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.

Step 3.1: Choose Unit to Shoot With explicitly states " You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit."

This means you will never have an opportunity to fire your Assault Weapons, since it only allows the individual model to fire, but you can never pick the unit that model is in due to step 3.1

Likewise for Pistols for units within 1" of an enemy. The rule allows MODELS to fire but you'll never be legally able to pick the unit for shooting in the first place.

You have the right of it. The core 14 pages of rules are completely broken and most of the guns in the game don't work as intended.

Nobody will play it that way because its obvious what they meant the rules to be but man does gw suck at its job.

Well under the weapons Assault it clearly supercedes the core. By saying hey you can shoot this assault weapon even if you advanced. Just at -1 to hit.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
Well under the weapons Assault it clearly supercedes the core. By saying hey you can shoot this assault weapon even if you advanced. Just at -1 to hit.

t says MODELS can shoot assault weapons. Step 1 of the shooting phase sequence specifically tells you you cannot select the unit. Which mens you never reach the model part of the process.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
Well under the weapons Assault it clearly supercedes the core. By saying hey you can shoot this assault weapon even if you advanced. Just at -1 to hit.

Glad to see with even just 8 pages of rules people don't bother to read them.

I clearly explained the problem with the wording of the Assault weapon rules in the original post.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
Well under the weapons Assault it clearly supercedes the core. By saying hey you can shoot this assault weapon even if you advanced. Just at -1 to hit.

Glad to see with even just 8 pages of rules people don't bother to read them.

I clearly explained the problem with the wording of the Assault weapon rules in the original post.

I'm glad to see that no matter how fine the hairs become, some beardlord out there will find a way to split them.

I look forward to seeing how many #*@%s will be given about this inconsistency in wording vis a vis the crystal clear intent.

Good on you for pointing it out.

It'll never be played this way. So does it matter?

 lordwellingstone wrote:
It'll never be played this way. So does it matter?

It only matters to show that the core rules are less than 20 pages and gas rules writing is so bad that they broke the game within 5. Its fine when the intent is this clear. But look how many arguments exist, or how long the faq thread is, when the game hasn't even been out for a month

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
Well under the weapons Assault it clearly supercedes the core. By saying hey you can shoot this assault weapon even if you advanced. Just at -1 to hit.

But both of those rules are in the core rule book. its not like special rule in a codex that succeeds the brb like in the past.

mind you the intent is obvious all they need to do is write a little something something that says unless otherwise allowed and this would be open and shut.

It's rather obvious.

They should have used the word "models" instead of "units" in the shooting phase entry.

You shoot with models, not units in 8th edition. As every model shoots at whatever it wants.

They used Units because that how phase progression works.

The best way to have worded it would have been; You may not pick a unit with no models that can shoot, if they have Advanced or Fell Back etc. etc. one inch....blah blah blah.

 Idolator wrote:
It's rather obvious.

They should have used the word "models" instead of "units" in the shooting phase entry.

You shoot with models, not units in 8th edition. As every model shoots at whatever it wants.

They used Units because that how phase progression works.

The best way to have worded it would have been; You may not pick a unit with no models that can shoot, if they have Advanced or Fell Back etc. etc. one inch....blah blah blah.

Or not. Let someone select the unit. Then they get to the part where they pick guns and can't do anything. Fixed. There was no reason to restrict the selection of units. Place all the restrictions on the guns.

They've never been able to use the two terms properly, 8th is no exception.

apwill4765 wrote:

I'm glad to see that no matter how fine the hairs become, some beardlord out there will find a way to split them.

DCannon4Life wrote:I look forward to seeing how many #*@%s will be given about this inconsistency in wording vis a vis the crystal clear intent.

Good on you for pointing it out.

lordwellingstone wrote:It'll never be played this way. So does it matter?

These. All of these.

 Lance845 wrote:

 lordwellingstone wrote:
It'll never be played this way. So does it matter?

It only matters to show that the core rules are less than 20 pages and gas rules writing is so bad that they broke the game within 5. Its fine when the intent is this clear. But look how many arguments exist, or how long the faq thread is, when the game hasn't even been out for a month

That's because of some people whose sole intent is to try and break the game. God himself could have written the rules in the clearest possible way and there would be some hitting out with tripe like "The rules don't state that I can't just flip the table over an claim instant victory. If GW doesn't want us to do that they should have stated it as such. Why are they sooo unclear?!? The game is broken!!!"

apwill4765 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
Well under the weapons Assault it clearly supercedes the core. By saying hey you can shoot this assault weapon even if you advanced. Just at -1 to hit.

Glad to see with even just 8 pages of rules people don't bother to read them.

I clearly explained the problem with the wording of the Assault weapon rules in the original post.

I'm glad to see that no matter how fine the hairs become, some beardlord out there will find a way to split them.

Then what purpose does this forum serve if it is not to discuss the rules?

Or are you just here to call people that want clarity in the rules neckbeards?

Ruin wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
Well under the weapons Assault it clearly supercedes the core. By saying hey you can shoot this assault weapon even if you advanced. Just at -1 to hit.

Glad to see with even just 8 pages of rules people don't bother to read them.

I clearly explained the problem with the wording of the Assault weapon rules in the original post.

I'm glad to see that no matter how fine the hairs become, some beardlord out there will find a way to split them.

Then what purpose does this forum serve if it is not to discuss the rules?

Or are you just here to call people that want clarity in the rules neckbeards?

The purpose of this forum is to discuss rules that are actually affecting real gameplay. This issue will never come up, because no one is going to imply that their opponents cannot shoot their Assault weapons because of a poorly worded rule.

For instance, in editions past, you could say that some models could never fire because they didn't have eyes. You were told to draw LOS from a model's eyes. You could start a thread in YMDC to discuss the validity of the fact that your Wraithlords could not shoot because they have no eyes, or you could inject some common sense into your reading of the rules.

For other examples (in editions past) of how the rules didn't work when using RAW alone, without some sense of abstraction and sensible interpretation, see this thread: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/278461.page

Quick let's go back to super heavy vehicle guilliman in 7th......

There is a point where intention is questionable and a point where it's obvious. I am a stickler for the RAW normally but in this circumstance it is clearly just bad writting also there is no room for interpretation as everyone with a brain cells in any tournament will play this in a tournament with RAI over RAW

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

Over complicating something simple which is why about 90% of the FAQ questions so far revolve around I can't comprehend what I read.
So the shooting rules say select a unit, but you can't select a unit that advanced. Yeah ok but we're not selecting a unit the assault weapon rule simply states that model can shoot even if it advanced.
Can the rest of it's unit shoot too? Nope they advanced and can't be selected. but he can shoot outside the normal shooting rules because his rule says so.
This applies the same to BRB rules or Index rules. Example a unit that advanced can't be selected to shoot. Psychic power says the targeted unit can shoot even if they advanced. So they can shoot.
Shooting rules say you can't select them, psychic power says they can shoot anyway. So bang bang on the fun button for them.

still not FAQ’ed. Maybe it’s time to write about that to GW?

You necro'd this thread so hard there's an order of Paladins on their way.

Locked due to severe thread necromancy.