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.

Read the squadron rules if you think it violates intent for vehicles to be required to fire all weapons. Go on, do it.

And the "full effect" rule is for models, not infantry. Requiring to fire all shots is an example of the rule; it is not listed as the only instance.

So, you think that hunter killer missiles are required to be fired the first time the vehicle is stationary and shoots?

What about flyers with six HKs on racks? They should be required to fire all of them at a single target the first time they shoot?

Scott-S6 wrote:So, you think that hunter killer missiles are required to be fired the first time the vehicle is stationary and shoots?

What about flyers with six HKs on racks? They should be required to fire all of them at a single target the first time they shoot?

You still don't get what we are saying. They do not have to fire. However, if they choose to fire, they must fire as many weapons as permitted as the rules do not allow a single model to voluntarily shoot only some of the weapons it is permitted to shoot.

In this case, they can choose to not fire or fire as many weapons as possible, which would be all the HK as they count as Stationary.

You are not REQUIRED to fire, but if you do fire, you must fire to full effect.

Gwar! wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:So, you think that hunter killer missiles are required to be fired the first time the vehicle is stationary and shoots?

What about flyers with six HKs on racks? They should be required to fire all of them at a single target the first time they shoot?

You still don't get what we are saying. They do not have to fire. However, if they choose to fire, they must fire as many weapons as permitted as the rules do not allow a single model to voluntarily shoot only some of the weapons it is permitted to shoot.

In this case, they can choose to not fire or fire as many weapons as possible, which would be all the HK as they count as Stationary.

You are not REQUIRED to fire, but if you do fire, you must fire to full effect.

Youre not required to fire.

-page 16=> fire or not fire
-page 27=> fire all shots of A weapon, not fire all weapons
-page 58 => focus all fired weapons at the same target. Fire as many weapons as permitted if you wish.

Where is your nicely added requirement?

1hadhq wrote:Where is your nicely added requirement?

There is a rule, it is on page 58: "When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units - all its weapons must fire at a single target unit." Emphasis Added.

Also, it fires just like other units. Other units can choose to fire or not fire. They cannot choose to fire 1 weapon if they are able to fire 2.

Gwar! wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Where is your nicely added requirement?

There is a rule, it is on page 58: "When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units - all its weapons must fire at a single target unit." Emphasis Added.

Is it possible to ignore context more?

And maybe more capitalization to be more correct also?

It stays:

aim all weapons = one target

it is not "fire all weapons".

If you're arguing intent, which I think you are, then please read the squadrons rules on shooting. It says that firing vehicles must fire "all available weaponry".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the argument I would make if I were Gwar, and which I think he may be making already, is that you read the whole rule. So you must fire the weapons at a single target unit. That's true. But the rule also says you fire all of them.

Kitzz wrote:With all respect, that is not at all what we are talking about either. We are discussing whether or not a vehicle MUST fire all of its weapons or none.

That's what I was talking about, too. You just didn't read past the first line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gonna just say this again: RaW, if a weapon on a vehicle can't draw LOS to the target unit, it cannot fire at the unit with any weapon. The rule we are debating "all its weapons must fire at a single target unit" is the next rule that applies, meaning you can't fire. Their is no exception to this like there is with the vehicle moving rule. The Intent might be to fire all weapons that can, but I couldn't find something saying that specifically. And since this appears to be about specifics, well, you get the idea.

I don't actually think this is as intended, but the whole thread is talking about specifics, and well, this is rather specific.

I think the problem here is that the two statements 'all its weapons must fire' and 'may fire all of their weapons' are understood by many people to mean '[any of] its weapons may fire' and 'may fire [any] of their weapons' since the statements may be equivalent in common usage.

If someone says 'You can have all of the candy', are you going to get yelled at if you only take half?

solkan wrote:If someone says 'You can have all of the candy', are you going to get yelled at if you only take half?

No, but it we are not saying "You can have all of the candy", we are saying "You can choose, Take no Candy or Take All of the Candy."

jasonlotito wrote:
Gonna just say this again: RaW, if a weapon on a vehicle can't draw LOS to the target unit, it cannot fire at the unit with any weapon.

So what is the point of a turret/sponson weapons on a vehicle if it can turn and shoot at a target that the hullmounted weapon cant turn to face.....sooooo a Landraider cant fire any weapons if 1 las-cannon cant draw LOS because its on the side of a huge model .

DJ Illuminati wrote:

jasonlotito wrote:
Gonna just say this again: RaW, if a weapon on a vehicle can't draw LOS to the target unit, it cannot fire at the unit with any weapon.

So what is the point of a turret/sponson weapons on a vehicle if it can turn and shoot at a target that the hullmounted weapon cant turn to face.....sooooo a Landraider cant fire any weapons if 1 las-cannon cant draw LOS because its on the side of a huge model .

Say the Vehicle moved 6". Thus it could only fire 1 Main Weapon, which you pick to be the turret.

Gwar! wrote:

solkan wrote:If someone says 'You can have all of the candy', are you going to get yelled at if you only take half?

No, but it we are not saying "You can have all of the candy", we are saying "You can choose, Take no Candy or Take All of the Candy."

Right. 'A vehicle may fire all of its weapons'. Compared to 'You may have all of the candy,' and 'You can have all of the candy.' The permission in each case is ambiguous as to whether it is 'all or nothing' or if fractional amounts are allowed.

There is nothing suggesting it can fire a fraction of its weapons.

The Tank can choose to not fire (as per page 16) or it may "fire all its weapons". It cannot choose to not fire some.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:

jasonlotito wrote:
Gonna just say this again: RaW, if a weapon on a vehicle can't draw LOS to the target unit, it cannot fire at the unit with any weapon.

So what is the point of a turret/sponson weapons on a vehicle if it can turn and shoot at a target that the hullmounted weapon cant turn to face.....sooooo a Landraider cant fire any weapons if 1 las-cannon cant draw LOS because its on the side of a huge model .

Say the Vehicle moved 6". Thus it could only fire 1 Main Weapon, which you pick to be the turret.

What I am disagreeing with in this case is the statement that if one weapon cannot draw LOS than NO guns may fire.....

Gwar! wrote:There is nothing suggesting it can fire a fraction of its weapons.

The Tank can choose to not fire (as per page 16) or it may "fire all its weapons". It cannot choose to not fire some.

There is no evidence to support either interpretation to the exclusion of the other. Because the rules are written in common language either or both usage is valid.

Repeating:

"all available weaponry" under Squadrons should be all the proof you need for RaI.

"at full effect" under models shooting should be all the proof you RaW-but-read-"fire all weapons"-differently folks need. (Note: firing less than the maximum number of shots is only an example of what it means not to fire at full effect, and even if it weren't, firing fewer available weapons results in fewer total shots)

Enjoy?

ajfirecracker wrote:If you're arguing intent, which I think you are, then please read the squadrons rules on shooting. It says that firing vehicles must fire "all available weaponry".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the argument I would make if I were Gwar, and which I think he m

ay be making already, is that you read the whole rule. So you must fire the weapons at a single target unit. That's true. But the rule also says you fire all of them.

True, but I think the context is getting messed up. Just like the context of a text message across a cell phone. I don't think the book is saying, "ALL its weapons MUST fire." Hence -All- and -Must-. Rather, it is saying, "all its weapons must fire AT A SINGLE TARGET UNIT." I think the problem is taking the rule out of context. I don't think the rule would just be glazed over in a small foreward under Vehicles Shooting. I think, what it means to say is, "Just like all other shooting, all its weapons must fire at a single target unit." The context is not about how many weapons must be fired, but what they can be fired at.

I mean, I think it makes the rule even clearer further down under Defensive Weapons. It says, ". . .that moved at combat speed -can- fire all of its defensive weapons in addition. . .". If we're arguing the specifics of a word from -can- to -may-, wouldn't the rule be specific enough to say -must- rather than -can-?

There are a few arguments for the ability to choose which weapons you'd like to fire and which ones you wouldn't. And one of the ones that jasonlotito above is pointing out is the picture on page 58 of the rulebook. Now, the Predator on the page is firing at the Trukk. Let's say that Predator had remained stationary and, therefore, must fire all of its weapons (per what everyone is saying). That means that the lascannon on the right side of the tank wouldn't be able to fire because it doesn't have LOS (per the picture). Therefore, since that lascannon cannot fire and you must fire all of your weapons or none, you cannot fire any at the Trukk, because your lascannon not being able to fire precludes the fact that none of the others can fire either. That just doesn't make sense (and the picture says that the Predator is, in fact, firing at the Trukk).

Seems like a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. I think the contexts are out of place and that people are reading too much into the contexts they're interpreting.

The rule doesn't say that if you're unable to fire some you may not fire any.

What it does say, like the "full effect" and "all available weaponry" rules, is that you can't hold back. Given that this requirement appears in at least 3 places, it's hardly glazed over.

And the proper reading of the rule is to place emphasis on both parts. Thus: ALL ITS WEAPONS MUST FIRE AT A SINGLE TARGET UNIT. Otherwise, you're using emphasis to try to ignore part of the written rules. This interpretation says you must both A) Target 0-1 units and B) Fire all weapons at any unit targeted

Gwar! wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Where is your nicely added requirement?

There is a rule, it is on page 58: "When a vehicle fires, it normally uses its own BS characteristic and shoots like other units - all its weapons must fire at a single target unit." Emphasis Added.

Also, it fires just like other units. Other units can choose to fire or not fire. They cannot choose to fire 1 weapon if they are able to fire 2.

Pg. 16: A player may choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers (as some models may have one-shot weapons, for example.)

puma, vehicles are models. If you choose not to fire with a vehicle, that's fine.

ajfirecracker wrote:puma, vehicles are models. If you choose not to fire with a vehicle, that's fine.

No, that's not what I was getting at. I was getting at the fact that Gwar! related the issue to a unit of models and said that they cannot choose to fire 1 weapon if they can fire 2, where the rulebook states that they can. Still up in the air about the vehicle thing. Reading over some other rules.

Edit: Where are the "no holding back" rules? I remember them from 4th, but I can't find that statement in 5th.

"all available weaponry" is under squadrons.
"at full effect" is under weapon types.
"fire all weapons" is under vehicles shooting.

ajfirecracker wrote:The rule doesn't say that if you're unable to fire some you may not fire any.

No, it doesn't say that, but what jason is getting at (and I'm starting to see his point) is that you're saying that by firing at full effect, no holding back, etc. etc. that you MUST fire ALL of your weapons at a SINGLE UNIT. So, by reverse logic, if you cannot fire one of your weapons, you cannot fire any of them. Why? Because that would mean you're choosing to fire some and not all. If you're saying that I don't have to live by this rule, that I can fire the two weapons that have LOS and not fire the one that doesn't, then the rule has contradicted itself and said well, you can fire all of them if you have LOS.

Breaking it down simply:

You MUST fire ALL weapons.

You CANNOT fire ALL weapons at a SINGLE UNIT. (no LOS for your right sponson).

Therefore, you CANNOT fire ANY because you MUST fire ALL. You CANNOT fire ALL, therefore. . .

That's the point Jason was making, I believe. I'm still up in the air though.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

ajfirecracker wrote:"all available weaponry" is under squadrons.
"at full effect" is under weapon types.
"fire all weapons" is under vehicles shooting.

I'm not trying to be offensive here, but can you be more specific? For instance, Squadrons don't apply to normal vehicles. It says that they follow all the rules for normal units with the following EXCEPTIONS. Meaning, the squadrons firing ALL AVAILABLE WEAPONRY is an EXCEPTION to normal unit firing, of which vehicles are a part of.

At Full effect is describing the number of shots. For instance Assault 3. For firing "at full effect" you must fire all 3 Assault shots. It's not saying that all weapons must be fired. It's saying that you must fire all of the rounds.

And I can't find Fire All Weapons. The only time it says that a vehicle MUST fire at a single target unit is describing the fact that you can't separate shots. Others are arguing that that one "must" is describing the fact that you must fire all of your weapons. I just don't get it.

The number of shots is given explicitly as an example of the "at full effect" rule, not as the only application. Furthermore, it says it must fire at full effect and may not reduce the number of shots, not it must fire at full effect therefore/so may not reduce the number of shots. Two conditions are given, and an example for the second (lowering shots) is given.

The RaW, I think are clear (if possibly unintended) just from the main quote being debated here.

I'm attempting to show that the rule is consistent across the book, and that it is intended.

ajfirecracker wrote:The number of shots is given explicitly as an example of the "at full effect" rule, not as the only application. Furthermore, it says it must fire at full effect and may not reduce the number of shots, not it must fire at full effect therefore/so may not reduce the number of shots. Two conditions are given, and an example for the second (lowering shots) is given.

Are you kidding? It never says anything about everyone having to fire all of their weapons. In fact, it explicitly says that they do not a line above that. It says that a model can decide not to fire a weapon, but if they do, they cannot reduce the firepower of their weapon. Never once does it say anything about firing all of their weapons. You're extrapolating what you want to read out of that statement. That "firing at full effect" is an esoteric idea of something that is not outlined anywhere in the rules. The only example it gives is lowering the firepower. If it meant not firing all of its weapons, it would say that. It says they can choose not to fire some if they wish.

EDIT: Okay, now I do get it. It's not talking about a vehicle shooting all of its weaponry. Why? Because of the grammar of the book. A dash indicates a relevant statement meant to clarify the statement made before it, sort of like a semicolon. Hence, what that part of Vehicle Shooting is saying is "and shoots like other units - all its weapons must fire at a single target unit." Using our powers of deduction - we're all smart kids here - we know that it is not talking about a unit firing all of its weapons. It simply doesn't have to (page 16). So, if it's not talking about firing all of its weapons, it must be talking about not separating shots between multiple units. If the sentence had been: ". . .and shoots like other units. All its weapons must fire at a single target unit." Then the argument would be valid because the period creates two separate statements and. But the statement is referring to the sentence prior - saying that vehicles fire just like units in that they must fire all of their weapons at a single target unit. It's about the target choice, not about having to fire every weapon, because units don't have to fire every weapon (page 16).

No, it says certain models may choose not to fire. Models with multiple weapons capable of firing them all are required to do so. (This is by the "full effect" rule for non-vehicles, and the above rules for vehicles.)

P. 16 means your vehicle can choose not to fire. It does nothing for allowing it to pick and choose which weapons to fire.

Please note also that the initial example here, a Leman Russ, would be bound by the "must fire all available weaponry" in squadrons, since that is how you take them these days.

ajfirecracker wrote:No, it says certain models may choose not to fire. Models with multiple weapons capable of firing them all are required to do so. (This is by the "full effect" rule for non-vehicles, and the above rules for vehicles.)

P. 16 means your vehicle can choose not to fire. It does nothing for allowing it to pick and choose which weapons to fire.

Please note also that the initial example here, a Leman Russ, would be bound by the "must fire all available weaponry" in squadrons, since that is how you take them these days.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I just don't see the logic. The "full effect rule" isn't a "rule" at all. It's an esoteric idea that you're assuming the meaning of. Heck, it's not even -IN- an area dealing with shooting. The part of the rulebook where it discusses something about the "full effect" is in the Weapons area, where it is talking about WEAPONS and their effects, not the effects of those shooting them - that is covered in "Who Can Shoot?". The only example it gives you of "full effect" is not reducing firepower. They're just assuming you'll discern the other meaning of it? How? Because "models with multiple weapons capable of firing them all are required to do so"? Where is that written? As far as I know, unless you're a Monstrous Creature, then you cannot fire more than one weapon per turn as a regular model (therefore, there's no need to write a "full effect rule"). Secondly, the monstrous creature rule is very similar to this vehicle rule in that it says:

INSTEAD of firing a single weapon, a monstrous creature CAN fire two weapons. They must, of course, fire both of them at the enemy target."

So, what you're saying is since the second sentence says "must of course fire both of them at the enemy target" that the context you're going to take out of it is that the must fire both, not that it must be at the same enemy target. But, in the sentence prior, it said INSTEAD of firing a single weapon, a creature CAN fire two. That indicates that it doesn't have to. The same logic stands for vehicles. But you're not seeing that. So. . ./shrug. . .we're at an impasse. It's the same theory that was written above that Gwar! nonchalantly dismissed: You "can" have all the candy. Gwar simply stated that it was a choice - but the rulebook doesn't say you can or you cannot. It says "you can fire all of your defensive weapons". When someone says, "you can have all the candy." It doesn't mean you can have all or none. It means take what you want. You CAN have all of it (you CAN fire all of your weapons) or, you can have some of it or you can have none of it.

So, if there's a squad bearing down on me, 12" away and surrounded on all sides by my troops, my Griffon Heavy Mortar MUST fire its Ordnance Barrage at the squad, endangering my units, possibly my own tank and whatever else in the process? It cannot fire its heavy bolter to stay safer? If you fire an ordnance barrage, you cannot fire your other weapons. But, according to this thread, you must fire all weapons available, so, therefore, I must try to fire both. I can't - and posters in this thread indicate that you cannot choose which ones to fire and which ones not to, so you cannot choose to fire your heavy bolter rather than the ordnance barrage? That doesn't make sense.


EDIT: I think the problem with this whole debate is context of the rulebook. You're reading it in the context you'd like to and so is everyone else. You're saying that since the rulebook says, "it must fire all of its weapons at the same enemy unit." That it means every word in the same context. But that's not how people communicate and that's not how texts are written. Take this English example:

They didn't want it.

They didn't want it.

They didn't want it.

Out of context, those three sentences mean the same thing. But, when adding context:

THEY didn't want it - means it was them that didn't want the thing.

They didn't WANT it - means they may have needed it, or they didn't care for it at all.

They didn't want IT - meaning it was the thing that was the problem.

Out of context they're all the same sentence. In context, they have three separate meanings. Just like you're saying that "must fire all of their weapons at the same enemy unit." has no context. I am saying that "must fire all of the weapons AT THE SAME ENEMY UNIT." -IS- the context.

SECOND EDIT: Jason's argument still holds water. You and Gwar! have stated that if you can fire all, then you must. An Immobilized tank can fire all, therefore it must. It cannot draw LOS to a target from its right, therefore it cannot fire its right sponson. Since it cannot fire ALL of its weapons, and it CANNOT fire ONLY SOME of its weapons, it CANNOT FIRE its weapons. Which contradicts the Predator's example on page 58.

The problem is there are lots and lots and lots of contradictory examples, but only one fleeting passage where it mentions that a vehicle must fire all of its weapons at a single unit - and that is taken out of context (which we discussed earlier in the grammar lesson above).

puma713 wrote:SECOND EDIT: Jason's argument still holds water. You and Gwar! have stated that if you can fire all, then you must. An Immobilized tank can fire all, therefore it must. It cannot draw LOS to a target from its right, therefore it cannot fire its right sponson. Since it cannot fire ALL of its weapons, and it CANNOT fire ONLY SOME of its weapons, it CANNOT FIRE its weapons. Which contradicts the Predator's example on page 58.

If you had bothered to read our arguments, you would see that we have said the rulebook tells you to fire all available weapons. If a Weapon cannot fire (because of distance moved, Weapon Destroyed, cannot get los ETC) it attempts to fire but fails.

The statement in regards to the squadron is designed to ensure all models (all) fire upon the same target with the weapons they choose to fire.

The statement in regards an individual vehicle firing is designed to include all weapons the player has decided to fire (all) on the vehicle at the same target.

There is indeed consistancy here inthat the weapons must be fired on the same target.

The right to reframe from taking an action is proven by the existance in the rules of compulsory actions, the firing of all weapons at once is not stated as a compulsory action. The controlling player may simply therefore, not fire with any of the weapons on the vehicle he/she decides not to fire (for example a weapon that cannot harm the target) and may not fire a weapon on the vehicle that does not have LOS to the target.

So, one target only, with any or all of the weapons on the vehicle, at the controlling player's discretion, in accordance with LOS.