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.

Release is nigh, I figured it'd be better to start a new thread instead of lengthening the one in rumors...

I have two questions about laser lock,

1.) For models with two scatter lasers (walker); roll one, then the other. If you have a unit of 3 war walkers, this means rolling 4 dice, 4 again, then re-rolls for twin link, three times. (could take a while)
I'm thinking you could roll two different color dice (4 red, 4 blue), if any of the red hit, the blue are twin linked. But, this is still rolling one model at a time. Is this the fastest way to roll a unit? Still slower than rolling 24 dice at once...
The only way I can think to roll a whole unit at once is to have six different kinds of dice.
Shooting phases already take long enough, if someone wants to run 9 walkers with 18 scatter lasers (and, that's even better now than before..) firing those three units could take a half an hour.
thoughts?

2.) rules question: I assume you have to declare which weapons you're going to fire before firing the laser lock weapon, i.e. put a scatter laser on a wave serpent; can you shoot the scatter laser and then decide to shoot the serpent shield after you know its twin-linked?
This doesn't make that big a difference, with 4 shots @ bs4, you're almost always going to twin link the WS's other guns, and I assume you can't wait to declare whats shooting until after you've shot one gun, but i don't know *why*.

Well, without having seen laser lock yet...for number 2, firing from a single unit is considered simultaneous. If you follow standard shooting order, you'll see that you first do things like declaring which models are firing and checking range etc before you roll any dice.

 Super Ready wrote:
Well, without having seen laser lock yet...for number 2, firing from a single unit is considered simultaneous. If you follow standard shooting order, you'll see that you first do things like declaring which models are firing and checking range etc before you roll any dice.

so i assume "deciding which weapons each model will fire" is part of the etc?

Because you fire scatter lasers before non scatter lasers, 2 scatter lasers don't benefit each other, as all 8 shots are rolled together.

DevianID wrote:
Because you fire scatter lasers before non scatter lasers, 2 scatter lasers don't benefit each other, as all 8 shots are rolled together.

The rule just says "Roll To Hit with this weapon first ... "

I don't think two weapons can be "first".

Maybe this will be the subject of a FAQ

And you have 2 weapons that must be rolled for first, followed by other weapons. You are trying to roll one scatter first and the other one second. There is no conflict rolling 2 weapons at the same time.

jcress410 wrote:

DevianID wrote:
Because you fire scatter lasers before non scatter lasers, 2 scatter lasers don't benefit each other, as all 8 shots are rolled together.

The rule just says "Roll To Hit with this weapon first ... "

I don't think two weapons can be "first".

Maybe this will be the subject of a FAQ

Maybe you should actually quote the rule, instead of putting made up rules in quote marks. Like this:

"If a model is firing one or more weapons with this special rule and also one or more other weapons, roll To Hit with the weapon(s) with the laser lock special rule first."

Verbatim the first sentence from the Laser Lock rule. Perfectly clear, no FAQ required.

Chrysis wrote:

jcress410 wrote:

DevianID wrote:
Because you fire scatter lasers before non scatter lasers, 2 scatter lasers don't benefit each other, as all 8 shots are rolled together.

The rule just says "Roll To Hit with this weapon first ... "

I don't think two weapons can be "first".

Maybe this will be the subject of a FAQ

Maybe you should actually quote the rule, instead of putting made up rules in quote marks. Like this:

"If a model is firing one or more weapons with this special rule and also one or more other weapons, roll To Hit with the weapon(s) with the laser lock special rule first."

Verbatim the first sentence from the Laser Lock rule. Perfectly clear, no FAQ required.

I am picking up my 'dex tomorrow, all I had was the scanned "reference" section, which only says

"Roll to hit with this weapon first. If it hits, all other weapons on that model are twin-linked for the rest of the phase"

Thanks for clearing it up.

Now that I've checked the rulebook, the normal rule for this is page 13:
"A player can choose not to fire with certain models (...) This must be declared before rolling To Hit, as all of the models in the unit fire at the same time"

From what Chrysis posted, it looks as though this is still followed and you need to know what you're firing - you then simply separate the To Hit rolls much like you would different Wound pools.

Chrysis wrote:

jcress410 wrote:

DevianID wrote:
Because you fire scatter lasers before non scatter lasers, 2 scatter lasers don't benefit each other, as all 8 shots are rolled together.

The rule just says "Roll To Hit with this weapon first ... "

I don't think two weapons can be "first".

Maybe this will be the subject of a FAQ

Maybe you should actually quote the rule, instead of putting made up rules in quote marks. Like this:

"If a model is firing one or more weapons with this special rule and also one or more other weapons, roll To Hit with the weapon(s) with the laser lock special rule first."

Verbatim the first sentence from the Laser Lock rule. Perfectly clear, no FAQ required.

So essentially, warwalkers with 2 scatter lasers can't gain twinlinked is how I'm reading that.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

So essentially, warwalkers with 2 scatter lasers can't gain twinlinked is how I'm reading that.

I understand it that way too. So if range isn't an issue (you plan to flank), maybe it's better to load SL and SC on a WW.

You can't twin-link them, no... but, you still get 8 shots out of it. If you roll even normally you'll get 5/6 hits which is more than is possible with a single twin-linked scatter laser.
Also, don't forget you can still Guide the squadron, or opt for Prescience instead - one casting gets rerolls for up to 3 Walkers, or 6 lasers...

Chrysis nailed it. Spelled out perfectly in the book.

Lungpickle wrote:Chrysis nailed it. Spelled out perfectly in the book.

ClassicCarraway wrote:

Chrysis wrote:

jcress410 wrote:

DevianID wrote:
Because you fire scatter lasers before non scatter lasers, 2 scatter lasers don't benefit each other, as all 8 shots are rolled together.

The rule just says "Roll To Hit with this weapon first ... "

I don't think two weapons can be "first".

Maybe this will be the subject of a FAQ

Maybe you should actually quote the rule, instead of putting made up rules in quote marks. Like this:

"If a model is firing one or more weapons with this special rule and also one or more other weapons, roll To Hit with the weapon(s) with the laser lock special rule first."

Verbatim the first sentence from the Laser Lock rule. Perfectly clear, no FAQ required.

So essentially, warwalkers with 2 scatter lasers can't gain twinlinked is how I'm reading that.

NO, if you read it carefully it does say you can twin link the S.Laser

tyllon wrote:
NO, if you read it carefully it does say you can twin link the S.Laser

No, you cannot. The rules specifically state that you fire all weapons with Laser Lock first. Then you fire other weapons. If the Laser Lock weapons hit, the other weapons are twin-linked. Therefore you would fire both Scatter Lasers first, and any additiona weapons would be twin-linked if you get a hit.

 Happyjew wrote:

tyllon wrote:
NO, if you read it carefully it does say you can twin link the S.Laser

No, you cannot. The rules specifically state that you fire all weapons with Laser Lock first. Then you fire other weapons. If the Laser Lock weapons hit, the other weapons are twin-linked. Therefore you would fire both Scatter Lasers first, and any additiona weapons would be twin-linked if you get a hit.

so where specifically state you fire all laser lock weapon first? it said "if a model is firing ONE OR MORE... "

Right. If you're firing one or more LL guns, roll them before firing one or more other guns.

You don't get to roll one LL gun, then another LL gun, then the rest.

tyllon wrote:
so where specifically state you fire all laser lock weapon first? it said "if a model is firing ONE OR MORE... "

"If a model is firing one or more weapons with this special rule [snip] roll To Hit with the weapon(s) with the laser lock [inclusive of all weapons with laser lock.] special rule first."

At no point does it tell you to roll them separate. It says if you have one or more do the following.

rigeld2 wrote:
Right. If you're firing one or more LL guns, roll them before firing one or more other guns.

You don't get to roll one LL gun, then another LL gun, then the rest.

yep i encounter this point also. you point is a valid point and i do support it. but here is my argument

SO i will have to laid down some basic ideas first:

1) an apple is a fruit but not all fruit is an apple. I think everyone understand this.
2) When something is not explicit included therefore you can't imply it is part of the rule. lawyer way of saying if it is not in the contract therefore no assumption can be made.
3) the word "or" by using the legal definition where in this case the read/player using this rule have the choice between two options.
4) the word "and" by using legal definition where both condition need to be present in order to execute. But the environment that use in one first condition don't have to be present on the 2nd condition.

5) the most important. As long as i can satisfy the condition and i am not explicitly say the METHOD or LIMITATION on how to satisfy that condition. I can do whatever to satisfy the condition.

here we go:

"If a model is firing one or more weapons with this special rule and also one or more other weapons, roll To Hit with the weapon(s) with the laser lock special rule first."

1) If a model is firing one or more weapons with this special rule - I am firing 2 scatter laser so therefore i satisfy this part of the rule. However as you see below i will break this apart.

2) and also one or more other weapons - now the word "and" meaning I have to fire one different weapon to satisfy this condition. Now, most people read that and said well you have 2 scatter laser on the war walker so therefore you don't have other weapon to fire so you can't satisfy this condition.

Here is my point:

a) the other weapons DIDNOT explicitly said without the laser lock rule. So the other weapon can be a weapon with the special rule laser lock rule.

The keyword here is "or" mean one scatter laser will satisfy that condition. Since I have no limitation on the method i choice to satisfy that condition with only firing ONE S.laser for the first condition and then 2nd S.laser for the 2nd part of the condition. So i check off both boxes.

c) What GW should said if they want all laser lock weapons firing at the same time is"if a model is firing weapon(s) with this special rules and other weapons without this special rules. That will cut out the option to choice to fire/count only one Scatter Laser and count the other one as other weapon. Of cause, we don't look at writing like this in our regular daily life but rules/law has it funny way to read it.

3)roll To Hit with the weapon(s) with the laser lock special rule first - now there with the wording "weapon(s)" mean "One or more" that this condition can be satisfy with only one weapon and by firing the first S.Laser. This is the same argument as above but i am going to put it differently. Since the rule didn't EXPLICITLY say all laser lock therefore one laser lock can met the condition and satisfy it. Also nothing limit me counting laser lock as "other weapon" therefore i can count them as such. My method check all the boxes on satisfy all part of the rules and all limitations are follow. only thing is that assumption that a normal person will assume is not follow.

Well I am sure they going to FAQ it to the other way or any judges that apply common sense will be like wtf you are saying. But if you break it apart like a lawyer do then you have an arrangement for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warfrog wrote:

tyllon wrote:
so where specifically state you fire all laser lock weapon first? it said "if a model is firing ONE OR MORE... "

"If a model is firing one or more weapons with this special rule [snip] roll To Hit with the weapon(s) with the laser lock [inclusive of all weapons with laser lock.] special rule first."

At no point does it tell you to roll them separate. It says if you have one or more do the following.

you have to put in "all LL weapon" assumption in order for your argument to work. reserve argument to you point "at no point does it tell you that you can't separate. it says if you have one OR more. so I have one"

tyllon wrote:
The keyword here is "or" mean one scatter laser will satisfy that condition. Since I have no limitation on the method i choice to satisfy that condition with only firing ONE S.laser for the first condition and then 2nd S.laser for the 2nd part of the condition. So i check off both boxes.

See I see it as you failing to fulfill the first box as by firing a weapon with the LL special rule second you clearly aren't firing it first which is what you are told to do. You are right in that it doesn't specify more weapons without laser lock but if you really want to get down into it if anything you are unable to fire at all. As both weapons must fire first but something can't fire first without something firing second. As both must go first it breaks and you cannot fire at all. But we all know this isn't how it is played and they both fire at the same time.

Also I believe this is thread necromancy.

.. This is just like Networked Markerlights guys. You shoot all the LL weapons first at the same time (like networked markerlights) then you can shoot everything else and use the LL bonuses (markerlight tokens).

 redkeyboard wrote:

tyllon wrote:
The keyword here is "or" mean one scatter laser will satisfy that condition. Since I have no limitation on the method i choice to satisfy that condition with only firing ONE S.laser for the first condition and then 2nd S.laser for the 2nd part of the condition. So i check off both boxes.

See I see it as you failing to fulfill the first box as by firing a weapon with the LL special rule second you clearly aren't firing it first which is what you are told to do. You are right in that it doesn't specify more weapons without laser lock but if you really want to get down into it if anything you are unable to fire at all. As both weapons must fire first but something can't fire first without something firing second. As both must go first it breaks and you cannot fire at all. But we all know this isn't how it is played and they both fire at the same time.

Also I believe this is thread necromancy.

ah you assumption back to ALL LL weapon must fire at the same time in order for LL special rules to work. never does it state that but is what a normal person will assume however if you read rules you can't just insert assumption. I only fail the first box if you assume ALL LL weapon. also you assume all LL weapon must fire first. no where it say you can't fire LL weapon after other LL weapon that had already fire. you are right that you can't fire something that both has to go first. But not ALL LL weapons are require to fire first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Miri wrote:
.. This is just like Networked Markerlights guys. You shoot all the LL weapons first at the same time (like networked markerlights) then you can shoot everything else and use the LL bonuses (markerlight tokens).

this is a good point on how LL should work but that not what the rule is for LL.

Codex Eldar Page 62 Laser Lock wrote:A model firing one or more weapons with this special rule and also one or more other weapons.

Now here is how I read that in regards to multiple weapons with Laser Lock. I am firing more than one weapon with this rule but not then another weapon in addition to these two weapons. SO the rule doesn't take affect. the "and one or more other weapons" mean these weapons cannot have laser lock as if they did they would belong in the first part.I can't really explain it to well. But I'm going to try anyway.

I am firing 2 weapons with this special rule and no other weapons in addition to those two. The use of the word 'other' shows that it means weapons without the Laser Lock rule due to it being a singular sentence on the same subject. I am not firing one or more weapons with Laser Lock and one or more other weapons. I am only firing one or more weapons with laser lock.

Your argument is that you are firing one laser lock weapon and another Laser Lock weapon but as you are already firing one the second fulfills the other weapon. But it cannot due to the "or more". You are firing 2 weapons with Laser Lock and so you are "firing one or more" weapons. Using the more weapons in this case.

EDIT

Also note the rules keeps saying fire to fire the laser lock weapon(s) first. So the plural shows you do need to fire all weapons with the Laser Lock special rule first.

Now here is how I read that in regards to multiple weapons with Laser Lock. I am firing more than one weapon with this rule but not then another weapon in addition to these two weapons. SO the rule doesn't take affect. the "and one or more other weapons" mean these weapons cannot have laser lock as if they did they would belong in the first part.I can't really explain it to well. But I'm going to try anyway.

That how i read it the first time but you assume that other weapon mean other than LL weapon. You can also read as following. LL weapon A and LL weapon B. if A is the first weapon then B is the other weapon and therefore one other weapon in this case. what the assumption is "other weapon" mean the type of weapon rather then individual. You have to insert that in order to arrive at your limitation.


I am firing 2 weapons with this special rule and no other weapons in addition to those two. The use of the word 'other' shows that it means weapons without the Laser Lock rule due to it being a singular sentence on the same subject. I am not firing one or more weapons with Laser Lock and one or more other weapons. I am only firing one or more weapons with laser lock.

this is the same reason as above.

Your argument is that you are firing one laser lock weapon and another Laser Lock weapon but as you are already firing one the second fulfills the other weapon. But it cannot due to the "or more". You are firing 2 weapons with Laser Lock and so you are "firing one or more" weapons. Using the more weapons in this case.

that only if you assume that i have to use the more weapon cause which like i stated you don't have to.

EDIT

Also note the rules keeps saying fire to fire the laser lock weapon(s) first. So the plural shows you do need to fire all weapons with the Laser Lock special rule first.

If that the case why not just say "fire all LL weapon(s)". also (s) doesn't mean plural just mean you can be plural but also can be single that why it is (s).

the point is that if you read the way you are reading it. you must insert some assumptions into the cause. Which if I take all of them out and interpret the way i did. I can fire and twin-link the 2nd one. remember, you way of doing is not wrong, is just my way of doing it also is not wrong. My method just did not violate the cause and check all requires boxes, so therefore I apply the rest of the rule to gain twin-link.

There are reason why there are so many FAQ pages. The whole point is to show that this rule is not clearly stated and by no way clear. And if you read it properly the result can be the opposite.

I'm going to end my posting here. As if I am honest I don't understand how I'm assuming things I may well be don''t get me wrong there. But it may be do to my thought process I'm assuming things without realising I am.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

The way the phrase is constructed, "one or more weapons with this special rule", indicates that it is inclusive of any and all weapons with Laser Lock on the model. The second part, "one or more other weapons" indicates any additional weapons on the model that do not have the Laser Lock special rule.

So, for sake of argument, we have 2 weapons with LL and 3 weapons that don't have LL. You roll first for your 2 weapons with LL, and then you roll for your 3 weapons that don't have LL.

a) the other weapons DIDNOT explicitly said without the laser lock rule. So the other weapon can be a weapon with the special rule laser lock rule.

The keyword here is "or" mean one scatter laser will satisfy that condition. Since I have no limitation on the method i choice to satisfy that condition with only firing ONE S.laser for the first condition and then 2nd S.laser for the 2nd part of the condition. So i check off both boxes.

The second set of weapons cannot be weapons that have the Laser Lock SR, because those weapons are encompassed by the first clause ("one or more weapons with this special rule"). This second clause is dependent on the first, and the entire rule tells us that LL weapons fire first.

The reason for the (s) is conditional. You may have only 1 LL weapon. You may instead have 3 LL weapons, or whatever maximum limit the model allows, or any number between 0 and this maximum. So for the sentence to make grammatic sense, the (s) is added to allow verb agreement between a singular/plural noun (weapon or weapons) and the predicate. English is funny that way.

If you're firing only 2 LL weapons, then they fire simultaneously, like all other shooting attacks.

indication mean you are insert a reasonable assumption that the whole point is that you can't use imply, indicate, assume etc into the cause. you have to read it as is and therefore you arrive the conclusion that you can twin link.

The hard part is not to "add" on to the wording itself. Apply the rule to the way i am using my S.laser and you see it fit. I don't care if the other method seem to be more right so long as my way works.

the (s). yep english is funny that way that why when construct a contract or law you have to do it in legalese. There are many reasons why most people can't read legal paper.

So now can you do it without the indication?

You've proven several times over that you cannot correctly read a simple sentence in the rules, you can hardly construct a simple sentence in your posts, and you're lecturing people on legalese?

You're wrong. The rule states that you are wrong. There is no assumption involved in this. You are the one making assumptions - assumptions which contradict the straight text of the rule.

Pyrian wrote:
You've proven several times over that you cannot correctly read a simple sentence in the rules, you can hardly construct a simple sentence in your posts, and you're lecturing people on legalese?

You're wrong. The rule states that you are wrong. There is no assumption involved in this. You are the one making assumptions - assumptions which contradict the straight text of the rule.

Well if you want to just say i am right and i am a bully sure. If you want to say well you have to construct a proper sentence then well do it yourself first and don't have a run-on.

tyllon wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
You've proven several times over that you cannot correctly read a simple sentence in the rules, you can hardly construct a simple sentence in your posts, and you're lecturing people on legalese?

You're wrong. The rule states that you are wrong. There is no assumption involved in this. You are the one making assumptions - assumptions which contradict the straight text of the rule.

Well if you want to just say i am right and i am a bully sure. If you want to say well you have to construct a proper sentence then well do it yourself first and don't have a run-on.

He's right. You should have a semi-colon (or maybe an em dash) in your first sentence, rather than a comma, between "rules" and "you."

But grammar aside: tyllon, you're terribly, terribly wrong. All scatter lasers are fired first; then any other weapons are fired. A scatter can't TL another scatter.