the attack is not being resolved in a shooting phase.

So would you say that walkers only get to fire one weapon for overwatch as well? Or those terminators that can fire storm bolters and another weapon?

Good point, I hadn't really given that much thought. It's hard to point to specific rules either way here, since there's only one line in the "Shooting with Walkers" section that gives them permission to fire overwatch at all. and the rules regarding shooting with vehicles only restricts how many weapons they may shoot at full BS references the shooting phase specifically. Since overwatch is always resolved at BS1, that section doesn't really help us either. I think this question is ripe for an FAQ. As far as the terminators, I'm not familiar with those, do you know what codex they're in?

 alienvalentine wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

 alienvalentine wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
alienvalentine - This line from overwatch disagrees with you

"An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack
(albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase) and uses
all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and
so on."

I'm pretty sure the underlined section of this quote actually proves my point. The MC's attack is being resolved in the enemy's assault phase. MCs have special permission to fire two weapons during each shooting phase. The normal rule for range, line of sight, cover saves, and so on, dictate that one model may only fire one weapon. The MC's special permission to fire multiple weapons would not apply in this situation, as the attack is not being resolved in a shooting phase.

So would you say that walkers only get to fire one weapon for overwatch as well? Or those terminators that can fire storm bolters and another weapon?

Good point, I hadn't really given that much thought. It's hard to point to specific rules either way here, since there's only one line in the "Shooting with Walkers" section that gives them permission to fire overwatch at all. and the rules regarding shooting with vehicles only restricts how many weapons they may shoot at full BS references the shooting phase specifically. Since overwatch is always resolved at BS1, that section doesn't really help us either. I think this question is ripe for an FAQ. As far as the terminators, I'm not familiar with those, do you know what codex they're in?

Shooting with walkers section defines them being able to fire with all weapons in the shooting phase. Since vehicles can't fire overwatch, walkers override this, but are only able to shoot in the shooting phase at all, what you propose would put them in a pseudo limbo state not allowing to fire anything on overwatch even though they have permission to.

The references to "a normal shooting attack" for overwatch (including the "and so on" reference for it) does denote you should follow the rules for a normal shooting attack for the type of model doing the shooting. SM bikes with passengers would also be limited to one weapon, otherwise.

I do get where you're coming from, and it's poor ambiguous writing on GW's part to include "shooting phase" in certain sections of the rules that would contradict other areas (such as we're discussing).

NeoParn wrote:

 alienvalentine wrote:

The following is direct quote from the Poison USR, "Similarly,if a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has the Poisoned special rule, it always wounds on a fixed number." In this sentence, "it" is an object pronoun referencing the weapon, not a subject pronoun referencing the model making the attack. NeoParn has redacted the relevant part of the USR from his argument. The wording is nearly identical in all the other referenced USRs.

Fleshbane seems to be the exception here, which was the rule I was most familiar with. That led me to skim over the "it" in the other USR's assuming the wording to be uniform on "they"

PPg. 35 Fleshbane: second paragraph
Similarly, if a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has this special rule, they always wound on a 2+.

Armorbane, Poison, and Shread are written with an "it". Interestingly Rending is written a third different way, which is why left it off my first list.

Pg. 41 Rending: second paragraph
Similarly, if a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has the Rending special rule, a To Wound roll of 6 wounds automatically, regardless of Toughness, and is resolved at AP 2.

Good catch on Fleshbane, I'd missed that one. Right now I'm pretty sure it's an academic argument, since I can't think of anything that has a fleshbane ranged weapon, some other kind of ranged, permission, and the ability to fire both in the same shooting phase, which is the only way that this would work. Ditto with rending. I know this is a little off the point but look at this question in the GK FAQ:

"Q: Does a Nemesis Dreadknight armed with a Nemesis greatsword have
4 Attacks at Strength 10 that, because of the Nemesis greatsword, can
re-roll To Hit, To Wound and Armour Penetration rolls?(p54)
A: Yes."

In this case the FAQ indicates that a Nemesis Dreadknight benefits from both it's Nemesis Doomfist, and it's Nemesis Greatsword's special rules. Granted this is in close combat, and they're specific special weapons not USRs, but it does give us an idea of how GW might rule on something like this.

Nevermind, responded to fast. LoL Reading fail.

 Kevin949 wrote:

 alienvalentine wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

 alienvalentine wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
alienvalentine - This line from overwatch disagrees with you

"An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack
(albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase) and uses
all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and
so on."

I'm pretty sure the underlined section of this quote actually proves my point. The MC's attack is being resolved in the enemy's assault phase. MCs have special permission to fire two weapons during each shooting phase. The normal rule for range, line of sight, cover saves, and so on, dictate that one model may only fire one weapon. The MC's special permission to fire multiple weapons would not apply in this situation, as the attack is not being resolved in a shooting phase.

So would you say that walkers only get to fire one weapon for overwatch as well? Or those terminators that can fire storm bolters and another weapon?

Good point, I hadn't really given that much thought. It's hard to point to specific rules either way here, since there's only one line in the "Shooting with Walkers" section that gives them permission to fire overwatch at all. and the rules regarding shooting with vehicles only restricts how many weapons they may shoot at full BS references the shooting phase specifically. Since overwatch is always resolved at BS1, that section doesn't really help us either. I think this question is ripe for an FAQ. As far as the terminators, I'm not familiar with those, do you know what codex they're in?

Shooting with walkers section defines them being able to fire with all weapons in the shooting phase. Since vehicles can't fire overwatch, walkers override this, but are only able to shoot in the shooting phase at all, what you propose would put them in a pseudo limbo state not allowing to fire anything on overwatch even though they have permission to.

The references to "a normal shooting attack" for overwatch (including the "and so on" reference for it) does denote you should follow the rules for a normal shooting attack for the type of model doing the shooting. SM bikes with passengers would also be limited to one weapon, otherwise.

I do get where you're coming from, and it's poor ambiguous writing on GW's part to include "shooting phase" in certain sections of the rules that would contradict other areas (such as we're discussing).

I actually looked at bikes as well before I made an earlier post. From the bikes and jet bikes section:

"Each Bike or Jetbike in a unit can fire
with one weapon for each rider on the
Bike. Thus a Space Marine Attack Bike
with a driver and passenger in sidecar
can fire two weapons."

Here, they don't state that they can only fire one weapon for each rider in the shooting phase, it just says they can fire one weapon for each rider. I don't know if you're familiar with The Rules Lawyer's blog http://www.theruleslawyers.com/tag/40k/ but I really like the approach that they take. One of the principles of interpretation is known as the Superfluous language canon, which states "Do not interpret a rule in such a way that makes some of the language inoperative, superfluous, void, or insignificant." I'm inclined to believe that, the inclusion or omission of references to the shooting phase has meaning, though, I will admit, it could just be sloppy writing on GW's part. As far as walkers and overwatch go, I think we can both agree that they can fire overwatch, but how many weapons they can fire is unclear.

I agree that it does probably have meaning, and I would be shocked if they meant it the way it is written. Though with their treatment of nids lately I guess it shouldn't be a surprise, but this would also be a blow to their beloved marines and they're not want to do that, I've noticed.

SO my input based on the RAW:

Page 423 says "...makes a shooting attack..." singular. One gun.

I know that's probably been covered, but as it says singular there, I would roll one gun.

 Rimmy wrote:
SO my input based on the RAW:

Page 423 says "...makes a shooting attack..." singular. One gun.

I know that's probably been covered, but as it says singular there, I would roll one gun.

A shooting attack is defined on pg 12. During which a MC can fire two weapons.