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.

When I see "resolve the first... before... the second" I assume that means the entire Shooting Sequence

See, I see exactly the opposite. "Resolve" is a specific step in the Shooting Phase, specifically step 4, containing the Hit/Wound/Allocate/Save/Damage cycle. When I see "resolve the first... before... the second" I read it as do steps 1-3 as normal, step 4 once then step 4 again.

It is, but let me quote the whole portion real quick.


"Resolve the first shooting attack completely before resolving the second."

Emphasis mine. To me, this says that I need to do EVERY part of the first set of firing BEFORE moving on to the second. But I can see how it can be interpreted differently.

And to me it says to carry out all of the Resolve step for the first before moving on to the second. I see why you might interpret it otherwise, but the use of the word "resolve" seems specific. It could just has easily have said "The first shooting attack sequence is completed before the second" (but it didn't!).

dode74 wrote:
And to me it says to carry out all of the Resolve step for the first before moving on to the second. I see why you might interpret it otherwise, but the use of the word "resolve" seems specific. It could just has easily have said "The first shooting attack sequence is completed before the second" (but it didn't!).

Resolve is a term that is regularly used in the rules more generally, and so we shouldn't assume they are specifically referring to the step unless the rule specifically says so.

Nor is it reasonable to assume they mean something other than the specific meaning when using that term, particularly when there is another term (sequence) which has an equally specific meaning which could be applied. It's a case of unclear rules writing, for sure.

dode74 wrote:
Nor is it reasonable to assume they mean something other than the specific meaning when using that term, particularly when there is another term (sequence) which has an equally specific meaning which could be applied. It's a case of unclear rules writing, for sure.

They could be clearer, as ever with GW. But I do not believe your interpretation is reasonable, all things considered.

And I don't think your interpretation is reasonable

In all honesty, I can see both being considered reasonable due to of the lack of clarity and the use of specific wording. I'd probably roll off on which interpretation to use in-game.

dode74 wrote:
And I don't think your interpretation is reasonable

In all honesty, I can see both being considered reasonable due to of the lack of clarity and the use of specific wording. I'd probably roll off on which interpretation to use in-game.

Clearly it says "Resolve the first shooting attack completely before resolving the second."

So just resolving a step is not a valid interpretation. And as such your interpretation is not reasonable .

 DeathReaper wrote:

dode74 wrote:
And I don't think your interpretation is reasonable

In all honesty, I can see both being considered reasonable due to of the lack of clarity and the use of specific wording. I'd probably roll off on which interpretation to use in-game.

Clearly it says "Resolve the first shooting attack completely before resolving the second."

So just resolving a step is not a valid interpretation. And as such your interpretation is not reasonable .

Agreed, I really don't understand how you could possibly read this as only resolving one step...

 Stux wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

dode74 wrote:
And I don't think your interpretation is reasonable

In all honesty, I can see both being considered reasonable due to of the lack of clarity and the use of specific wording. I'd probably roll off on which interpretation to use in-game.

Clearly it says "Resolve the first shooting attack completely before resolving the second."

So just resolving a step is not a valid interpretation. And as such your interpretation is not reasonable .

Agreed, I really don't understand how you could possibly read this as only resolving one step...

Given that step is actually called the "Resolve attacks"
Consisting of hit, wound allocation saving throws and damage.
This very much is GW apparently lacking any consistenty in rule wording, but then again this is also the edition that uses wound to mean 3 different things so GW logic?

I still don't see how anyone thinks that language gives you permission to select the unit to shoot twice with the complete shooting sequence.

However at this point 8th edition with all it's FAQ's and FAQ's for the FAQ and the FAQ's that are rewriting rules because they didn't work, I just wish GW cared as much about the rules as the player's.

It gives you permission to select the unit to shoot twice with the complete shooting sequence because it says to Resolve the first shooting attack completely... And a shooting attack includes choosing a unit to shoot with, and target selection.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

dode74 wrote:
And I don't think your interpretation is reasonable

In all honesty, I can see both being considered reasonable due to of the lack of clarity and the use of specific wording. I'd probably roll off on which interpretation to use in-game.

Clearly it says "Resolve the first shooting attack completely before resolving the second."

So just resolving a step is not a valid interpretation. And as such your interpretation is not reasonable .

Agreed, I really don't understand how you could possibly read this as only resolving one step...

Given that step is actually called the "Resolve attacks"
Consisting of hit, wound allocation saving throws and damage.
This very much is GW apparently lacking any consistenty in rule wording, but then again this is also the edition that uses wound to mean 3 different things so GW logic?

I still don't see how anyone thinks that language gives you permission to select the unit to shoot twice with the complete shooting sequence.

However at this point 8th edition with all it's FAQ's and FAQ's for the FAQ and the FAQ's that are rewriting rules because they didn't work, I just wish GW cared as much about the rules as the player's.

It gives you permission to select the unit to shoot twice with the complete shooting sequence because it says to Resolve the first shooting attack completely... And a shooting attack includes choosing a unit to shoot with, and target selection.

That's you interpretation of GW not being able to consistently word rules in such a way that it's not ambiguous.
I don't see anything in their rules that allows you to select the unit twice. If yoyr interpretation is correct then why are all the fight twice or shoot again strategums worded differently with "select a unit" bypassing the limitation on selecting a unit twice?

But this is also the edition where you can't select a unit with assualt weapons to fire them after they advanced so roll on a properly play tested 9th edition.

Ice_can wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

dode74 wrote:
And I don't think your interpretation is reasonable

In all honesty, I can see both being considered reasonable due to of the lack of clarity and the use of specific wording. I'd probably roll off on which interpretation to use in-game.

Clearly it says "Resolve the first shooting attack completely before resolving the second."

So just resolving a step is not a valid interpretation. And as such your interpretation is not reasonable .

Agreed, I really don't understand how you could possibly read this as only resolving one step...

Given that step is actually called the "Resolve attacks"
Consisting of hit, wound allocation saving throws and damage.
This very much is GW apparently lacking any consistenty in rule wording, but then again this is also the edition that uses wound to mean 3 different things so GW logic?

I still don't see how anyone thinks that language gives you permission to select the unit to shoot twice with the complete shooting sequence.

However at this point 8th edition with all it's FAQ's and FAQ's for the FAQ and the FAQ's that are rewriting rules because they didn't work, I just wish GW cared as much about the rules as the player's.

It gives you permission to select the unit to shoot twice with the complete shooting sequence because it says to Resolve the first shooting attack completely... And a shooting attack includes choosing a unit to shoot with, and target selection.

That's you interpretation of GW not being able to consistently word rules in such a way that it's not ambiguous.
I don't see anything in their rules that allows you to select the unit twice. If yoyr interpretation is correct then why are all the fight twice or shoot again strategums worded differently with "select a unit" bypassing the limitation on selecting a unit twice?

But this is also the edition where you can't select a unit with assualt weapons to fire them after they advanced so roll on a properly play tested 9th edition.

"Resolve the first shooting attack completely..."

If you do not go through all of the steps of the shooting attack, have you completely resolved said shooting attack? (Hint the answer is no).

 DeathReaper wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

dode74 wrote:
And I don't think your interpretation is reasonable

In all honesty, I can see both being considered reasonable due to of the lack of clarity and the use of specific wording. I'd probably roll off on which interpretation to use in-game.

Clearly it says "Resolve the first shooting attack completely before resolving the second."

So just resolving a step is not a valid interpretation. And as such your interpretation is not reasonable .

Agreed, I really don't understand how you could possibly read this as only resolving one step...

Given that step is actually called the "Resolve attacks"
Consisting of hit, wound allocation saving throws and damage.
This very much is GW apparently lacking any consistenty in rule wording, but then again this is also the edition that uses wound to mean 3 different things so GW logic?

I still don't see how anyone thinks that language gives you permission to select the unit to shoot twice with the complete shooting sequence.

However at this point 8th edition with all it's FAQ's and FAQ's for the FAQ and the FAQ's that are rewriting rules because they didn't work, I just wish GW cared as much about the rules as the player's.

It gives you permission to select the unit to shoot twice with the complete shooting sequence because it says to Resolve the first shooting attack completely... And a shooting attack includes choosing a unit to shoot with, and target selection.

That's you interpretation of GW not being able to consistently word rules in such a way that it's not ambiguous.
I don't see anything in their rules that allows you to select the unit twice. If yoyr interpretation is correct then why are all the fight twice or shoot again strategums worded differently with "select a unit" bypassing the limitation on selecting a unit twice?

But this is also the edition where you can't select a unit with assualt weapons to fire them after they advanced so roll on a properly play tested 9th edition.

"Resolve the first shooting attack completely..."

If you do not go through all of the steps of the shooting attack, have you completely resolved said shooting attack? (Hint the answer is no).

Define shooting attack as it's not actually used in the rules, the rules only reference attack.

I believe your talking about the shooting sequence, Resolve attack is a subset of the shooting sequence it's not the complete shooting sequence.

Shooting Sequence
1 Choose Unit
2 Choose Target
3 Choose Weapon
4 Resolve Attacks
-1 hit roll
-2 wound roll
-3 allocate wound
-4 Saving throws
-5 inflict damage

Did GW mean Resolve attack completely to mean hit, wound, save, damage( I think so) or as you interpretation did they mean the whole shooting sequence?

Simply put if your going to pull it in an event don't be shocked if someone called for a judge.
In an friendly game be prepared to dice it off.
If you feel passionately about it try getting GW to write the rules to be clearer.

To me “resolve... completely” suggests donthe whole Shooting sequence, all steps, before doing it the second time. It’s simply the most obvious way to parse the sentence.

There are two parts that make me think you choose targets separately for each set of attacks.

First: GW felt the need to state that the attacks are done "back to back". This implies that they wanted the second set of firing to be completely separated from the second set. Otherwise, they'd just have said "resolve this extra shooting as if your unit was firing with a second weapon". Normal shooting is already done "back to back" when you have a unit that can target multiple units.

Second: As I stated, and others have, it says to "resolve the first set completely before the second." To me, this means you go through the entire sequence for the first set before moving on to the second. This statement would be unneeded if the shooting operated "as normal" (see above.)

Ice_can wrote:

Define shooting attack as it's not actually used in the rules, the rules only reference attack.

The FAQ defines it though:

"Q: If a unit has an ability that allows it to ‘shoot twice’ (e.g. Maugan Ra’s Whirlwind of Death ability, or an Aggressor Squad’s Fire Storm ability), do I need to shoot the same target each time or can I choose different targets? Do I need to resolve these two shooting attacks back to back?

A: Unless otherwise stated, you can shoot different targets each time it shoots. The attacks are resolved back to back – resolve the first shooting attack completely before resolving the second."

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/warhammer_40000_rulebook_en.pdf

As you can see they say "Do I need to resolve these two shooting attacks back to back?" and then go on to say ..."you can shoot different targets each time it shoots... resolve the first shooting attack completely"

So they define shooting attack (or two shooting attacks) as running through the entire shooting sequence as a shooting attack.

Therefore your argument is incorrect.

Simply put if your going to pull it in an event don't be shocked if someone called for a judge.

They shouldn't call for a judge, because the way I have explained is the correct way to resolve it.

In an friendly game be prepared to dice it off.

Nope, not gonna just let an opponent dice off for every rule he doesn't like just because he claims they are not clear, when they are clear.

I think your assigning of precedence of the FAQ over the core rules is incorrect however and it goes against everyone I have ever played againsts interruption of how the rule works or atleast did ubtill GW FAQ'd it into this ambiguity.

Why GW insist on answering dumb questions that cause more arguments instead of addressing actually broken rules interactions I don't know.

Your stating that your position is irrefutable while it still relys upon interpreting a FAQ sentence to allow you to brake the core rules.

You can follow the shooting sequence for the unit once declairing all targets while firing the second set of shooting at a different target while still resolving attacks back to back.
You interpretation seems to be trying to use a sentence out of the FAQ to break the core rules of that only allow you to select the unit to shoot once. Nothing in the aggressors rule allows you to select the unit a second time.

Ice_can wrote:
I think your assigning of precedence of the FAQ over the core rules is incorrect however and it goes against everyone I have ever played againsts interruption of how the rule works or atleast did ubtill GW FAQ'd it into this ambiguity.

Why GW insist on answering dumb questions that cause more arguments instead of addressing actually broken rules interactions I don't know.

Your stating that your position is irrefutable while it still relys upon interpreting a FAQ sentence to allow you to brake the core rules.

You can follow the shooting sequence for the unit once declairing all targets while firing the second set of shooting at a different target while still resolving attacks back to back.
You interpretation seems to be trying to use a sentence out of the FAQ to break the core rules of that only allow you to select the unit to shoot once.

I am not "assigning of precedence of the FAQ over the core rules" And it is not the FAQ that breaks "the core rules of that only allow you to select the unit to shoot once" it is the Fire Storm rule.

Nothing in the aggressors rule allows you to select the unit a second time.

Except for the Fire Storm rule that allows them to 'shoot twice'.

By them being able to shoot twice, they can indeed shoot twice... Shooting is the whole of the section and it encompasses every step in the shooting sequence.

Think of it this way, what do you do when a unit shoots once?

Then do that again. That is literally what 'shoot twice' means.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
I think your assigning of precedence of the FAQ over the core rules is incorrect however and it goes against everyone I have ever played againsts interruption of how the rule works or atleast did ubtill GW FAQ'd it into this ambiguity.

Why GW insist on answering dumb questions that cause more arguments instead of addressing actually broken rules interactions I don't know.

Your stating that your position is irrefutable while it still relys upon interpreting a FAQ sentence to allow you to brake the core rules.

You can follow the shooting sequence for the unit once declairing all targets while firing the second set of shooting at a different target while still resolving attacks back to back.
You interpretation seems to be trying to use a sentence out of the FAQ to break the core rules of that only allow you to select the unit to shoot once.

I am not "assigning of precedence of the FAQ over the core rules" And it is not the FAQ that breaks "the core rules of that only allow you to select the unit to shoot once" it is the Fire Storm rule.

Nothing in the aggressors rule allows you to select the unit a second time.

Except for the Fire Storm rule that allows them to 'shoot twice'.

By them being able to shoot twice, they can indeed shoot twice... Shooting is the whole of the section and it encompasses every step in the shooting sequence.

Think of it this way, what do you do when a unit shoots once?

Then do that again. That is literally what 'shoot twice' means.

Except firestorm never gave them permission to shoot twice, it only gives them permission to fire twice and GW had the wording of the shoot and fight again strategums down before the codex went to print so the difference in wording should be intentional.

Fire twice = Shoot twice

The FAQ equates them. (As does the BRB).

 DeathReaper wrote:
Fire twice = Shoot twice

The FAQ equates them.

Except in the core rules fire and shoot are not synonymous.
So you are saying the FAQ overrides the core rules.

It's another Instance of the FAQ writers not actually having checked the original rules or their being a unified design vision.

Your free to play it your way I'm keep playing it the way we always have and if it ever comes up in an event I would be calling a judge.

Ice_can wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Fire twice = Shoot twice

The FAQ equates them.

Except in the core rules fire and shoot are not synonymous.

Except they are.

Page 5 battle primer: "1. Choose Unit to Shoot With
In your Shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons. First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit. Unless otherwise stated, each model in the unit attacks with all of the ranged weapons it is armed with. After all of the unit’s models have fired, you can choose another unit to shoot with..." (Emphasis mine)

It literally says "First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with" and then later in that same section "After all of the unit’s models have fired"

Shoot = Fire. Therefore Shoot twice = Fire twice.

So you are saying the FAQ overrides the core rules.

FAQ's override the core rules all the time.

It's another Instance of the FAQ writers not actually having checked the original rules or their being a unified design vision.

that is your opinion.

Your free to play it your way I'm keep playing it the way we always have and if it ever comes up in an event I would be calling a judge.

I do not care if you house rule it, play it however you want, that does not change what the rules say though.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Page 5 battle primer: "1. Choose Unit to Shoot With
In your Shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons. First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit. Unless otherwise stated, each model in the unit attacks with all of the ranged weapons it is armed with. After all of the unit’s models have fired, you can choose another unit to shoot with..." (Emphasis mine)

It literally says "First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with" and then later in that same section "After all of the unit’s models have fired"

Shoot = Fire. Therefore Shoot twice = Fire twice.

Except your emhasis is changing the interpretation of the paragraph it's not as black and white as you think it is.

Choose Unit to Shoot With
In your Shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons.
First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with.
You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit.

Unless otherwise stated, each model in the unit attacks with all of the ranged weapons it is armed with. After all of the unit’s models have fired, you can choose another unit to shoot with..."

Unit's shoot models fire not synonymous.

Model shoots - fires all weapons - seems that shooting weapons is equated with firing weapons. You didn't disprove that at all with your statement.

Something gross that came to mind is that if "fire twice" and "shoot twice" are indeed exclusive concepts in 40k, then a model/unit with the ability to fire twice could use a Stratagem to shoot twice to effectively shoot 4 times.

 doctortom wrote:
Model shoots - fires all weapons - seems that shooting weapons is equated with firing weapons. You didn't disprove that at all with your statement.

It proves that they aren't interchangeable as was stated if something is doing another thing multiple times it's clearly not the same is it.

Shooting is the sequence done on a unit by unit basis, firing is attacks done on a weapon bt weapon basis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flandarz wrote:
Something gross that came to mind is that if "fire twice" and "shoot twice" are indeed exclusive concepts in 40k, then a model/unit with the ability to fire twice could use a Stratagem to shoot twice to effectively shoot 4 times.

That would explain why Loyalist marines didn't get something similar to endless cacophony strategum.

Ice_can wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Model shoots - fires all weapons - seems that shooting weapons is equated with firing weapons. You didn't disprove that at all with your statement.

It proves that they aren't interchangeable as was stated if something is doing another thing multiple times it's clearly not the same is it.

Shooting is the sequence done on a unit by unit basis, firing is attacks done on a weapon bt weapon basis.

Did you even pay attention to what you posted? The very first sentence after "Choose unit to shoot with" states "n your Shooting phase you can shoot with models[u]" That pretty much rules out saying that shooting is only a unit by unit basis since they also refer to models shooting.

 doctortom wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Model shoots - fires all weapons - seems that shooting weapons is equated with firing weapons. You didn't disprove that at all with your statement.

It proves that they aren't interchangeable as was stated if something is doing another thing multiple times it's clearly not the same is it.

Shooting is the sequence done on a unit by unit basis, firing is attacks done on a weapon bt weapon basis.

Did you even pay attention to what you posted? The very first sentence after "Choose unit to shoot with" states "n your Shooting phase you can shoot with models[u]" That pretty much rules out saying that shooting is only a unit by unit basis since they also refer to models shooting.

Exactly this.

Shooting weapons is equated with firing weapons in the BRB

They clearly are synonymous.

It's the certainty on display which makes me chuckle more than anything here...

Fact is that "shoot" and "fire" *might* be interchangeable. Fact is that "resolve attacks" *might* refer to the step or to the entire sequence. Fact is that nobody here actually knows, so claims for either one to be "unreasonable" is based solely on interpretation of an ambiguous RAW.