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.

IA special rule for Spartan: Steel Behemoth: ...It may fire its weapons if enemy units are within 1" of it....

8th Edition Codex: Choose Targets: ...Models cannot target enemy units that are within 1" of friendly models – the risk of hitting your own troops is too great....


So originally I had assumed that the rule for the Spartan just meant that, while in melee combat, it can decide to fire all it's guns at any units in range, but NOT the one that it was in direct combat with, because even if it is the only friendly unit in the combat, he is still within 1" of a friendly model (itself).

HOWEVER - Today I noticed another variant of the Steel Behemoth rule: Steel Behemoth: ...It may fire its weapons if enemy units are within 1" of it (except for its malignatas beam cannon which must target other units...

Which implies that, because the other rule didn't specify any weapons that can't fire into combat, that the Spartan can fire all it's weapons at the unit it's in combat with.

I mean this as a RAI on the part of forgeworld, keeping with internal consistency of the rulebook. RAW... it's a little foggier, which is hardly unusual with games workshop.


Of course, the Spartan can also just fall back and shoot at whatever unit it wants, but the reason I'm wondering this is just in case the tank gets pinned into combat by multiple squads or something.

"It doesn't say I can't" isn't an argument. A model having a different Variant of a rule doesn't mean anything. Explodes also varies between vehicles.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
"It doesn't say I can't" isn't an argument. A model having a different Variant of a rule doesn't mean anything. Explodes also varies between vehicles.

Well then in your opinion, the forgeworld writers intentionally created a version of a rule that makes no internal sense?

I mean, going by your logic, the rule that says - "It may fire its weapons if enemy units are within 1" of it (except for its cannon which must target other units).", also can't fire it's non-cannon weapons into the combat, because it doesn't specify that they -can-, it only specifies that the cannon cant.

I say this knowing full well your particular history on this forum, which basically ends up with "RAW I won before the game started because the rules are broken" lol.

Niiru wrote:
Well then in your opinion, the forgeworld writers intentionally created a version of a rule that makes no internal sense?

It doesn't matter what they intended. The rule is what the rule is. A is A.

If you didn't want the reply "The rule does what the rule does", why bother asking the question?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Well then in your opinion, the forgeworld writers intentionally created a version of a rule that makes no internal sense?

It doesn't matter what they intended. The rule is what the rule is. A is A.

If you didn't want the reply "The rule does what the rule does", why bother asking the question?

So you -are- saying that even on the rule that specifies the weapon, that the writers were just wasting their time because all of the weapons still won't shoot anyway? That doesn't seem at all strange to you?

Of course it seems strange. But whether I feel a rule is strange or not has no bearing on what the rule does.

I could just as easily claim I find it "strange" my Tactical Marines don't have 30 wounds each.

The Relic Spartan Assault Tank has a rule that lets it shoot at enemies even if there are enemies within 1" of it, but does not have permission to shoot at the enemies that are within 1" of it. That's what the rule says and to play it otherwise is to be making up House Rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Of course it seems strange. But whether I feel a rule is strange or not has no bearing on what the rule does.

I could just as easily claim I find it "strange" my Tactical Marines don't have 30 wounds each.

Fortunately the people that matter have decided that RAI is more important than RAW, and the intention is clear. So thread closed.

Besides, most of the time I'll just reverse and shoot anyway, so I'm covered regardless.

Good luck arguing that there is a clear RAI arguement for 30 wounds on your tacs

Niiru wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Of course it seems strange. But whether I feel a rule is strange or not has no bearing on what the rule does.

I could just as easily claim I find it "strange" my Tactical Marines don't have 30 wounds each.

Fortunately the people that matter have decided that RAI is more important than RAW, and the intention is clear. So thread closed.

Good luck arguing that there is a clear RAI arguement for 30 wounds on your tacs

So again, why bother asking a question if you're just going to say "I am going to make up rules anyway!"

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Of course it seems strange. But whether I feel a rule is strange or not has no bearing on what the rule does.

I could just as easily claim I find it "strange" my Tactical Marines don't have 30 wounds each.

Fortunately the people that matter have decided that RAI is more important than RAW, and the intention is clear. So thread closed.

Good luck arguing that there is a clear RAI arguement for 30 wounds on your tacs

So again, why bother asking a question if you're just going to say "I am going to make up rules anyway!"

Not making up any rules, just using the rules in the book. Playing the game the way it was designed to be played, not playing it by the pedantic rules lawyer way.

Have fun anyway, I'm putting you on ignore but feel free to carry on talking if you wish

He will.

Posting to understand a rule better is fine. Some people forget it’s a discussion not a contest to win.

As I see it, the rule is designed to let you fire regardless of the unit within 1” of you, and includes firing at that unit. Baneblade-variants have an extra restriction that only their HB and HF can target the units within 1”. So yes, RAI you can shoot at the unit within 1”, but through a strict RAW lens no, you can’t. The FW Indexes are riddled with errors and inconsistencies with contemporary and later GW rules with same names, and they haven’t been FAQ’d to work without an element of player critical judgement and agreement before a game. It’s the perils of such colloquially-worded rules that veer between hardline Keyword interactions and fluffily-worded stuff.

So, in short, agree with your opponent how it works based on those two interpretation, and don’t pay too much heed to a random internet guy who likes to insist on fallacies to back up arguments. In my group for example we tend to use the Baneblade style Steel Behemoth for my Macharius Vulcan too, for consistency and because FW haven’t bothered updating their rules. Yes, before that guy jumps down my neck that is *shocker* a house rule, I’m well aware. That’s our solution to the situation for our friendly games. YMMV.

It's the same case of some fortifications, like the sporocyst. It cannot shoot at you its 9" spore node if you're in close combat with it even if it has a rule that let it shoot when it have enemies at 1".