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.

But it doesn't say different target from the perspective of at least 1 other weapon, it says each weapon may fire at a different target. That means different from all other weapons, not just from one other weapon. You are adding text to the statement that isn't there.

We are given permission to fire all weapons at the same target.
We are given permission for each weapon to fire at different units.
We are not given permission to fire more than one weapon at a unit when firing at different units.

Weapon A & B select target X
Weapon C selects target Y

Weapon A selected a different target from Weapon C
Weapon B selected a different target from Weapon C
Weapon C selected a different target from Weapons A & B

Therefore ALL weapons have selected different targets.

-

 Galef wrote:
Weapon A & B select target X
Weapon C selects target Y

Weapon A selected a different target from Weapon C
Weapon B selected a different target from Weapon C
Weapon C selected a different target from Weapons A & B

Therefore ALL weapons have selected different targets.

-

Incorrect. Weapon A and Weapon B have not selected different targets from each other. They have selected the same target. Therefore you do not have each weapon firing at a different target. That should be obvious.

You just added the "from each other" bit. I don't see how the ruling is requiring each weapon to select a different target from all other weapons. You just need to select "different targets"

You should ask "did a weapon select a different target?" If you can answer "Yes" in any way (such as when comparing to ANY other weapon), than you have satisfied the rule that "each weapon select a different target".
It doesn't matter if A & B choose the same target as each other. They both chose a different target than weapon C, so they DID chose a different target. That's all the rule wants.

I know I might not be explaining it very well, but the way I see it, nothing forces you to split your weapons in a way that every individual weapon must select a target that is completely separate and not selected by another weapon.

-

 Galef wrote:
You just added the "from each other" bit. I don't see how the ruling is requiring each weapon to select a different target from all other weapons. You just need to select "different targets"

You should ask "did a weapon select a different target?" If you can answer "Yes" in any way (such as when comparing to ANY other weapon), than you have satisfied the rule that "each weapon select a different target".
It doesn't matter if A & B choose the same target as each other. They both chose a different target than weapon C, so they DID chose a different target. That's all the rule wants.

I know I might not be explaining it very well, but the way I see it, nothing forces you to split your weapons in a way that every individual weapon must select a target that is completely separate and not selected by another weapon.

-

Okay, I ask "did a weapon select a different target?" With your example, I get "no" for weapon B, as it did not select a different target from weapon A. Presumably Weapon A would be the first weapon since it's at the beginning of the alphabet.

If you can reverse the order of the weapons and get a "no", then it's a "no" for have you selected a different target no matter which weapon you say is first.

Sequencing of weapon selection does not matter, not does the "no".
My point is that this is a permissive rule set.
We get both a "No" and a "Yes" in the situation. As the rule only cares about the "Yes", we can proceed.

The rule would have to say something like "if each weapon does not select a different target from all other weapon, than all weapon must select the same target"

At the end of the day, this is an English language interpretation issue, not a rules issue. "Each" can mean "all" or "any". I am arguing that it means "any" and it appears to me that you are arguing that it must mean "all".

-

 Galef wrote:
Sequencing of weapon selection does not matter, not does the "no".

Sequencing not mattering means it shouldn't matter what order you look at the weapons, they should always have a different unit as a target no matter what order you look at them in. If there is one sequence in which I look at weapon A then weapon B from your example and ask the question "have they picked different targets?" I get back NO for an answer.

 Galef wrote:
My point is that this is a permissive rule set.
We get both a "No" and a "Yes" in the situation. As the rule only cares about the "Yes", we can proceed.

But that's your fallacy there - if you get a "no" back, you don't get to proceed - you don't have a "yes" and a "no". You are asking the question "does each weapon have a different target than 1 other weapon" for your yes and no answers. That isn't the question. The question is "is each weapon shooting at a different target". You only get a yes or a no answer, you don't get both. If weapon A and weapon B are shooting at the same unit, then the answe is NO and you do NOT get to proceed.


EDIT: You're right about "any" vs "all", but I don't see "any" as a valid interpretation with more than 2, that you have to go with all. But, I doubt we're going to convince each other of the proper way to read that. I'm willing to agree to disagree, especially since the RAI is obvious for this.

 doctortom wrote:
But, I doubt we're going to convince each other of the proper way to read that. I'm willing to agree to disagree, especially since the RAI is obvious for this.

Agreed. My mistake is always trying to force the RAW to somehow reflect the very obvious RAI. They should always be the same, but are often not.

-

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
It would make a mockery of some super heavy tanks.

And that means what exactly? The rules are clear, you've just been playing them wrong.

I'm a faceless nobody - so while my opinion doesn't matter, I'm siding with BCB on this issue.

Is the rule that each weapon must target a different enemy unit? Yes. This remains unsatisfied if two weapons shoot at the same unit, as they are not "different enemies".
Is this how the rule should be played? That's up to GW.

I for one, full-heartedly support BCB's inquires into the rules of the game - personally, I love reading/discussing technicalities such as this; and if people are ultimately playing the game wrong, that's on them.

Just because you thought the game was played a certain way, and everyone else around you thought the same (probably because they were taught by a similar group of people), does not make it the correct way to play the game. Games have rules, its important to follow them to the letter, otherwise; what's the point of rules in the first place?

There are two options:
1) Shoot everything at a single target
2) Shoot each weapon at a different target

There is no ambiguity there, just dubious semantics being presented as a reasonable argument. Ultimately - it's up to GW. If there's an OFFICIAL battlereport that shows an interpretation one way or the other; please present it, I'd love to see it.

And personally? I feel the "Susan" argument that was presented earlier makes the rules quite clear - you can't give 2 apples to the same person, and one to another, if you were explicitly told to "it can GIVE (shoot) all of them at the same target, or it can GIVE (shoot) each TO (at) a different enemy unit" - you aren't giving 3 apples to "a different enemy unit", if two end up in the same place.

Except no-one has played it that way, official battle rep or casual game, tournament or Power Level pickup game, in the almost-year since 8th came out. No-one. Maybe BCB, but no-one else, and given it’s suddenly a revelation to him I doubt he’s been playing it that way... more that it’s a way to get a rise out of people.

I mean, sure, play semantics for fun, but telling everyone (GW’s own channels included) that they’re “playing it wrong” because you’ve decided your super-literal reading of a rule we all understand the meaning of is the Only Correct Way is... well, misguided at best and plain tedious at worst.

Simply put, whatever BCB thinks, no-one plays it how he says. If that means 99% of the gaming world, GW included, is “house ruling it” so be it. Who cares what you call it - RAI, non-douchey, whatever - the rule is that you can shoot a model’s weapon’s at whoever you want. There’s no “all together or all separate”.

Just know that if you rock up to a game and trip out this “well, technically” line of thinking you’ll simply be laughed at.

To be fair, the rule does go on to say different models can shoot at different units without saying "each" model, so they don't have the limitation there. They also started it with "Similarly", so the implication is they meant the single model rules to work the same way.

There's a difference between pointing out that a rule is incorrectly written and telling people they're playing the game wrong. A huge difference.

If you have to isolate the sentence to make a weird interpretation work then it isn't that interesting. The sentence you're quoting is ambiguous and the next sentence clears it up since it says that the rules for multiple models works the same and uses different wording that doesn't have the same ambiguity.

Even with just the original sentence, it doesn't strongly indicate what level of uniqueness you have to satisfy.

Are we seriously arguing that a multiple weapon vehicle can only fire all of its guns at a single target or a different one for each weapon, rather than, in the you know:

USING COMMON SENSE.

I can see both sides to the argument, but since 8th has been out for a year and NO ONE WHATSOEVER has played the rules as mentioned previously, from individual club games to big tournaments, I'm guessing this was done more to stir up trouble than a legit rules question.

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Are we seriously arguing that a multiple weapon vehicle can only fire all of its guns at a single target or a different one for each weapon, rather than, in the you know:

USING COMMON SENSE.

I can see both sides to the argument, but since 8th has been out for a year and NO ONE WHATSOEVER has played the rules as mentioned previously, from individual club games to big tournaments, I'm guessing this was done more to stir up trouble than a legit rules question.

Yuppppp.

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Are we seriously arguing that a multiple weapon vehicle can only fire all of its guns at a single target or a different one for each weapon, rather than, in the you know:

USING COMMON SENSE.

I can see both sides to the argument, but since 8th has been out for a year and NO ONE WHATSOEVER has played the rules as mentioned previously, from individual club games to big tournaments, I'm guessing this was done more to stir up trouble than a legit rules question.

Common sense says to apply modifiers before re-rolls. Common sense says plasma doesn't explode more at night. Common sense says my Marines are Toughness 20 and have 30 wounds each.

You either play by the rules or you don't, imho. Nothing wrong with making up rules if you want, if both players agree. I just feel that the majority of players, myself included, like playing by the rules set out in the rulebooks.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Are we seriously arguing that a multiple weapon vehicle can only fire all of its guns at a single target or a different one for each weapon, rather than, in the you know:

USING COMMON SENSE.

I can see both sides to the argument, but since 8th has been out for a year and NO ONE WHATSOEVER has played the rules as mentioned previously, from individual club games to big tournaments, I'm guessing this was done more to stir up trouble than a legit rules question.

Common sense says to apply modifiers before re-rolls. Common sense says plasma doesn't explode more at night. Common sense says my Marines are Toughness 20 and have 30 wounds each.

You either play by the rules or you don't, imho. Nothing wrong with making up rules if you want, if both players agree. I just feel that the majority of players, myself included, like playing by the rules set out in the rulebooks.

So how do you square away with the fact that the majority of players *do not* play this the way you are telling us is the only correct way? Did you stop to consider you might be... wrong? Or does it suit your personal agenda to believe that every pick up game, store demo, White Dwarf batrep, YouTube pundit, gaming club and major tournament is ‘making up rules’?

This thread is one of your most baffling yet.

 Elbows wrote:
Is a service being provided to the community, when everyone else in the world reads the rule, understands its purposes and plays it as such? When, if asked, any TO in the entire world would judge it as most people read it, etc. There's no alternate version of 40K being played based on these supposed errors.

It is important to understand what the rules actually say vs. how you think they ought to work. Just because you think it's obvious how that should be interpreted doesn't mean that everyone you play will agree.

In handling that situation there is a big difference between "whilst it might seem to work like that notice that the rules actually say this" and "I know that's what the rules say but I always play it like this because... ".

We usually see people in these threads outraged at the suggestion that the rules don't backup how they believe it ought to work and declaring anyone who tries to play it that way as a donkey cave. To my mind those people are the problem.

I guess the interesting question here is - why does it bother you that people are discussing cases where the RAW doesn't match the common interpretation?

Discussing as a curious thing would be fine.

Telling everyone they’re “playing it wrong” or “not playing by the rules” however is disingenuous, in this instance plain wrong, and just attention-seeking.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Discussing as a curious thing would be fine.

Telling everyone they’re “playing it wrong” or “not playing by the rules” however is disingenuous, in this instance plain wrong, and just attention-seeking.

Again, just because you dislike it doesn't make it true.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Discussing as a curious thing would be fine.

Telling everyone they’re “playing it wrong” or “not playing by the rules” however is disingenuous, in this instance plain wrong, and just attention-seeking.

Again, just because you dislike it doesn't make it true.

Last I checked you aren't GW and don't get to tell the entire world they're wrong. But you do you!

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Discussing as a curious thing would be fine.

Telling everyone they’re “playing it wrong” or “not playing by the rules” however is disingenuous, in this instance plain wrong, and just attention-seeking.

Again, just because you dislike it doesn't make it true.

It is the rules that proves your argument incorrect.

That is what makes it true, and your argument false.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Discussing as a curious thing would be fine.

Telling everyone they’re “playing it wrong” or “not playing by the rules” however is disingenuous, in this instance plain wrong, and just attention-seeking.

Again, just because you dislike it doesn't make it true.

It is the rules that proves your argument incorrect.

That is what makes it true, and your argument false.

Except my argument is based off the rules as written, not rules as made up clauses.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Except my argument is based off the rules as written, not rules as made up clauses.

And as shown, is not the correct way to parse the rule.

You can fire 3 weapons from a single model at two target units.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Except my argument is based off the rules as written, not rules as made up clauses.

And as shown, is not the correct way to parse the rule.

You can fire 3 weapons from a single model at two target units.

And as I showed, this is not permitted. Your "interpretation" requires adding words where there are none, as "implied" words.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Discussing as a curious thing would be fine.

Telling everyone they’re “playing it wrong” or “not playing by the rules” however is disingenuous, in this instance plain wrong, and just attention-seeking.

Again, just because you dislike it doesn't make it true.

It is the rules that proves your argument incorrect.

That is what makes it true, and your argument false.

Except my argument is based off the rules as written, not rules as made up clauses.

OK, so do feel free to write to GW and tell them the ENTIRE WORLD is playing the rules wrong, GW themselves included. Let me know what their reply is. Thanks!

In defense to BCB, my competitive group actually play some of these rule he's mentionned in his sig this way (some we found by ourself and some we found online and talked about)

We had previously remarked that Kharn does in fact punch himself on a roll of 1, because if that doesn't work, then the whole character "aura" affecting itself just breaks down. My sorceror on a steed of slaanesh only has access to old index powers, and howling banshee can only charge up to 12", to give an example.
So while some people might agree that sometimes the RAI is obvious, and decide to play in the spirit of the game, as we also do, I think it's good to have someone making very technical reading of the rules. It also helps TO get ready for eventual corner-case where someone might bring a rule interaction that we never thought of and make call that respect the ruling of the book.

All in all, I don't think this thread merit BCB getting personally attacked. If it makes you mad, just don't read and/or comment his thread I guess.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Except my argument is based off the rules as written, not rules as made up clauses.

And as shown, is not the correct way to parse the rule.

You can fire 3 weapons from a single model at two target units.

And as I showed, this is not permitted. Your "interpretation" requires adding words where there are none, as "implied" words.

You have not correctly interpreted the rule. My interpretation does not add anything.

There is an implicit added clause that you are adding - that the weapons must fire at targets different to every other weapon.

That clause does not exist in the actual rules, meaning your interpretation cannot be RAW

Therefore your argument is the incorrect one.

It does not matter that you have 2 weapons firing at the same unit, both of those weapons are shooting at a different enemy unit than the first weapon. Therefore well within RAW to do so. Your argument fails to account for this.

If you disagree, show the exact wording that forces every weapon to fire at a different unit to every other weapon. But it does not exist, you are reading an implicit restriction that simply and literally does not exist.

There is an implicit clause that my Space Marines have 20 wounds each. Prove me wrong.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
There is an implicit clause that my Space Marines have 20 wounds each. Prove me wrong.

Their Wounds stat. Also the fact that even the niftiest grammar-twister could not claim there’s anything implicit in any of the rules to say that Marines have W20, so it’s just you being silly. Done. Next fallacy?