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.

How many of you know what step 7 of the shooting phase says in 7th ed?
If you don't, then do yourself a favour and DO NOT look it up in The Rules.
Possibly the most nonsensical of basic rules in the game.
Means that troops with more than one weapon e.g Tacticals
Scouts
Eldar Rangers
Can shoot ALL of them...
Not a huge change to the game but fundamentally flawed in principle...
Not sure about 6th ed but step 7 was definitely not in 5th edition.

Um a sm cant fire all his weapons in one turn?

If you take step 7 as a stand alone rule, you can fire more than one weapon per model per turn.

However, it's not a stand alone rule. Look a few pages down under "Which Models Can Fire?" and it states: "Typically, a model can only fire a single shooting weapon in the same phase...Once a model has fired its maximum number of weapons, it cannot fire again that phase"

This negates any issue you may have with step 7.

No, it's still poorly worded with that in mind. "Typically" is not a rule. It's too vague. Maybe a Space Marine is an atypical model, like Tau Crisis Suits or Flyrants or a host of other models that aren't "Typically". "Unless otherwise stated," would have been a better way to put it.

Hate to break it to you, but "typically" just indicates that unless the rules state otherwise (such as in EVERY MODEL that can fire more than one weapon) then they can only fire one.

I love posts like this. Do you really have nothing better to do?

There are far better examples of poor quality Rules elsewhere, just stroll into You make da call and see for yourself....

the_scotsman wrote:
Hate to break it to you, but "typically" just indicates that unless the rules state otherwise (such as in EVERY MODEL that can fire more than one weapon) then they can only fire one.

I love posts like this. Do you really have nothing better to do?

How dare someone post some 40k related thought on a 40k forum! The nerve of some people!!

You condescending tone aside, that's not a definition of 'typically'. Typically means usually, but with exception. Without defining the exception in a broader sense, they leave it open to interpretation. That is what it means to have a poorly written rule.

But the exception is defined - under the rules for Monstrous Creatures for example, or those for vehicles, which explicitly give those exceptions.

The alternative is to bloat out not only the rules for shooting, but every single rule in the BRB with a list of every possible exception to that rule.

So unless there's an exception that says Tactical Marines can fire more than one weapon in a single shooting phase, they fall under the banner of 'typically' - i.e. usually, because in this case there is no exception.

There's nothing left to interpretation here.

(I'd steer away from criticising someone's condescension, when preceding that criticism with sarcasm - is one better than the other?).

If you really want every tidbit of a rule explained in length, enjoy an 800 page rulebook. Stuffing the standard BRB with more rules is just going to make a mess and be a nightmare to navigate when looking for anything specific.

I think 99% of the 40K player base understands that a tactical marine cannot shoot his pistol and bolter in the same shooting phase. Clearly the ruling of 'typical' works well enough to not cause issues.

 clamclaw wrote:
If you really want every tidbit of a rule explained in length, enjoy an 800 page rulebook.

The purpose of a rulebook is to lay out the rules.

If you can't fit the rules of your game into a practical-sized volume, then the logical answer is to do something about the needless complexity in your rules, rather than to just leave stuff out...



This particular example, however, isn't even a case of something being left out - just of loose wording, which would have been fixed just by wording it slightly differently. It's been hashed out fairly thoroughly in the past, with the general opinions being either that the rule as worded is fine, or that it's worded badly but we know what they meant.

Not really a lot of room for further discussion on this one, so I'm going to lock it down as it appears to be getting people somewhat heated.