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.

Dcannon, you straight up quoted the portion of my post where I stated that the weapons (is not measuring from the base, measuring from each weapon as detailed in the next sentence) fire at their closest targets per the instinctive fire rule. I find your lack of reading comprehension disturbing.

As for Rednoaks point about LOS, the BRB states quite clearly that a unit does not obstruct its own LOS. Nothing in the special instinctive fire rule contradicts this rule. Obviously if LOS to the closest target is obstructed by terrain or something the weapon in question will fire at the next closest target, one which it can draw LOS to (again, disregarding the model which is doing the firing). The only models to have defined firing arcs (which naturally restrict LOS) per the BRB are vehicles, and there is no definition of firing arcs to be found anywhere in the rules for tyrranocytes. If the intention was to have them behave in the manner you clearly want them to, the writers did a piss poor job since there is no written rule to back that up (which I readily admit is a possibility, however unlikely).

yes, thats why i said if you go strictly RaW, the model istself doesnt obstruct LoS. nonetheless the LoS and (more importantly) the distance is measured from the weapon itself.

also i never said that the weapons itself would have an arc of fire.
only if you go RAI the model itself would "dictate" where you can draw the LoS to.


so to summarize things, in my opinion:

at the end of the shooting phase the tyrannocite makes its shooting attacks according to the "instinctive fire" rules, which means:

1. select a single weapon

2. draw a LoS (RaW or RaI wise) and measure the distance from the muzzle of the weapon and determine which enemy unit is visible and the closest.

3. fire weapon at that unit.

4. rinse and repeat for each weapon.

Actually it does not state that distance is drawn from the weapon. As such nothing overrides measuring distances in the rule book.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually it does not state that distance is drawn from the weapon. As such nothing overrides measuring distances in the rule book.

I was about to chime in again to say i also realised the above.
As such, this is incorrect:


I would correct my post by saying the above is HIWPI, taken from the intent of "every weapon fires separately".

As for RaW, yes, it's a simple: MC fires 5 weapons, resolve all 5 at closest.
And by Raw, the "Each weapon can fire at a different target unit" makes absolutely no sense...

RedNoak wrote:
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)

Again, you're adding inferred rules without anything allowing you to do so. "Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight." Range and Line of sight are NOT measured from the weapon of an MC. Nothing in that sentence indicates it violates normal rules for either range or line of sight. Which also negates your assertion that there is a debate going over whether the line of sight through the model would block it self. Nothing indicates it does, but we have basic rule book rules that the model itself doesn't block it's own line of sight. Just because the rule modifies the number of weapons you can fire and makes the target automatic, does not mean it "abolishes" the rest of the rules that apply to MC shooting. Also, if you had more than one unit at the same distance away from the base of the tyrannocyte, you could fire at more than one of them by rules as written, that last part about splitting fire does not cause any sort of rules collapse.

but the rule is not talking about the model. normally you would be right, but if you look up the rules for shooting and measuring in the rulebook it always says "the model may". however here it specifically says "each weapon".

this special rule overwrites some aspects of the shooting procedure of MC's, why shouldnt it be able to overwrite how range and LoS is measured?
especially when the rule states that each Weapon fires at the nearest unit within range and LoS.

maybe im reading this wrong, but for me the rule talks specifcally about the weapons, not the model.
it doesnt say the model may fire its weapons at the nearest unit, Each Weapon does. if you go with RaW which means you do it exactly as the rules tell u, i dont understand how one can argue that the normal rules of shooting with MC's still apply?

It only overrides when it specifically states it does. What this gives you is an allowance to check each weapon individually, BUT at no point changes how you actually measure.

The rule is missing "instead of measuring to the base of the model, measure from each weapon"

RedNoak wrote:
but the rule is not talking about the model. normally you would be right, but if you look up the rules for shooting and measuring in the rulebook it always says "the model may". however here it specifically says "each weapon".

this special rule overwrites some aspects of the shooting procedure of MC's, why shouldnt it be able to overwrite how range and LoS is measured?
especially when the rule states that each Weapon fires at the nearest unit within range and LoS.

maybe im reading this wrong, but for me the rule talks specifcally about the weapons, not the model.
it doesnt say the model may fire its weapons at the nearest unit, Each Weapon does. if you go with RaW which means you do it exactly as the rules tell u, i dont understand how one can argue that the normal rules of shooting with MC's still apply?

I totally understand where you're coming from with subject/verb agreement in the sentence, but they do that stuff a lot. Check out the wording on the 'check range' rule:

"Check Range
All weapons have a maximum range, which is the furthest distance they can shoot. A weapon
must be in range of the target unit to shoot. Here are examples of weapon ranges:
Weapon - Maximum Range
Laspistol - 12"
Boltgun - 24"
Autocannon - 48"
When checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the
target unit. Any weapon that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the
target unit cannot shoot."

They describe range from the weapon throughout the rule, but also clearly state that you measure from model to model for range. This is why they need something explicit in the 'instinctive fire' rule, otherwise we're left with confusion and arguments on Dakka/on the table top.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rule is missing "instead of measuring to the base of the model, measure from each weapon"

but is says exactly that: "Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."

again, it doesnt say the model fires its weapon at the nearest target, EACH WEAPON DOES.

RedNoak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rule is missing "instead of measuring to the base of the model, measure from each weapon"

but is says exactly that: "Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."

again, it doesnt say the model fires its weapon at the nearest target, EACH WEAPON DOES.

See my above post, they do that throughout the "check range" rule, but also explicitly tell you where to measure range from.

RedNoak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rule is missing "instead of measuring to the base of the model, measure from each weapon"

but is says exactly that: "Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."

again, it doesnt say the model fires its weapon at the nearest target, EACH WEAPON DOES.

Again, I do not disagree about it specifying weapon.

What it does not do is specify that it is the WEAPONS LINE OF SIGHT AND RANGE. It does NOT override the basic rules as it is missing "OF THE WEAPON" at the end of the rule.

You are reading an implication - a perfectly valid one, as in a vacuum, with no other information, they would indeed be talking about the weapons range and LOS. Unfortunately it is not permissible to read such a rule in a vacuum, as to do so is impossible - you do not know how to measure range or line of sight for a non-vehicle mounted weapon.

As such you MUST bing in the basic definitions of range and LOS, and these refer to the model.

Again, I 100% understand where you misunderstanding comes from, but it remains an error. The rule, as written, in no way shape or form overrides the basic rules.

As Nos says, the RaW side of things here is very clear, and the Instinctive Fire rule pretty pointless.

I suggest you house-rule or play HYWPI and fire each gun as you say you'd want to, and make it clear to your opponent.

Well, a few things.

I think these are written cleanly enough that the extra language is deemed as not required, sometimes. But that introduces nuances of grammar, etc.

It clearly is written that each WEAPON fires at the closest model. That is clearly telling us the model closest to the WEAPON not the model itself. I don't think we need the rest (or at least, I think whoever wrote it thought they didn't need it). Especially with the Editor's Note. (And I can tell you as a person who lays out books like the GW ones, and looking at that PDF...they were hurting for space and trimmed for that reason, not for anything else. I am almost sure the text box in InDesign would have overflowed and ended with "of the weapon" and the editor/writer deciding "well i guess we don't really need that part"and just cut it and put in a period).

Obnoxiously there is no exception anywhere to shooting through itself (though I personally think the normal line of sight rules do this indirectly, most won't agree). So fine, whatever, let's say it can see through itself.

A gun on the back of the pod will still be clearly further away from a target than a gun on another facing.

So by this logic I don't think it can shoot all five at one target. Maybe a lot of them, but all 5 would be pretty rare (like, nothing else is near the model anywhere but the one target).

The extra language is absolutely required.

If you claim it is self contained, please give a reference to how you go about measuring range from a weapon mounted on a non vehicle model. Page and graph will suffice.

As you cannot do so, that mean the context of the rules "range" and "line of sight" must be included. This is absolutely positively 100% clearly the model in both case, unless *specifically* and *explicitly* overridden.

I know layout is causing them some issues - apparnetly it was only recently that the layout guys have understood that the "datasheet" format isnt gospel - i.e. it can be over 2 pages, that the proportion of flavour to rules text to pictures can be varied, etc. This wasnt the case previously.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
Well, a few things.

I think these are written cleanly enough that the extra language is deemed as not required, sometimes. But that introduces nuances of grammar, etc.

It clearly is written that each WEAPON fires at the closest model. That is clearly telling us the model closest to the WEAPON not the model itself. I don't think we need the rest (or at least, I think whoever wrote it thought they didn't need it). Especially with the Editor's Note. (And I can tell you as a person who lays out books like the GW ones, and looking at that PDF...they were hurting for space and trimmed for that reason, not for anything else. I am almost sure the text box in InDesign would have overflowed and ended with "of the weapon" and the editor/writer deciding "well i guess we don't really need that part"and just cut it and put in a period).

Obnoxiously there is no exception anywhere to shooting through itself (though I personally think the normal line of sight rules do this indirectly, most won't agree). So fine, whatever, let's say it can see through itself.

A gun on the back of the pod will still be clearly further away from a target than a gun on another facing.

So by this logic I don't think it can shoot all five at one target. Maybe a lot of them, but all 5 would be pretty rare (like, nothing else is near the model anywhere but the one target).

a) So despite the fact that the wording is demonstrably the same as the normal shooting rules, you're going to say this is different?
b) It's not going to be at all rare based on how measuring is done for non-vehicle models/weapons.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
Well, a few things.

I think these are written cleanly enough that the extra language is deemed as not required, sometimes. But that introduces nuances of grammar, etc.

It clearly is written that each WEAPON fires at the closest model. That is clearly telling us the model closest to the WEAPON not the model itself. I don't think we need the rest (or at least, I think whoever wrote it thought they didn't need it). Especially with the Editor's Note. (And I can tell you as a person who lays out books like the GW ones, and looking at that PDF...they were hurting for space and trimmed for that reason, not for anything else. I am almost sure the text box in InDesign would have overflowed and ended with "of the weapon" and the editor/writer deciding "well i guess we don't really need that part"and just cut it and put in a period).

Obnoxiously there is no exception anywhere to shooting through itself (though I personally think the normal line of sight rules do this indirectly, most won't agree). So fine, whatever, let's say it can see through itself.

A gun on the back of the pod will still be clearly further away from a target than a gun on another facing.

So by this logic I don't think it can shoot all five at one target. Maybe a lot of them, but all 5 would be pretty rare (like, nothing else is near the model anywhere but the one target).

I posted a few back, but check out how they word the "check range" rule under shooting in the basic rule book:

"Check Range
All weapons have a maximum range, which is the furthest distance they can shoot. A weapon
must be in range of the target unit to shoot. Here are examples of weapon ranges:
Weapon - Maximum Range
Laspistol - 12"
Boltgun - 24"
Autocannon - 48"
When checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the
target unit. Any weapon that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the
target unit cannot shoot."

They use wording for range from the weapon in all but one sentence - but that one sentence explicitly tells you to measure from model to model. The instinctive fire rule uses the same wording. It does not specify that you measure from the barrel of the weapon, so we can't reasonably assume that this is the case.

I'm not saying it's clear, I'm saying the intent of the edit was probably along those lines.

In plain english, "the weapon" is the subject of that sentence. No one here is going to accept that as Tyranid players will cling desperately to their easter egg, but if I were an editor or a layout person who was not 10000% on the game itself, I would consider that sentence to say what the designer's meant.

In game terms, however, there are mechanisms for range and line of sight for an MC and all that.

Also I mean...this board and others love to crap on the alleged questionable truths of RAI...but we literally have instructions from the people who created the unit on how they meant it to be done, and the only discredit anyone can give to that is that it's not in the part of the writing we deemed "rules."

To be clear my points above are from the perspective of editing. You hardcore RAW guys (and of course the endless parade of "I need every advantage in the game I can possibly have" guys who want to just be like "Nope I hit you 5x 38 wounds roll your saves" and act like they are some kind of tactical geniuses.

I see all this as desperate clinging to an easter egg error in the rules editing. They clearly explained in White Dwarf how it is supposed to work. Why does no one have to refute that? I mean, people say "oh it's not in the rules part" but

A.) nowhere in the rulebook does it say "sometimes there are rules and other times it's just words you can ignore"...that is a meta construct of us learning to differentiate fluff from the text that tells us mechanics, and

B.) it is literally as legit as an errata. You can't say "oh but some people might not have seen the White Dwarf so it doesn't count" without also saying the same of any FAQ.

I mean, let me put it to you: what exactly makes the literal step by step instructions in the White Dwarf from the designers themselves so irrelevant?

Because then you have 2 versions of "the rules" (at best, but we'll go with it).

1) The version someone has the White Dwarf uses.
2) The version someone that downloads the rules from Black Library uses.

There's a huge difference between the two and pretending that White Dwarf wins is a problem because at some point you won't be able to buy it anymore.

It's not as good as errata because it's literally temporary.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
I'm not saying it's clear, I'm saying the intent of the edit was probably along those lines.

In plain english, "the weapon" is the subject of that sentence. No one here is going to accept that as Tyranid players will cling desperately to their easter egg, but if I were an editor or a layout person who was not 10000% on the game itself, I would consider that sentence to say what the designer's meant.

In game terms, however, there are mechanisms for range and line of sight for an MC and all that.

Also I mean...this board and others love to crap on the alleged questionable truths of RAI...but we literally have instructions from the people who created the unit on how they meant it to be done, and the only discredit anyone can give to that is that it's not in the part of the writing we deemed "rules."

To be clear my points above are from the perspective of editing. You hardcore RAW guys (and of course the endless parade of "I need every advantage in the game I can possibly have" guys who want to just be like "Nope I hit you 5x 38 wounds roll your saves" and act like they are some kind of tactical geniuses.

I see all this as desperate clinging to an easter egg error in the rules editing. They clearly explained in White Dwarf how it is supposed to work. Why does no one have to refute that? I mean, people say "oh it's not in the rules part" but

A.) nowhere in the rulebook does it say "sometimes there are rules and other times it's just words you can ignore"...that is a meta construct of us learning to differentiate fluff from the text that tells us mechanics, and

B.) it is literally as legit as an errata. You can't say "oh but some people might not have seen the White Dwarf so it doesn't count" without also saying the same of any FAQ.

I mean, let me put it to you: what exactly makes the literal step by step instructions in the White Dwarf from the designers themselves so irrelevant?

It's not that they are irrelevant, I agree that designer notes are a good guide to playing with the rules. What make this case difficult, is that the mechanics they describe in that article aren't even remotely close to what is in the instinctive fire rule. You can't reasonably interpret that rule in the manner they prescribe. The manner they prescribe doesn't even address the mechanic fully (what happens if a model is on the opposite side of the tyrannocyte but closer than one on the same side as the gun?). I'm not a "hardcore RAW" guy, but this one isn't even close enough that two reasonable people playing a game for the first time against each other could come to a quick conclusion (pickups/tournaments/etc). Having to whip out an article from a white dwarf would hardly suffice in most cases. Ambiguous (or non existent) rules only reduce the enjoyment for the game in these scenarios for both players.

As to your point about players who "need every advantage in the game I can possibly have", this is also a case where both RAW and the RAI in the designers note both have distinct pros and cons. Neither one wins out. RAI can threaten multiple targets, and a pod can't as easily be locked down by one rhino/heavy vehicle. RAW is more deadly to one target, but also more susceptible to being locked down.

They may have distinct pros and cons, but don't act like it is seen that way. People are salivating for 5 free blasts on a target and aren't seeing past that. They will hate it when I drive a vehicle up to the thing and it does nothing every turn. I'm sure the first time I do that to a guy at the table he is gonna whip out the rule, re-read it, and reinterpret it.

People always cling to easter eggs.

If you go through this entire thread and replace "White Dwarf" with "FAQ" and "Designer's Note" with "FAQ answer" you will better understand why I see it how I do. The same arguments will all still apply, but make no sense. "But it's written in the [White Dwarf/FAQ], not in the rules!"

Also, the fantasy rulebook has designer notes all over it's margins that are considered as sacrosanct as the rules themselves in most cases. I hardly would consider it a universal thing that designer notes are not to be trusted.

We have confusion about how the standard rules interact with this, and we have a designer's note clarifying it. NUMEROUS times in the decade-plus that I've played this game, a designer saying something took plenty of precedent. This ONE time people want to ignore it to keep their pods super because Nid players think their army is weak. That's all it is, same as the stupid Thunderwolf Str10/9 debate. I barely care as a Wolves player but there are guys out there building their whole strategy around it who desperately need it to stay one way or the other. This is no different.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
They may have distinct pros and cons, but don't act like it is seen that way. People are salivating for 5 free blasts on a target and aren't seeing past that. They will hate it when I drive a vehicle up to the thing and it does nothing every turn. I'm sure the first time I do that to a guy at the table he is gonna whip out the rule, re-read it, and reinterpret it.

People always cling to easter eggs.

If you go through this entire thread and replace "White Dwarf" with "FAQ" and "Designer's Note" with "FAQ answer" you will better understand why I see it how I do. The same arguments will all still apply, but make no sense. "But it's written in the [White Dwarf/FAQ], not in the rules!"

Also, the fantasy rulebook has designer notes all over it's margins that are considered as sacrosanct as the rules themselves in most cases. I hardly would consider it a universal thing that designer notes are not to be trusted.

We have confusion about how the standard rules interact with this, and we have a designer's note clarifying it. NUMEROUS times in the decade-plus that I've played this game, a designer saying something took plenty of precedent. This ONE time people want to ignore it to keep their pods super because Nid players think their army is weak. That's all it is, same as the stupid Thunderwolf Str10/9 debate. I barely care as a Wolves player but there are guys out there building their whole strategy around it who desperately need it to stay one way or the other. This is no different.

Designer's notes in the actual rulebook itself are a little different animal, wouldn't you agree? They are guidelines INSIDE or the rules they apply to. But i will concede your point that the designer's notes are helpful guides to interpreting rules. There are very few cut and dry rules as you are getting at. In these cases, the notes in a white dwarf article are great to give indication one way or the other (when there are more than one valid interpretations). What makes this case difficult is that there isn't confusion about the RAW, it's clearly not written as described in that article. I don't know if there is precedent for RAW being so far off before, but this isn't a case of a little clarification needed. The article still doesn't address the mechanic entirely (LoS through the model being the biggest issue). The mechanic isn't even touched in the RAW.

You've perfectly described the pros AND cons of the RAW method. Now look at the rule as interpreted from the article, still no clarification on line of sight through the model, so we're left with 360 degree arc and not blocking line of sight to itself. Even if a unit is on the opposite side from a gun, but still the closest thing to each gun, you still fire everything at it. Since you deep strike the pod, and can move it, the tyranid player can easily deploy on a flank to shoot all of the guns at one target, and you can still easily lock it down with a single vehicle parked close.

I consider the designer's word to matter regardless of where it happens to exist.

I forget the exact circumstances but once back in 5th someone answered something in a Q&A and it was considered gospel. I don't see why this is any different.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
I consider the designer's word to matter regardless of where it happens to exist.

I forget the exact circumstances but once back in 5th someone answered something in a Q&A and it was considered gospel. I don't see why this is any different.

So how do we address the line of sight thing? Play it that you measure from the guns, but can fire through the model? This will result in the exact same thing as RAW in many cases.

I mean, let me put it to you: what exactly makes the literal step by step instructions in the White Dwarf from the designers themselves so irrelevant?

Those instructions do not appear anywhere in the publication that contains the rules. Trust me I've searched Shield of Baal: Leviathan and consulted the FAQ and there is literally nothing in there with regards to a designers note.

As for easter egging even using that designers note and measuring from the guns will still allow you to mostly get to shoot at the same target as nothing in that note mentions anything about LoS if anything that interpretation is favourable to Nids as it allows you to move to concentrate on a unit if you want or spread fire if necessary. So the claim of easter egging by apply less preferable rules is frankly baffling.

 FlingitNow wrote:

I mean, let me put it to you: what exactly makes the literal step by step instructions in the White Dwarf from the designers themselves so irrelevant?

Those instructions do not appear anywhere in the publication that contains the rules. Trust me I've searched Shield of Baal: Leviathan and consulted the FAQ and there is literally nothing in there with regards to a designers note.

As for easter egging even using that designers note and measuring from the guns will still allow you to mostly get to shoot at the same target as nothing in that note mentions anything about LoS if anything that interpretation is favourable to Nids as it allows you to move to concentrate on a unit if you want or spread fire if necessary. So the claim of easter egging by apply less preferable rules is frankly baffling.

+1




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NidRon wrote:

 Fenris Frost wrote:
I consider the designer's word to matter regardless of where it happens to exist.

I forget the exact circumstances but once back in 5th someone answered something in a Q&A and it was considered gospel. I don't see why this is any different.

So how do we address the line of sight thing? Play it that you measure from the guns, but can fire through the model? This will result in the exact same thing as RAW in many cases.

You're referring to a Q&A with Phil Kelly if I'm not mistaken. Which makes sense - he actually wrote the rules. We're not given any indication of who wrote the white dwarf article, but it's pretty clear that it was the white dwarf magazine team. They get rules wrong all the time in their battle reports/make up rules/add extra force org slots in those things. This is all the white dwarf says about who wrote it:

"This week the triumvirate of Tyrannocyte, Sporocyst and Mucolid Spore Cluster give Tyranid players some wonderful new options for their games. We examine their rules, and look at how you can use them to rain death from above."

I'm all about using it for direction, but if we use it, it still doesn't describe the mechanic fully when it comes to firing arcs (specifically it would have to add them, as MCs have 360 degree arcs and don't block line of sight to themselves).

 Fenris Frost wrote:
They may have distinct pros and cons, but don't act like it is seen that way. People are salivating for 5 free blasts on a target and aren't seeing past that. They will hate it when I drive a vehicle up to the thing and it does nothing every turn. I'm sure the first time I do that to a guy at the table he is gonna whip out the rule, re-read it, and reinterpret it.

Then call that person out. I wouldn't do that because that's not what the rule says.

People always cling to easter eggs.

Inserting bias where there is none is rude.

If you go through this entire thread and replace "White Dwarf" with "FAQ" and "Designer's Note" with "FAQ answer" you will better understand why I see it how I do. The same arguments will all still apply, but make no sense. "But it's written in the [White Dwarf/FAQ], not in the rules!"

Except it's *not* an FAQ. At all. A large majority of people with access to the rules for the Tyrannocyte don't have access to the Designer's Note. They may not even know it exists. Why are you insisting that people should play by a rule they don't know exists?

Also, the fantasy rulebook has designer notes all over it's margins that are considered as sacrosanct as the rules themselves in most cases. I hardly would consider it a universal thing that designer notes are not to be trusted.

Most of the designers notes aren't absolutely contrary to the actual rules (from the 40k rulebook anyway). And they're still demonstrations of intent, not written rules.

We have confusion about how the standard rules interact with this, and we have a designer's note clarifying it. NUMEROUS times in the decade-plus that I've played this game, a designer saying something took plenty of precedent. This ONE time people want to ignore it to keep their pods super because Nid players think their army is weak. That's all it is, same as the stupid Thunderwolf Str10/9 debate. I barely care as a Wolves player but there are guys out there building their whole strategy around it who desperately need it to stay one way or the other. This is no different.

Again, stop insisting there's a bias. I couldn't care less either way it gets played when I field them. But the only rules I have for them are from Black Library's website and there is no Designer's Note there. Stop pretending there is.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Fenris Frost wrote:
They may have distinct pros and cons, but don't act like it is seen that way. People are salivating for 5 free blasts on a target and aren't seeing past that. They will hate it when I drive a vehicle up to the thing and it does nothing every turn. I'm sure the first time I do that to a guy at the table he is gonna whip out the rule, re-read it, and reinterpret it.

Then call that person out. I wouldn't do that because that's not what the rule says.

People always cling to easter eggs.

Inserting bias where there is none is rude.

If you go through this entire thread and replace "White Dwarf" with "FAQ" and "Designer's Note" with "FAQ answer" you will better understand why I see it how I do. The same arguments will all still apply, but make no sense. "But it's written in the [White Dwarf/FAQ], not in the rules!"

Except it's *not* an FAQ. At all. A large majority of people with access to the rules for the Tyrannocyte don't have access to the Designer's Note. They may not even know it exists. Why are you insisting that people should play by a rule they don't know exists?

Also, the fantasy rulebook has designer notes all over it's margins that are considered as sacrosanct as the rules themselves in most cases. I hardly would consider it a universal thing that designer notes are not to be trusted.

Most of the designers notes aren't absolutely contrary to the actual rules (from the 40k rulebook anyway). And they're still demonstrations of intent, not written rules.

We have confusion about how the standard rules interact with this, and we have a designer's note clarifying it. NUMEROUS times in the decade-plus that I've played this game, a designer saying something took plenty of precedent. This ONE time people want to ignore it to keep their pods super because Nid players think their army is weak. That's all it is, same as the stupid Thunderwolf Str10/9 debate. I barely care as a Wolves player but there are guys out there building their whole strategy around it who desperately need it to stay one way or the other. This is no different.

Again, stop insisting there's a bias. I couldn't care less either way it gets played when I field them. But the only rules I have for them are from Black Library's website and there is no Designer's Note there. Stop pretending there is.

+1. It's also not clear if that's a designer note or just a random article from a writer for the white dwarf team.

That is probably because they read these rules and didn't micro-analyze them to death first and just played the game how it made the most sense instead of being ridiculously literal about it.

Listen, no one in this thread has had any answer at all for the following glaring fact:

If you apply the rules as standard, sans Designer's Note-style liberal interpretation, the thing always shoots all of its' weapons at the single target nearest to it. There is literally no possible way it wouldn't do this, because the target would always be "the nearest target in range and line of sight."

So...

...why give it a rule telling us it targets multiple sources, if the very same rule ensures it never will be able to in literally no situation?

It is just a poorly written Rule....
There is enough evidence to show the intent of 'fire each weapon in a different arc' is very likely correct, but that doesn't mean the Rule was written to correctly fit that intent.

I agree, but it is still possible to use it that way by what is written there. It is clearly an exception to the normal shooting rules, and there is no reason to apply any additional rules to the situation other than what it specifies. That is hardcore playerbase hole-plugging that doesn't need to be there. We know how to draw LOS to a thing, we know how to check range from a thing, and in this case the thing is "the weapon" as clearly stated. So to me this is definitely badly worded but still applicable as intended.

I mean, it says "Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight." The normal shooting rules have us check Range and LOS from a model to another model, but this sentence -- grammatically -- is telling us to use each weapon as the reference instead of the model. That's why it doesn't say something more related to normal shooting, like "In the shooting phase this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight."

Frankly, as it gives instructions for what each WEAPON does, it seems pretty clear to me that they are each intended to be resolved separately.

My point is, the rules as written can 100% be applied the way the designer's note states. The idea that it is completely alien is foolish. It is clearly stated that these weapons do not work like a normal shooting attack. We know how to draw range to a thing, we know how to draw LOS to a thing, we know how to roll to hit and wound with things that have shooting profiles...all of this is easily applied to the weapon itself on the model. There is no reason to think the normal rules apply when we literally have instructions that don't follow almost any of them acting as an exception.

You can say all you want that the designer's note is not relevant because it's not in the PDF but it absolutely CAN be played as the designer's note implies just fine (if you are not skimming books looking for reasons to make sure the back two large blasts can hit the same stuff your front three can and that and I maintain that is the only reason this is a debate at all).