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.

kambien wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Except imagine now with the Tau codex and coordinated Firepower. Use the stormsurge as the main firing unit and choose 5 different targets. Do you now have to pick 10 other units and who is firing at who all at the same time? That is going to lead to way too much headache... It would be much simpler to just pick a target, fire a weapon, and repreat.

Except for how easy to abuse that .
Shoot super killer super weapon #1 at unit 1 . Roll poorly . Shoot sub-super killy weapon #2 at unit 1 again cause you botched the rolls Versus Shoot super killy super weapon #1 at unit 1. Roll poorly. Unit 1 gets to live cause of luck . Shoot sub-super killy weapon #2 at unit 2 cause you thought for sure the first weapon would have wiped that first unit off by itself

To an extent you can already do that. Fire stormraven multimelta at target blow it up then don't fire one use missiles, don't blow it up then do fire missiles. Use combi meltas in sternguard squad get unlucky take vehicle down to 1 HP use combi plasmas to finish off etc. The process of seeing the result before you commit resources is already part of the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Page and graph.

This is somewhat hilarious coming form you. Since you haven't quoted and/or reference a rule in about a year , love to spout this line and then point to the tenants , of which you break with just about every post.

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Page and graph.

This is somewhat hilarious coming form you. Since you haven't quoted and/or reference a rule in about a year , love to spout this line and then point to the tenants , of which you break with just about every post.

Would you care to back up that lie, or care to retract it?

I can supply a few threads recently where i cited, refered to and quote rules.

Oh, and "tenets". Slightly different word

For giggles:

here, here again, oops and again, and again and lastly here as I cant be bothered to do more.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Page and graph.

This is somewhat hilarious coming form you. Since you haven't quoted and/or reference a rule in about a year , love to spout this line and then point to the tenants , of which you break with just about every post.

Would you care to back up that lie, or care to retract it?

I can supply a few threads recently where i cited, refered to and quote rules.

Oh, and "tenets". Slightly different word

For giggles:

here, here again, oops and again, and again and lastly here as I cant be bothered to do more.

i would like to refute you , but alas you haven't quoted and reference a rule yet , so we are at a standstill

Ah so you're adding nothing at all of value. Good to know

I'd still like to see a rule allowing you to repeatedly process step two. Do you have anything, or would someone able to contribute positively care to show this?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah so you're adding nothing at all of value. Good to know

I'd still like to see a rule allowing you to repeatedly process step two. Do you have anything, or would someone able to contribute positively care to show this?

Since GC/SH can shoot at different targets with each weapon, and the shooting sequence step 2 is pick a target (as in SINGULAR), logic dictates you would start at step 2 for each weapon.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah so you're adding nothing at all of value. Good to know

I'd still like to see a rule allowing you to repeatedly process step two. Do you have anything, or would someone able to contribute positively care to show this?

What allows you to change Step 2? The same thing that allows for repeating step 2.

Well, as the RB does not give a clear statement on this topic this seems like a good place for a house rule. Perps a Vote or such. not one can claim to be right with the backup of a rule.

 _ghost_ wrote:
Well, as the RB does not give a clear statement on this topic this seems like a good place for a house rule. Perps a Vote or such. not one can claim to be right with the backup of a rule.

Are you talking about the topic? or about shooting order of GC/SH weapons? We have all already agreed on the topic. Optimized Stealth Cadre always HITS the rear armor. So if you do not put the shield up on the rear armor, you do not get an inv. save

i was reffering to the GC/SH weapon stuff..

Charistoph wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah so you're adding nothing at all of value. Good to know

I'd still like to see a rule allowing you to repeatedly process step two. Do you have anything, or would someone able to contribute positively care to show this?

What allows you to change Step 2? The same thing that allows for repeating step 2.

What allows you to repeat step two having already performed one weapons shooting attacks. Page and graph.

@nosferatu1001

where is the page and graph that supports your point?

why you don't show us this part of the rules?

Because it's a permissive system. You are told to process through 1 to 7 - that's the base permission

If you claim you can repeat step 2, having gone through 3-7 for one weapon, you have to provide permission to do so.

So I don't have to provide any special rules - that's already covered by the basic rules.

rules are rules....

So you still got nothing that prooved your words rule wise. nothing against you but. why you dont show the rules you reffer?

U made a claim. and you don't show the rules thats it. yelling at each other to show evidence is.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Because it's a permissive system. You are told to process through 1 to 7 - that's the base permission

If you claim you can repeat step 2, having gone through 3-7 for one weapon, you have to provide permission to do so.

So I don't have to provide any special rules - that's already covered by the basic rules.

You need a quote that allows you to change step 2 and provides rules about how we do that.

 _ghost_ wrote:
rules are rules....

So you still got nothing that prooved your words rule wise. nothing against you but. why you dont show the rules you reffer?

U made a claim. and you don't show the rules thats it. yelling at each other to show evidence is.

Sigh

Page 30. Step two, choose a target.

Step 7 select another weapon. "...select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6 "

I didn't think it was necessary to point out such a clearly written and referenced rule here, but apparently I wa wrong

So, please show permission to go back to step 2. Page and graph. Or, concede you cannot do so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
rules are rules....

So you still got nothing that prooved your words rule wise. nothing against you but. why you dont show the rules you reffer?

U made a claim. and you don't show the rules thats it. yelling at each other to show evidence is.

Sigh

Page 30. Step two, choose a target.

Step 7 select another weapon. "...select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6 "

I didn't think it was necessary to point out such a clearly written and referenced rule here, but apparently I wa wrong

So, please show permission to go back to step 2. Page and graph. Or, concede you cannot do so.

he'll reference the GMC rule. Can you reference a rule that allows you to change step 2 and tells you how to do that?

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
rules are rules....

So you still got nothing that prooved your words rule wise. nothing against you but. why you dont show the rules you reffer?

U made a claim. and you don't show the rules thats it. yelling at each other to show evidence is.

Sigh

Page 30. Step two, choose a target.

Step 7 select another weapon. "...select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6 "

I didn't think it was necessary to point out such a clearly written and referenced rule here, but apparently I wa wrong

So, please show permission to go back to step 2. Page and graph. Or, concede you cannot do so.

he'll reference the GMC rule. Can you reference a rule that allows you to change step 2 and tells you how to do that?

I'll let them make their own case, rather than second guessing.

You could contribute positively here. Or not. Your call.

My point is that the GMCs and Target Lock rules are hopelessly vague and could be read as permission to repeat step 2 with each weapon/model or to alter step 2 to nominate each target then, or to alter step 2 to nominate each target and assign what weapons/models will fire at each target. No of those interpretations IMO is any more correct or wrong RaW than another.

But nice deflection from being asked to support your position with rules. So it tells me all I need to know about your motivation in this discussion as someone tries to help explain why you two are at crossed wires and your response is to attack that person.

As has been pointed out, the basic rules are expanded by GMC and Target Lock rules without saying how to do it. It's not written anywhere, but logically the second step must be repeated. Anyone arguing otherwise is doing so just for an argument's sake.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah so you're adding nothing at all of value. Good to know

I'd still like to see a rule allowing you to repeatedly process step two. Do you have anything, or would someone able to contribute positively care to show this?

What allows you to change Step 2? The same thing that allows for repeating step 2.

What allows you to repeat step two having already performed one weapons shooting attacks. Page and graph.

As I stated, the same thing that allows you to change Step 2.

The only rule that actually provides any textual changes to the Shooting Sequence and multiple targeting is Split Fire. All other multi-targeting rules do not state HOW it is changed. It does not state that we repeat Step 2, nor do they directly change Step 2. No matter which way you go to make multi-targeting to work (aside from Split Fire), it is a House Rule. I cannot list something is not there, just as you have not been able to post anything on changing Step 2.

The only thing the rules actually "demand" in this situation of multi-targeting is that all targets of a Weapon Name Group be declared at the same time, and that's because of how Weapon Selection works where you cannot select to shoot that Weapon Name Group from that unit a second time, and not anything listed in the multi-targeting rules.

Naw wrote:
As has been pointed out, the basic rules are expanded by GMC and Target Lock rules without saying how to do it. It's not written anywhere, but logically the second step must be repeated. Anyone arguing otherwise is doing so just for an argument's sake.

Why is that logical, instead of declaring all targets at step two and the iterating through? Least change and all that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Naw wrote:
As has been pointed out, the basic rules are expanded by GMC and Target Lock rules without saying how to do it. It's not written anywhere, but logically the second step must be repeated. Anyone arguing otherwise is doing so just for an argument's sake.

Why is that logical, instead of declaring all targets at step two and the iterating through? Least change and all that.

Because step 2 is select a TARGET (as in singular). That is the first step in the sequence that is invalidated by MC/GC being able to shoot at multiple targets. Since that is the 1st step that is now no longer valid, that is the step you would repeat. You cannot just assume to change step 2 to "pick all you targets"

I have to say I'm not convinced by wither argument. So I would just play it however a tournament ruled (or in a pick up game however my opponent preferred). Obviously how I would play it is a HIWPI not a raw argument, raw game breaks.

Pretty sure all it does is change "select a target" to "select targets", which makes the rest work without issue. You would still select all of your targets in step 2, and repeat steps 3-7 until you run out of weapon types to fire.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Pretty sure all it does is change "select a target" to "select targets", which makes the rest work without issue. You would still select all of your targets in step 2, and repeat steps 3-7 until you run out of weapon types to fire.

SJ

Nowhere does it say to do that in the BRB.

In fact, the most logical sequence would be:

1. Choose the GH/SH you want to shoot with
2. Choose a SINGLE TARGET
3-6. Choose a weapon you want to fire at that target and finish dice rolls
7. Repeat 3-6 with any other weapons YOU WANT TO FIRE AT THE SINGLE TARGET

now that you are done with that target, you select another target (step 2) and proceed with the shooting sequence


And if we follow your logic, then we are back to me selecting every single one of your units in step 2 and then in step 3 i can pick which ones I want to fire at with my weapons

Not so much. You pick your targets based on the specific weapons you intend to shot at those specific targets.

SJ

jeffersonian000 wrote:Pretty sure all it does is change "select a target" to "select targets", which makes the rest work without issue. You would still select all of your targets in step 2, and repeat steps 3-7 until you run out of weapon types to fire.

SJ

It is the simplest way to avoid shenanigans, but it is not written as such.

Even if you declare multiple targets at Step 2, you must still announce for each Weapon modelled when its group comes up, to avoid confusion, at the very least.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Naw wrote:
As has been pointed out, the basic rules are expanded by GMC and Target Lock rules without saying how to do it. It's not written anywhere, but logically the second step must be repeated. Anyone arguing otherwise is doing so just for an argument's sake.

Why is that logical, instead of declaring all targets at step two and the iterating through? Least change and all that.

You are correct. I'm looking at this also from the point of view that there is less chance for an argument when the targets of weapon groups change.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Not so much. You pick your targets based on the specific weapons you intend to shot at those specific targets.

SJ

that is 100% incorrect and an assumption. I can pick whoever the heck i want for my targets. step 2 merely states that I have to pick target in LoS. If I follow your logic and pick my targets all at once, I DO NOT CHOOSE WEAPONS YET in step 2. Therefore, if you want to change it to selecting multiple targets before any weapons enter into the equation then I can pick as many targets as I want