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.
Homeskillet wrote: What is instinctive fire? And can it shoot all 5 times? I came up against this in a game yesterday and didn't have time to question it, but i was taking 5 blasts from 3 Tyrannocites each turn. Am curious.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
Really wish they wouldn't have been as lazy as they were and just added it to both of the, especially because see opposite on a web document may be confusing to someone who doesn't have white dwarf, and means you need both rule pages with you to play 1 unit.
I like how miniwargamming is using the rules it seems fine probably what I will go with, but i will discuss it with local players and TOs to determine what they think the best way to play it is until GWFAQs it(probably by Christmas of 2017).
Blood for the bloo... wait no, I meant for Sanguinius!
FlingitNow wrote: The issue I have with playing by "the RaI" is that "the RaI" isn't clear. Yes they are clearly intended to fire in separate directions but how is entirely unclear and in no way even hinted at in the rules. Hence any RaI interpretation you come up with is your guess and based on nothing we have to go on. This is why I suggest playing by RaW in this incidence as there is no other way to come to a consistent interpretation. If you have a regular playing group then creating your own houserule to govern this is probably best as RaW is clearly not the actual rule here.
except that in the white dwarf, the guys that actually designed the model tell us how it should be played...
When it comes to using them in the game, it couldn’t be easier: each of the guns on these models automatically fires at the nearest visible enemy model. This is as simple as measuring from the muzzle of each gun to the nearest enemy units and finding out which is closest. If it’s in range, just take the shot as normal.
seems pretty clear to me...
EDIT:
by the way, read the rule with the quote in mind:
"Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."
it specifically says: each weapon fires. not the model fires at the nearest target, EACH WEAPON does. this does overule the normal MC's fireing "restrictions" as stated in the 7th edition rulebook
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/12/17 13:56:17
FlingitNow wrote: The issue I have with playing by "the RaI" is that "the RaI" isn't clear. Yes they are clearly intended to fire in separate directions but how is entirely unclear and in no way even hinted at in the rules. Hence any RaI interpretation you come up with is your guess and based on nothing we have to go on. This is why I suggest playing by RaW in this incidence as there is no other way to come to a consistent interpretation. If you have a regular playing group then creating your own houserule to govern this is probably best as RaW is clearly not the actual rule here.
except that in the white dwarf, the guys that actually designed the model tell us how it should be played...
When it comes to using them in the game, it couldn’t be easier: each of the guns on these models automatically fires at the nearest visible enemy model. This is as simple as measuring from the muzzle of each gun to the nearest enemy units and finding out which is closest. If it’s in range, just take the shot as normal.
seems pretty clear to me...
If only they had put that clarity into the rule it self and not a small blurb in an article in a weekly publication that no one will be able to get a hold of in 2-3 months. If you had a dispute with a player in a pickup/tournament setting, the rules don't even remotely address the mechanic described in that article. What happens if a player starts Tyranids 2 months from now and doesn't know of the article's existence?
That blurb also doesn't even address the firing arc of the guns, if we are measuring line of sight from the barrel, can it shoot straight through the model itself to an enemy on the opposite side? Monstrous creatures can do that, but they measure range from the base, not their guns. The rule isn't just poorly worded, it's has no possible interpretation to play it how the article describes. Without a tournament FAQ or friendly agreement ahead of time you're getting into this argument every game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/17 14:02:13
That blurb also doesn't even address the firing arc of the guns, if we are measuring line of sight from the barrel, can it shoot straight through the model itself to an enemy on the opposite side? Monstrous creatures can do that, but they measure range from the base, not their guns. The rule isn't just poorly worded, it's has no possible interpretation to play it how the article describes. Without a tournament FAQ or friendly agreement ahead of time you're getting into this argument every game.
well not a single vehicle mounted gun in the ork codex has its firing arc described. does this mean we dont know how to treat em?
of course not. look at the model and figure out the arc for yourself, it isnt that hard.
p.s. i think you missed my edit:#
Spoiler:
by the way, read the rule with the quote in mind:
"Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."
it specifically says: each weapon fires. not the model fires at the nearest target, EACH WEAPON does.
this does overule the normal MC's fireing "restrictions" as stated in the 7th edition rulebook
but yeah, i totally agree that the new trend to release rules in a total clusterfukk of datasheets, supplements, codicies, rulebooks, faq's and digital releases is just plain stupid and confusing as hell.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/12/17 14:26:42
When it comes to using them in the game, it couldn’t be easier: each of the guns on these models automatically fires at the nearest visible enemy model. This is as simple as measuring from the muzzle of each gun to the nearest enemy units and finding out which is closest. If it’s in range, just take the shot as normal.
seems pretty clear to me...
EDIT:
by the way, read the rule with the quote in mind:
"Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."
it specifically says: each weapon fires. not the model fires at the nearest target, EACH WEAPON does.
this does overule the normal MC's fireing "restrictions" as stated in the 7th edition rulebook
It's quite simple:
You measure Gun A from both targets, which is closer? It fires at marine 1.
You measure Gun C from both targets, which is closer? It fires at marine 2.
You measure Gun B from both targets, which is closer? It fires at marine 1.
Gun B is at more than 90 degrees from Marine 1, but nothing is stopping it from firing at him.
If Marine 2 is 20" away and Marine 1 is 2" away, then Gun C would fire at Marine 1 too....
Very simple indeed =)
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass.
That blurb also doesn't even address the firing arc of the guns, if we are measuring line of sight from the barrel, can it shoot straight through the model itself to an enemy on the opposite side? Monstrous creatures can do that, but they measure range from the base, not their guns. The rule isn't just poorly worded, it's has no possible interpretation to play it how the article describes. Without a tournament FAQ or friendly agreement ahead of time you're getting into this argument every game.
well not a single vehicle mounted gun in the ork codex has its firing arc described. does this mean we dont know how to treat em?
of course not. look at the model and figure out the arc for yourself, it isnt that hard.
p.s. i think you missed my edit:#
Spoiler:
by the way, read the rule with the quote in mind:
"Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."
it specifically says: each weapon fires. not the model fires at the nearest target, EACH WEAPON does.
this does overule the normal MC's fireing "restrictions" as stated in the 7th edition rulebook
but yeah, i totally agree that the new trend to release rules in a total clusterfukk of datasheets, supplements, codicies, rulebooks, faq's and digital releases is just plain stupid and confusing as hell.
Right - because the Ork Vehicle mounted guns are described as hull mounted (45 degree), turret mounted/pintle mounted (360 degree), or sponsoon mounted (arc varies based on model) that have specific rules in the main rule book on arc of fire and measuring range. The Tyrannocyte/Sporocyst weapons are not defined as any of those.
Yes the rule does provide a split-fire-esque mechanic for the model, but does not modify the requirements for measuring range to the weapons (instead of to the base as the rules indicate for an MC). Per the rules as written this would come in to play if you had multiple models at the same distance from the base of the Tyrannocyte/Sporocyst, you could split which weapon fires at which model.
In no way do I think house ruling like a hull mounted weapon isn't a good solution. By all means do it with whoever will allow. The problem is not casual play, it's tournament/random pickups which can easily devolve into an argument about RAW/RAI. It's frustrating as a Tyranid player that we will have to have these arguments due to the rule not being defined at all in the manner they describe in the article. Look at the argument here on a neutral ground.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
grendel083 wrote: Since WD is available digitally, it very much will be available for years to come.
Finding Digital Content on the fly in a tournament/pickup setting when you're trying to enjoy a game/fit it in under a time limit is a pretty poor solution. Arguing someone that the article applies even though the mechanic isn't included in the rule set is going to be another hassle in those settings. Hopefully a tournament would FAQ it, hopefully a pickup player would be agreeable to your point of view, but the rule isn't ambiguous on a new mechanic for firing with an MC, it's non existent.
Someone who starts Tyranids down the road, and buys all of the actual rules won't have a clue that the white dwarf exists. Imagine you are that Tyranid player's opponent, and your particular house rule in your area is to play it as prescribed in that white dwarf. Are you now going to argue that new tyranid player on rules as intended based on an article in an obscure weekly periodical that isn't listed anywhere as an official rule?
By all means, house rule it with your local gaming buddies, but sadly this is a debate that will occur over and over due to RAW being woefully inadequate. I wish it was easy squash the argument, but as with many other rules, it's going to come down to arguments/people not enjoying their games.
When it comes to using them in the game, it couldn’t be easier: each of the guns on these models automatically fires at the nearest visible enemy model. This is as simple as measuring from the muzzle of each gun to the nearest enemy units and finding out which is closest. If it’s in range, just take the shot as normal.
seems pretty clear to me...
EDIT:
by the way, read the rule with the quote in mind:
"Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."
it specifically says: each weapon fires. not the model fires at the nearest target, EACH WEAPON does.
this does overule the normal MC's fireing "restrictions" as stated in the 7th edition rulebook
It's quite simple:
You measure Gun A from both targets, which is closer? It fires at marine 1.
You measure Gun C from both targets, which is closer? It fires at marine 2.
You measure Gun B from both targets, which is closer? It fires at marine 1.
Gun B is at more than 90 degrees from Marine 1, but nothing is stopping it from firing at him.
If Marine 2 is 20" away and Marine 1 is 2" away, then Gun C would fire at Marine 1 too....
Very simple indeed =)
Lol exactly, very simple indeed
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/17 15:34:36
This really isn't difficult to work out. I'm genuinely finding it difficult to see why anyone is struggling with this.
Fluff or an Article, even one written by the Emperor does NOT == Rules.
A Tyrannocyte/Sporocyst is a Monstrous Creature with Five [Weapon Choice] on it's profile. The rules for Instinctive Fire read clearly, "each weapon fires at", which as stated previously takes priority on how this Monstrous Creature fires. The arc of fire on a Monstrous Creature is written plain as day in the rule book. 360 Degrees.
A Tyrannocyte IS a Monstrous Creature, as such it can fire it's weapons in 360 degrees. It is NOT a Vehicle and it's weapons do NOT have an Arc of Fire. And Instinctive Fire says Each weapon. Plain as day.
Yes. Tyranids got a Christmas gift. We got a 75 point Drop Pod with BS2 Weapons that have just as much of a chance of scattering onto our own models as they do onto enemy models. With five blasts, which can be very, very good. In a world where Tyranids have been bending over for a year, seeing this even complained about feels like people crying that their friends just got a better army and they can't deal with losing to a 75pt T5 slow moving Balloon with a 4+ Sv, no Invul, that's BS2 with 6 Wounds. If THIS is what needs to be complained about to no end, argued about and house ruled, goodness gracious do I feel bad for that LGS.
notbriang wrote: This really isn't difficult to work out. I'm genuinely finding it difficult to see why anyone is struggling with this.
I always find it interesting when people say that about any rule discussion. If you see a lot of people going back and forth about reasons why the rules should be worked one way or another, then it is clearly not clear.
In fact, I don't even agree with your interpretation, even though it could be right (with a combination of RAW and RAI no less).
GW rules are often this way - their intent and their rules often don't match up. As Warhammer players we have to accept that fact, have a good discussion on how we think it should work, and then just house rule it the way we think makes most sense.
If the response to that is "Well it CLEARLY states that..." then it will be very hard to come to an agreement with anybody.
miniwargaming wrote: I always find it interesting when people say that about any rule discussion. If you see a lot of people going back and forth about reasons why the rules should be worked one way or another, then it is clearly not clear.
Whereas I agree rules discussion is important in certain cases (eg. Is a Wolf Lord on a Thunderwolf armed with a Thunderhammer/Power Fist S10 or S9?). I'm going to part ways on this particular case, Matt. As a player, I see this particular discussion and discussions in this vain, where the rules are written plain as day in the Datasheets & Rule books, as damaging to the spirit of the game.
If we are remaining consistent with how we interpret rules for the sake of the game, and not the sake of the argument. That meaning Specific Example > General Rule Book. Then broken down factually this boils down to a few black & white terms:
In the Rule Book
The rules for Monstrous Creatures state they can fire their weapons in a 360 degree arc.
The rules for Monstrous Creatures state they can fire two weapons per turn.
In the Codex/Dataslate/White Dwarf Rules Instinctive Fire states: "Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight. The shots are resolved at the end of the Shooting Phase before Morale checks are taken. Each weapon can fire at a different unit, but they cannot be fired in any other way or at any other time."
Specifically: Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight. Each weapon - five shots at the closest target within line of sight.
Again - I don't see how this isn't cut and dry. And in the prior discussion in this thread, I don't see how a discussion of nerfing its ability is anything more than whining about something that's arguably good, NOT great, just good, in which case it simply looks like someone doesn't understand how to play around a slow moving, not that tough model with decent close ranged shooting, ie. a Tyranid.
i really dont see the point here. yes, 40k rules more than often have some ambiguity about em and i understand the idea behind the ideology of RaW.
but this is really rediculous. the guys who DESIGNED the model and WRITTEN the rules, clearly says hows its supposed to be done:
When it comes to using them in the game, it couldn’t be easier: each of the guns on these models automatically fires at the nearest visible enemy model. This is as simple as measuring from the muzzle of each gun to the nearest enemy units and finding out which is closest. If it’s in range, just take the shot as normal.
even in RaW the intend of the above mentioned quote is applicable.
you pick a gun, measure from its muzzle and figure out which unit is the nearest, rinse and repeat for each gun.
[Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight.]
if you wanna houserule it, do it.
if tournaments wanna do it otherwise, let em... its their right to do so.
Right - because the Ork Vehicle mounted guns are described as hull mounted (45 degree), turret mounted/pintle mounted (360 degree), or sponsoon mounted (arc varies based on model) that have specific rules in the main rule book on arc of fire and measuring range.
ehmm nope. check the ork codex.
example battlewagon:
May take up to four of the following weapons in any combination:
- Big shoota…x pts each
- Rokkit launcha…x pts each
is the weapon hull, turret or pintle mounted?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/17 18:05:48
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/17 20:17:28
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
The rules for Monstrous Creatures state they can fire their weapons in a 360 degree arc.
The rules for Monstrous Creatures state they can fire two weapons per turn.
In the Codex/Dataslate/White Dwarf Rules Instinctive Fire states: "Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight. The shots are resolved at the end of the Shooting Phase before Morale checks are taken. Each weapon can fire at a different unit, but they cannot be fired in any other way or at any other time."
Specifically: Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight. Each weapon - five shots at the closest target within line of sight.
Again - I don't see how this isn't cut and dry. And in the prior discussion in this thread, I don't see how a discussion of nerfing its ability is anything more than whining about something that's arguably good, NOT great, just good, in which case it simply looks like someone doesn't understand how to play around a slow moving, not that tough model with decent close ranged shooting, ie. a Tyranid.
I would normally agree, but in the same White Dwarf the designers talk about how to do it, which is different than the specific RAW. That's the real problem here.
I agree that RAW it is quite clear, and would work exactly as you state. But then the designers come in and talk about how they would do it, and it doesn't even follow their own rules.
So the question is, do you leave it RAW, or do you go with RAI and do it the way they describe it outside the rules.
It's totally horrible rule writing, which is why this discussion happens.
Well, let's consider what's simply in the books & put it to rest. Because in this case that is literally all that matters, given the available source materials.
Where can an average player find the rules? Either in Shield of Baal: Leviathan (Print or Digital), On the Black Library website in the free to download pages, or in a White Dwarf that was out months ago and is likely difficult to find.
If a player picks up any of these sources and looks simply at the rules page, where the rules are, the way in which this model behaves is as I've previously stated.
As I said earlier, it doesn't matter if the model's Designer said this thing must physically spin like a top at 360 degrees for it to fire each of it's weapons. The rules pages in the majority of the resources available for the models rules line up seamlessly. I don't think the designers thoughts on how this is imagined this has any bearing on RAI or RAW. There's simply the rules, and then a passing note on how the designer imagined this could possibly work.
I don't think it has any bearing on the model & the game and it shouldn't have any bearing on it. Just my last thought there. And thanks for entertaining me. Love watching those MWG reps, keep repping those Nidz!
The rules for Monstrous Creatures state they can fire their weapons in a 360 degree arc.
The rules for Monstrous Creatures state they can fire two weapons per turn.
In the Codex/Dataslate/White Dwarf Rules Instinctive Fire states: "Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight. The shots are resolved at the end of the Shooting Phase before Morale checks are taken. Each weapon can fire at a different unit, but they cannot be fired in any other way or at any other time."
Specifically: Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight. Each weapon - five shots at the closest target within line of sight.
Again - I don't see how this isn't cut and dry. And in the prior discussion in this thread, I don't see how a discussion of nerfing its ability is anything more than whining about something that's arguably good, NOT great, just good, in which case it simply looks like someone doesn't understand how to play around a slow moving, not that tough model with decent close ranged shooting, ie. a Tyranid.
I would normally agree, but in the same White Dwarf the designers talk about how to do it, which is different than the specific RAW. That's the real problem here.
I agree that RAW it is quite clear, and would work exactly as you state. But then the designers come in and talk about how they would do it, and it doesn't even follow their own rules.
So the question is, do you leave it RAW, or do you go with RAI and do it the way they describe it outside the rules.
It's totally horrible rule writing, which is why this discussion happens.
Spot on Matt. This is certainly not a cut and dry issue as either side of the argument would like it to be. Where it really becomes frustrating is when you don't just play competitively or just casually. I go to the occasional tournament to see all the pretty armies and play against different armies/lists (code words for I lose a good amount lol). Say I play it RAI for the 6 months to a year between tournaments I go to, now I'm trying to unlearn it and play strategically with RAW instead the day of. Or I try to play it RAI, bring my handy white dwarf article, and I'm having a rules debate with my opponent during the limited time we have to play and enjoy the game. Clear rules benefit both sides, but sadly this is one of those "crapped the bed" type rules.
[ Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight. ]
so, each weapon fires INDIVIDUALLY their shots at the closest target within line of sight.
You're adding implied information based on the white dwarf blurb that simply isn't in the rule as written. If it had said "Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight OF THE WEAPON", then no problem. However, the basic rule book is clear that range and line of sight are measured from the base (NOT the weapon) for MCs. The rule doesn't provide a provision for measuring it from the gun. Again, I'm all for RAI, but that only works in friendly games. It's not cut and dry.
FlingitNow wrote: The issue I have with playing by "the RaI" is that "the RaI" isn't clear. Yes they are clearly intended to fire in separate directions but how is entirely unclear and in no way even hinted at in the rules. Hence any RaI interpretation you come up with is your guess and based on nothing we have to go on. This is why I suggest playing by RaW in this incidence as there is no other way to come to a consistent interpretation. If you have a regular playing group then creating your own houserule to govern this is probably best as RaW is clearly not the actual rule here.
except that in the white dwarf, the guys that actually designed the model tell us how it should be played...
When it comes to using them in the game, it couldn’t be easier: each of the guns on these models automatically fires at the nearest visible enemy model. This is as simple as measuring from the muzzle of each gun to the nearest enemy units and finding out which is closest. If it’s in range, just take the shot as normal.
seems pretty clear to me...
EDIT:
by the way, read the rule with the quote in mind:
"Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."
it specifically says: each weapon fires. not the model fires at the nearest target, EACH WEAPON does.
this does overule the normal MC's fireing "restrictions" as stated in the 7th edition rulebook
So I'm guessing we still determine LoS as usual as nothing in that WD article mentions LoS which still means in most incidences the Tyrannocytes will shoot all their guns at the same unit. To be honest that interpretation seems a little too strong with nothing in the rules I own even suggesting that.
Maybe we are going to have a new edition very soon.
My money's on a new Tyranid codex shortly as some of these rules and unit's they've given us are either poorly written, like this, or just bad like the maleceptor.
And how long have unit's without a codex actually been without a codex for? They need to clean this mess up and soon.
As for the Tyrannocyte i just won't be getting one till it get's it's rule's fixed. I just can't be bothered with the argument's that will inevitably follow.
But if anyone ask's me It's a MC and follow's the rules for them but can fire all 5. Thank's to really poor rule writing.
I agree that RAW it is quite clear, and would work exactly as you state. But then the designers come in and talk about how they would do it, and it doesn't even follow their own rules.
Here's the problem with the sides on this discussion.
RAW it's clear as day. These are the rules as they are written. Rules writers, editors, no doubt a QA of some type say to follow these and do this.
The designer of the model says he does it this way, this is not RAI, this is just a guy who said this is how I *would* play it ... guess who I'm going to listen to? The guy who sculpted a model, or the guys who wrote, checked, and published the rules?
I really like the blithe explanation that somehow the MC is a vehicle with firing arcs. If you can't win an argument just make stuff up, right? All monstrous creatures explicitly have 360 degree firing arcs, regardless of facing and measured from the base. Elsewhere in the BRB it states that a unit never obstructs its own LOS. Ergo after measuring to the closest model, all 5 weapons will fire at their respective closest targets in range, per the instinctive fire rule (overriding the usual restriction on number of weapons fired by a MC, and also imposing the restrictions that they must fire at the closest target at end of shooting phase). Apart from the measuring from all five weapons being somewhat tedious, this is a very straightforward process.
If the developers had intended the tyrranocyte to operate as a vehicle with defined firing arcs, there would be a corresponding rule to define that behavior. There quite clearly is not a rule stating that we treat the MC as a vehicle with a certain set of firing arcs, so we use the rules that are present.
Fachxphyre wrote: Ergo after measuring to the closest model, all 5 weapons will fire at their respective closest targets in range, per the instinctive fire rule (overriding the usual restriction on number of weapons fired by a MC, and also imposing the restrictions that they must fire at the closest target at end of shooting phase).
The part in the rule specifically allowing for the weapons to fire at different targets is in there because...? If you are to measure from the base as for a normal Monstrous Creature, you will never have multiple targets to fire at. Or do you also take the position that the part of the rule allowing for a version of split fire is written specifically for the entirely possible, but astronomically unlikely situation where you have multiple enemy units at the exact same distance? Blithe much?
i dont get why firing each weapon individually at the their respective nearest target doesnt comply with raw...
yes, there are rule for MC's in the rulebook, but these are overidden by the "instictive fire" rule.
specifically by:
"Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."
it doesnt say, the model fires at the nearest target, each weapon does.
and i concur with DCannon4Life. why does it (again) specifically say:
"Each weapon can fire at a different target unit, but they cannot fired in any other way or at any other time."
if you would measure the distance and LoS from the model itself (as you would do normally for MC's) this part of the rule wouldnt make any sense, because all weapons would always fire at the same target.
the only thing that is open to debate is, if the model itself blocks LoS and since this has no exception in the "instinctive fire" rule,, you have two options:
RaW: the model is a MC, nothing said in the rule points to something else, so the model itself doesnt block LoS.
RAI, keeping in mind the designers words: the normal rules for shooting with MC's are clearly abolished by the "instinctive fire" rule. so if the weapon itself cant draw a LoS (even throught the model itself) it cant shoot at that target and so chooses another unit to shoot at (nearest unit within range and LoS of the weapon)
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/12/18 12:38:03
2k 'Nids
