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.

 doctortom wrote:


This is a load of codswallop. You do NOT get to ignore how GW has used similar phrases elsewhere in the rulebook. YOU are the one ignoring rules in the BRBs and Codexes by ignoring these rules using similar phrases. This is all completely independent of when you fire a weapon, and you do NOT get to dismiss it on the basis of the shooting sequence. Deal with explaining away the similar usages in other areas of the rulebooks without bringing up the shooting sequence, as it is a more general issue there. By not dealing with it, you are tacitly admitting that you have no proper rebuttal for it.

I have not ignored GW use of similar phrases in the rulebook. I have shown that there are two occasions where the Dominus is "firing one of his weapons" and can therefore invoke the Master of Machines rule twice. The Master of Machines rule does not say "once per shooting phase".

 doctortom wrote:

But, let's talk about the shooting sequence. If you are given permission to do something else instead of firing one weapon, then you are NOT firing that one weapon, and therefor the shooting sequence does not need to be involved BECAUSE you are doing something INSTEAD of firing the weapon.

The Shooting Sequence has to be involved or otherwise you have no permission for the model of be "firing one of his weapons".

If you keep hand-waving away the rules in the BRB, your argument is invalid.

 doctortom wrote:

Run can happen at any time in the shooting phase instead of firing weapons - it doesn't matter if it's a unit or model action, you don't enter the shooting sequence to do something instead of firing weapons. This means your invoking the shooting sequence is again a red herring, and disproved through a different method. Now that it's doubly disproved, deal with both issues; bringing up the shooting sequence does not give you an excuse to ignore these or claim they are all invalid (here we show your claim of invalidity is in itself invalid).

The difference between UNIT or MODEL is always important in the rules.

If a unit opts to shoot, a model in that unit is not allowed to run.

If you can't keep UNIT separate from MODEL then your argument is invalid.

@col_impact going on your reading of the rule, I'd be able to use battle focus to enable my eldar to run twice in the shooting phase. I trust you would accept that, and from every Eldar player who you go up against?

 JamesY wrote:
@col_impact going on your reading of the rule, I'd be able to use battle focus to enable my eldar to run twice in the shooting phase. I trust you would accept that, and from every Eldar player who you go up against?

Feel free to present an actual argument here.

 JamesY wrote:
@col_impact going on your reading of the rule, I'd be able to use battle focus to enable my eldar to run twice in the shooting phase. I trust you would accept that, and from every Eldar player who you go up against?

In addition to that, Assault Terminators, Hormagaunts, and any number of units without any Shooting Weapon whatsoever would not be able to Run. Also, in order for any unit with a Ranged Weapon that wanted to Run would have to select a Target in Line of Sight in order to Run.

But this is classic for the Ignored One. Take one or two words, give them primacy over context and ignore all relevance, and calls it proper grammar.

It's a discussion forum, not a platform from which to argue. And for someone who has banged on for three pages about paying attention to the language used, I think you should be adequately capable of inferring my point.

 Charistoph wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
@col_impact going on your reading of the rule, I'd be able to use battle focus to enable my eldar to run twice in the shooting phase. I trust you would accept that, and from every Eldar player who you go up against?

In addition to that, Assault Terminators, Hormagaunts, and any number of units without any Shooting Weapon whatsoever would not be able to Run. Also, in order for any unit with a Ranged Weapon that wanted to Run would have to select a Target in Line of Sight in order to Run.

But this is classic for the Ignored One. Take one or two words, give them primacy over context and ignore all relevance, and calls it proper grammar.

The UNIT opts to not fire, ie to not make a shooting attack and to run instead. It breaks no requirements doing so. You are making a straw man argument and a bad one at that. A unit that has no shooting weapons can run instead of firing since it runs in place of firing and therefore does not need to meet any requirements for firing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JamesY wrote:
It's a discussion forum, not a platform from which to argue. And for someone who has banged on for three pages about paying attention to the language used, I think you should be adequately capable of inferring my point.

I can't read your mind. And if you can't bother articulating a point then it must be inconsequential.

You don't need to be a mind reader. You just need to say if you are unaware of the specifics of the battle focus rule.

It allows the model/unit to make both a run and shooting attack in the shooting phase. I could use your interpretation to initiate the shooting sequence once to make my run move, and then again, and use the run rules to opt for a second run move.

Far from inconsequential, if it means objective secured units moving up to 18" a turn.

 JamesY wrote:
You don't need to be a mind reader. You just need to say if you are unaware of the specifics of the battle focus rule.

It allows the model/unit to make both a run and shooting attack in the shooting phase. I could use your interpretation to initiate the shooting sequence once to make my run move, and then again, and use the run rules to opt for a second run move.

Far from inconsequential, if it means objective secured units moving up to 18" a turn.

As I have already stated, the shooting sequence is not involved in any way whatsoever for units that are choosing to run. Units that choose to run skip the Shooting Sequence entirely. In fact, the Shooting Sequence rules preclude this.




What I have said is that Dominus can only be "firing one of his weapons" in the context of the Shooting Sequence.

If you feel otherwise, point out how Dominus could be "firing one of his weapons" outside of the context of the Shooting Sequence. I await your response.

The battle focus rule overrides that and allows a running unit to shoot. By your logic, after the run, they enter the shooting sequence, and I can use the run rule to run again instead of shooting.

You haven't pointed out anything other than a single minded determination to deliberately misread a very clearly worded rule for your own benefit. I don't feel the need to repeat the accurate and valid points others have made that you will continue to ignore.

I'm not going to add any further, as the last word isn't necessarily the right word.

 JamesY wrote:
The battle focus rule overrides that and allows a running unit to shoot. By your logic, after the run, they enter the shooting sequence, and I can use the run rule to run again instead of shooting.

That's not my logic at all. A unit that has entered the Shooting Sequence cannot choose to run. The choice to either run or fire has at that point in time already been made for the unit. You simply have to read the rules to know that.




You have failed to address the actual issue. What is the precise point in the rules when Dominus can be "firing one of his weapons"?


I have proven that the occasion of Dominus "firing one of his weapons" happens twice in the Shooting Sequence; therefore, Master of Machines can be used twice.

As of yet, no one has disproven my argument.

 JamesY wrote:


I'm not going to add any further, as the last word isn't necessarily the right word.

Good. All you have done so far is produce a bad strawman argument that has nothing to do with the actual argument.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


This is a load of codswallop. You do NOT get to ignore how GW has used similar phrases elsewhere in the rulebook. YOU are the one ignoring rules in the BRBs and Codexes by ignoring these rules using similar phrases. This is all completely independent of when you fire a weapon, and you do NOT get to dismiss it on the basis of the shooting sequence. Deal with explaining away the similar usages in other areas of the rulebooks without bringing up the shooting sequence, as it is a more general issue there. By not dealing with it, you are tacitly admitting that you have no proper rebuttal for it.

I have not ignored GW use of similar phrases in the rulebook. I have shown that there are two occasions where the Dominus is "firing one of his weapons" and can therefore invoke the Master of Machines rule twice. The Master of Machines rule does not say "once per shooting phase".

Congratulations on showing there are two occasions where the Dominus is firing a weapon. You can show that water is wet, or that the Sun rises in the east, and those two things have exactly the same amount of relevance to how many times you get to use Master of Machines as how many times you get to shoot does - absolutely no relevance to it at all. Saying you have not ignored the issue is a fundamentally dishonest statment; when GW has used similar phrasing, such as "may trade one weapon for a Relic", etc., they have made it clear in the rules and in FAQs that it only happens once. I have pointed this out on numerous occasions and you still choose to ignore it. Claiming no you are not ignoring it when you have not dealt with it at all is a fundamental lie. Because of this, it doesn't matter how many times you can fire in the Shooting sequence, you only get to use Master of Machines once because of it saying "one weapon", backed up by how GW treats trading one item or doing something instead of one thing.

You have also avoided the issue of whether the Tech-priest Dominus can use Master of Machines if he is not able to fire at anything. We have shown that in other cases you are able to things instead of shooting and not enter the shooting sequence. It doesn't matter whether it's units or models - you have shown no proof to back up your claim that it's invalid. But, if you want a model example - bombing runs happen in the movement phase, yet count as a shooting attack that has been used in the shooting phase. Therefore, you are outside the shooting sequence in the shooting phase for this. This is still a side issue though, as you have not been able to prove that being able to fire twice in the shooting sequence overrides GW's written rules about trading for one thing or doing something instead of one other thing can only be done once. And please do not try to dismiss this as handwaving; there has been enough presented where it is clear to anybody who wants to argue honestly that it is not mere handwaving.

Indeed. The Shooting Phase isn't just the Shooting Sequence. It is the main focus and point of the Shooting Phase, without a doubt, but there are other things that are involved in the Shooting Phase than shooting. Ignoring context and other rules does not help the Ignored One's case at all.

 doctortom wrote:


Congratulations on showing there are two occasions where the Dominus is firing a weapon. You can show that water is wet, or that the Sun rises in the east, and those two things have exactly the same amount of relevance to how many times you get to use Master of Machines as how many times you get to shoot does - absolutely no relevance to it at all. Saying you have not ignored the issue is a fundamentally dishonest statment; when GW has used similar phrasing, such as "may trade one weapon for a Relic", etc., they have made it clear in the rules and in FAQs that it only happens once. I have pointed this out on numerous occasions and you still choose to ignore it. Claiming no you are not ignoring it when you have not dealt with it at all is a fundamental lie. Because of this, it doesn't matter how many times you can fire in the Shooting sequence, you only get to use Master of Machines once because of it saying "one weapon", backed up by how GW treats trading one item or doing something instead of one thing.

Incorrect.
The rule makes no mention of any restriction to the use of Master of Machines, such as "once in the shooting phase"; therefore, there is no restriction. You are not allowed to read into the rules.

As you agree and as I have proven, the occasion of Dominus "firing one of his weapon" happens twice in the Shooting Sequence. Therefore, Master of Machines can be used twice.


Also, your attempt at offering a rebuttal in the form of some vague statements about Relics and how GW handles them bears no relevance. It's up to you to put your thoughts together and form an argument.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
Indeed. The Shooting Phase isn't just the Shooting Sequence. It is the main focus and point of the Shooting Phase, without a doubt, but there are other things that are involved in the Shooting Phase than shooting. Ignoring context and other rules does not help the Ignored One's case at all.

I asked you before and you failed to answer.

How many times in the Shooting Sequence is the Dominus 'firing one of his weapons'?

Your inability to answer the simplest of questions highlights your fallacious thinking.

Only when you are prepared to answer that question can you actively participate in the debate.

 Charistoph wrote:

Ignoring context and other rules does not help the Ignored One's case at all.

Also, you mention context and other rules that I am somehow ignoring. What context and which rules are those? Making vague references does not help your case at all and really only highlights that your posts in this thread have been contentless and merely disruptive and therefore against YMDC rules.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


Congratulations on showing there are two occasions where the Dominus is firing a weapon. You can show that water is wet, or that the Sun rises in the east, and those two things have exactly the same amount of relevance to how many times you get to use Master of Machines as how many times you get to shoot does - absolutely no relevance to it at all. Saying you have not ignored the issue is a fundamentally dishonest statment; when GW has used similar phrasing, such as "may trade one weapon for a Relic", etc., they have made it clear in the rules and in FAQs that it only happens once. I have pointed this out on numerous occasions and you still choose to ignore it. Claiming no you are not ignoring it when you have not dealt with it at all is a fundamental lie. Because of this, it doesn't matter how many times you can fire in the Shooting sequence, you only get to use Master of Machines once because of it saying "one weapon", backed up by how GW treats trading one item or doing something instead of one thing.

Incorrect.
The rule makes no mention of any restriction to the use of Master of Machines, such as "once in the shooting phase"; therefore, there is no restriction. You are not allowed to read into the rules.

You are wrong. The rules clearly state you may replace firing ONE weapon with using Master of Machines. This is a limitation. Your refusal to realize it as such is not reading into the rules; to the contrary, YOU are the one trying to read into the rules to turn one into more than one.

col_impact wrote:
Also, your attempt at offering a rebuttal in the form of some vague statements about Relics and how GW handles them bears no relevance. It's up to you to put your thoughts together and form an argument.

And, this is exactly the type of thing you continually do when you don't wish to deal with a problem - try to find some excuse to ignore it and not have to worry about it. If you think the statements about Relics bear no relevance, then your reading comprehension is severely challenged as they use a similar wording in relation to the word "One", and replacing something instead of something else (an item in the case or relics, an action in the case of Master of Machines). I have provided enough where accusations of "some vague statments" ring hollow; you just do not wish to deal with them. At this point I can only conclude that you are not able to comprehend the rules as can not see similarities between the rules when they are pointed out to you, and you can't tell when a rule that provide a limitation actually is a limitation

col_impact wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
Indeed. The Shooting Phase isn't just the Shooting Sequence. It is the main focus and point of the Shooting Phase, without a doubt, but there are other things that are involved in the Shooting Phase than shooting. Ignoring context and other rules does not help the Ignored One's case at all.

I asked you before and you failed to answer.

How many times in the Shooting Sequence is the Dominus 'firing one of his weapons'?

He's probably figured that it's been answered enough, and like the rest of us, realize that it's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Your turn to answer simple questions. According to Master of Machines, how many weapons do you replace firing with in order to use it. Answer this only using the rules from Master of Machines; do not invoke the Shooting sequence. Stick only with what Master of machines tells you.

Now, for another question: If, as you say, you have to be in the shooting sequence to use Master of Machines, does a Tech-Priest Dominus get to use it if he has nothing to shoot at?

 doctortom wrote:


You are wrong. The rules clearly state you may replace firing ONE weapon with using Master of Machines. This is a limitation. Your refusal to realize it as such is not reading into the rules; to the contrary, YOU are the one trying to read into the rules to turn one into more than one.

As you have already agreed, there are two separate and fully legal occasions where the Dominus will be "firing one of his weapons"; therefore the Master of Machines can be legally used to replace both occasions.

The problem for you is that the rule does not say "once per shooting phase". That would be a limitation. You are not allowed to pretend "once per shooting phase" is in the rule.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Also, your attempt at offering a rebuttal in the form of some vague statements about Relics and how GW handles them bears no relevance. It's up to you to put your thoughts together and form an argument.

And, this is exactly the type of thing you continually do when you don't wish to deal with a problem - try to find some excuse to ignore it and not have to worry about it. If you think the statements about Relics bear no relevance, then your reading comprehension is severely challenged as they use a similar wording in relation to the word "One", and replacing something instead of something else (an item in the case or relics, an action in the case of Master of Machines). I have provided enough where accusations of "some vague statments" ring hollow; you just do not wish to deal with them. At this point I can only conclude that you are not able to comprehend the rules as can not see similarities between the rules when they are pointed out to you, and you can't tell when a rule that provide a limitation actually is a limitation

You have not formed an argument. Feel free to crack open a codex and provide quotes and prove that the language used is exactly the same. Keep in mind that I have already proven that there are two occasions where the Dominus is "firing one of his weapons" and I have replaced each instance of "firing one of his weapons" with exactly one instance of Master of Machines. In order for you to find a comparable situation in the case of Relics you will have to find a datasheet where the option to purchase a Relic is listed TWICE and therewith allowing for TWO separate purchases from the Relic list. No such datasheet exists to my knowledge and if it did then that datasheet would indeed get to have 2 Relics as long as they are not the same Relic, since there is a separate rule keeping a particular Relic from being selected more than once per army.

The problem for you is that "firing one of his weapons" happens twice.

 doctortom wrote:

He's probably figured that it's been answered enough, and like the rest of us, realize that it's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

He can answer for himself.

 doctortom wrote:

Your turn to answer simple questions. According to Master of Machines, how many weapons do you replace firing with in order to use it. Answer this only using the rules from Master of Machines; do not invoke the Shooting sequence. Stick only with what Master of machines tells you.

Master of Machines allows you to replace an instance of"firing one of his weapons" with an instance of the Master of Machines rule. As you have already agreed and I have already proved, there are two separate and fully legal instances where the Dominus will be "firing one of his weapons"; therefore, the Master of Machines can be legally used to replace both instances (the one-for-one trade happens twice).

 doctortom wrote:

Now, for another question: If, as you say, you have to be in the shooting sequence to use Master of Machines, does a Tech-Priest Dominus get to use it if he has nothing to shoot at?

If the unit the Dominus is in cannot draw line of sight to any enemies at all then he cannot use Master of Machines. This breaks "real world" logic to a certain extent but it will be an exceedingly rare occurrence and of no consequence to my argument. See Tenet 3 of YMDC.

Also, if the unit the Dominus is in is locked in combat or running he cannot use Master of Machines.

 doctortom wrote:
He's probably figured that it's been answered enough, and like the rest of us, realize that it's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

It is more that the Ignored One does not know that he is Ignored. I do not answer posts I do not see.

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
He's probably figured that it's been answered enough, and like the rest of us, realize that it's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

It is more that the Ignored One does not know that he is Ignored. I do not answer posts I do not see.

As stated before, your posts in this thread have been contentless and merely disruptive and therefore against YMDC rules.

If you want to actually participate in this thread I suggest you turn your ignore off. I will have a Mod deliver the message on the next occasion of a contentless and disruptive post.

There isn't any wording to demonstrate that a second instance of firing a weapon would use the phrase "firing one of his weapons," as at no point does the rule book, or the ruling for mechadendrite harness make an explicit statement on it. You are working off the assumption that a second firing would use that wording in the absence of it. It could (more likely) be worded as firing a second weapon, or third, or additional. This would make sense, as it informs when a vehicle has reached the limit of it's full bs shooting, and has to change to snap firing.

So there is only one instance of a "model firing one of his weapons", then an instance of a model firing a second weapon. There is no explicit wording in the rule book to demonstrate either as correct, so at the best you'd get a roll off.

 JamesY wrote:
There isn't any wording to demonstrate that a second instance of firing a weapon would use the phrase "firing one of his weapons," as at no point does the rule book, or the ruling for mechadendrite harness make an explicit statement on it. You are working off the assumption that a second firing would use that wording in the absence of it. It could (more likely) be worded as firing a second weapon, or third, or additional. This would make sense, as it informs when a vehicle has reached the limit of it's full bs shooting, and has to change to snap firing.

So there is only one instance of a "model firing one of his weapons", then an instance of a model firing a second weapon. There is no explicit wording in the rule book to demonstrate either as correct, so at the best you'd get a roll off.

Thanks for the input, but you are incorrect.

The active player only has to be able to prove that each iteration through the Shooting Sequence is an occasion of the Dominus "firing one of his weapons". The active player has no problem doing this as has already been proven by me.

The presence or absence of the ordinal numbers ("first", "second", "third", "fourth", etc.) would not change the legality of the active player's statement. "Firing the second of his weapons" and "firing one of his weapons" can each refer to a legal instance of "firing one of his weapons" and the Master of Machines only checks if the latter is true which it will be twice in the Shooting Phase.

Moreover, your attempt to force a roll-off with ordinal numbers is completely far-fetched, since the Shooting Sequence makes absolutely no mention of the ordinal number sequence. Not that it matters any anyway, the Master of Machines rule checks for its legal conditions on its own. But your attempt to force a roll-off by literally adding stuff to the rules that does not exist in the rules at all should be noted and dismissed outright as a fallacious line of reasoning.

I disagree with your interpretation of the wording of the rule and won't be convinced. You disagree with mine and won't be convinced. What do the rules tell us to do to resolve the matter and progress with the game?

You'd have the choice between a roll off on every attempt to use the rule twice, or concede the game and quit.

 JamesY wrote:
I disagree with your interpretation of the wording of the rule and won't be convinced. You disagree with mine and won't be convinced. What do the rules tell us to do to resolve the matter and progress with the game?

You'd have the choice between a roll off on every attempt to use the rule twice, or concede the game and quit.

My interpretation of the game is that my army automatically wins if the points value of my army adds up to 1850 (this only affects my army). Your interpretation of the game is that I have run completely afoul of the BRB.

We roll-off and I lose.

My interpretation of the game is that my army automatically wins during deployment. Your interpretation of the game is that I have run completely afoul of the BRB.

We roll-off and I win.



So basically your answer to this rules debate is to spam the opponent with disingenuous roll-offs? It looks to me like you are conceding the rules debate at this point.

Also, relying on The Most Important Rule is not allowed in this forum.

The instances you have raised are clearly covered by the rules, there would be no basis on which to make an argument for them within the rules. It wouldn't be rules debating, it would be cheating.

I pointed out clearly that your interpretation of the wording isn't actually supported by the rules and is your personal reading of what firing one weapon means. There is another, clearer reading that gives a different interpretation to the one you have, which you must acknowledge exists, as you are clearly competent with the language in which it was written. I am not hiding behind the rule, I'm saying that it is the best chance your interpretation has, not mine, and every other contributor to this discussion.

 JamesY wrote:
The instances you have raised are clearly covered by the rules, there would be no basis on which to make an argument for them within the rules. It wouldn't be rules debating, it would be cheating.

I pointed out clearly that your interpretation of the wording isn't actually supported by the rules and is your personal reading of what firing one weapon means. There is another, clearer reading that gives a different interpretation to the one you have, which you must acknowledge exists, as you are clearly competent with the language in which it was written. I am not hiding behind the rule, I'm saying that it is the best chance your interpretation has, not mine, and every other contributor to this discussion.

Incorrect.

My interpretation of the wording is fully supported by the rules. Your interpretation relies on a sense of "once per shooting phase" which is completely absent in the rules.

The Dominus can only be "firing one of his weapons" in the context of the Shooting Sequence.

Once you march through the Shooting Sequence (which you cannot avoid), there will be TWO separate and fully legal occasions where the Dominus will be "firing one of his weapons"; therefore the Master of Machines rule can be legally used to replace BOTH occasions.

The problem for you is that the rule does not say "once per shooting phase". That would be a limitation. You are not allowed to pretend "once per shooting phase" is in the rule. If you really want to disprove my interpretation then you need to PROVE that "once per shooting phase" is somehow in the Master of Machines rule. Feel free to find it.

No I don't, you need to prove that firing a second weapon would count as firing one weapon, as your argument hinges on it. "An instance of firing one weapon" is your term, not a term from the rules. That the weapons are fired one at a time does not automatically support your interpretation, as you seem to think.

 JamesY wrote:
No I don't, you need to prove that firing a second weapon would count as firing one weapon, as your argument hinges on it. "An instance of firing one weapon" is your term, not a term from the rules. That the weapons are fired one at a time does not automatically support your interpretation, as you seem to think.

Incorrect. That the weapons are fired one at a time is precisely what proves my interpretation as the correct one.

You have to prove that the Dominus fires his weapons 'all at once', which he clearly doesn't. Alternatively, you could try to prove that there is somehow a limitation 'once per shooting phase' on the Master of Machines rule, which there isn't.


My interpretation directly follows from the actual words in the actual rules and is directly supported by merely adhering to the Shooting Sequence. The Dominus will be "firing one of his weapons" TWICE in the Shooting Sequence allowing for the Master of Machines rule to be used TWICE.

Your interpretation relies on words that are not in the actual rules. Dominus does not fire his weapons 'all at once' nor is Master of Machines limited to 'once per shooting phase'.

weapons are not fired one at a time. In the instance of the solo tech priest dominus with no other models in the unit firing the same weapon it would fire one at a time.

the problem is the RAW for the rule lets you not fire one weapon.

if you pick two weapons you have not picked one.

it does not matter the order, because the rule in question does not specify during the pick weapon step, it specifies during the SHOOTING PHASE.

so if during the shooting phase you pick more than one weapon you have not picked one weapon therefore you are not in any way following the rules as written.

blaktoof wrote:
weapons are not fired one at a time. In the instance of the solo tech priest dominus with no other models in the unit firing the same weapon it would fire one at a time.

The occasion of "firing one of his weapons" occurs TWICE in the Shooting Sequence as has been proved.

blaktoof wrote:


the problem is the RAW for the rule lets you not fire one weapon.

if you pick two weapons you have not picked one.

it does not matter the order, because the rule in question does not specify during the pick weapon step, it specifies during the SHOOTING PHASE.

so if during the shooting phase you pick more than one weapon you have not picked one weapon therefore you are not in any way following the rules as written.

The occasion of "firing one of his weapons" happens on separate iterations of the Shooting Sequence and it happens TWICE.

It's equivalent to listing the option of purchasing one relic from a list of relics TWICE on the ALE of a unit. A double listing of the option allows the purchasing of TWO relics.

Therefore it is entirely legal to use the Master of Machines rule TWICE in the Shooting Phase.

Nowhere in any of the rules involved is there any mention of "once per shooting phase". You are literally making that up.

If you add stuff to the rules that is not there your argument is invalid.

"In each of your shooting phases"... "One weapon"... "Choose to either repair a single friendly vehicle"... "or to restore a wound".

All singular. All 1 per your shooting phase.

Pretty much. It doesn't say, "For each Weapon the model may shoot", just "one weapon".

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
"In each of your shooting phases"... "One weapon"... "Choose to either repair a single friendly vehicle"... "or to restore a wound".

All singular. All 1 per your shooting phase.

That's not how language or logic works. Singular agreement does not translate to "once per shooting phase". Your argument can simply be dismissed as daft. One plus one does not equal one, as you would have us believe. One plus one equals two!

As already proven, the occasion of the Dominus "firing one of his weapons" happens twice in the Shooting Sequence. Do you deny this?

No amount of bolding "one" will change the meaning of the phrase "in each of your shooting phases" to "once per shooting phase". You are literally trying to add that meaning without any justification to the sentence (and failing badly at it).

Obviously "in each of your shooting phases" does not mean "once per shooting phase". Do you deny this?

The occasion of Dominus "firing one of his weapon" happens twice in the Shooting Sequence. Therefore, Master of Machines can be used twice.

My argument rests on a completely straightforward and logical reading of the rules where absolutely nothing is being read into the rules.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
Pretty much. It doesn't say, "For each Weapon the model may shoot", just "one weapon".

If you had bothered to read the rules in question you would have noticed it says "instead of firing one of his weapons" which undeniably occurs TWICE in the Shooting Sequence for the Dominus. Therefore, the Master of Machines rule can be used twice.

Make sure to actually read the rules before jumping in on a debate, since it bears greatly on your ability to actually meaningfully participate in the debate.