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.

Somehow my guts tell me that Gargantuan Creatures can fire more than 2 weapons per shooting phase.
Can't find anything that would support this. Maaybe it used to work that way or I just made it up.

the rules wrote:
When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it
may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired.

It's in the BRB under gargantuan & flying gargantuan creatures.

They can fire *each* weapon.

Key word for you there.

 Frozocrone wrote:
They can fire *each* weapon.

Key word for you there.

That's taking it out of context, the sentence is

When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired.

It states before that gargantuan creatures are monstrous creatures that have additional rules stated in the Gargantuan creatures section. Therefore they may only fire 2 weapons as stated in the Monstrous creatures section.

^ I don't know a single person who plays it that way, Korlandril.

When you consider the similar rules to this, they have a clear wording difference. Split fire says they may fire at a different target. Necrons Independent Targeting says the weapon may fire at a different target. Each time it simply says "fire", and not "fire each weapon". The fact that they included "each weapon" means they can fire each weapon, not 2 weapons.

If you only fire 2 of your 4 weapons, you have not fired each weapon.

Bojazz wrote:
^ I don't know a single person who plays it that way, Korlandril.

Doesn't make it the right interpretation of the rule though.

When you consider the similar rules to this, they have a clear wording difference. Split fire says they may fire at a different target. Necrons Independent Targeting says the weapon may fire at a different target. Each time it simply says "fire", and not "fire each weapon". The fact that they included "each weapon" means they can fire each weapon, not 2 weapons.

Bear in mind the rules for Gargantuan creatures are additions to the rules of Monstrous Creatures, it clearly states in the Monstrous Creatures section that they can fire up to 2 weapons each shooting phase. If it had been their intention for them to fire all their weapons I think they would have said that "a Gargantuan Creature may fire all of it's weapons, and may fire them at different targets if desired". Whereas the section in Gargantuan creatures regarding shooting is just saying it can fire its weapons at different targets. When it says "each" its referring to the Monstrous creatures rule of being able to fire 2 weapons per shooting phase, so can fire each of its two weapons it can fire at different targets.

Do we know if the white dwarf with the new Eldar codex have a battle report with the Wraithknight? Or even a battle report published by GW using 7th Edition where a Gargantuan creature fires more than 2 weapons?. If it was firing all its weapons in there I would accept it can fire all of its weapons.

In addition there may be unit/army/wargear specific rules that allows the firin of an additional weapon(like tau multitrackers), these would allow a third weapon to be fired and in the case of a hypothetical tau gc with 3+ weapons would be able to fire each of those 3 at separate targets.

Korlandril is correct; they follow the rules for Monstrous Creatures - up to two weapons - with the addition that there may each be fired at different targets.

I'm still going to have to disagree. I'm still reading "It may fire each of it's weapons at a different target" as permission to fire each of its weapons at different targets, not two of it's weapons at different targets. Especially since the previous gargantuan creature rules allowed them to fire all of their weapons as well.

They follow the rules for monstrous creatures, *with additional rules and exceptions given below*. Among those additional rules and exceptions is the line stating they may fire each of their weapons at different targets.

In order to be able to fire each of its weapons at different targets, it has to be able to fire each of its weapons.

Which it gets permission to do in that very sentence. A single sentence that gives two permissions. To fire each weapon, and to fire them at different targets.

For instance, if a sentence said "A gargantuan creature can shoot at flyers at full BS after running" that would give them permission to shoot at flyers after running, and permission to shoot at flyers at full BS after running.

likewise "may fire each of its weapons at different targets" gives permission to fire each of its weapons, and fire them at different targets.

If they did not want to override the 2 weapon limit from monstrous creatures, they would have simply said "may fire it's weapons at different targets"

Ever since gargantuan creatures were introduced in apocalypse they have been able to fire all of their weapons.

This is a rules question where GW will answer with : "why not just roll a dice to settle it!"

 Wilson wrote:
This is a rules question where GW will answer with : "why not just roll a dice to settle it!"

I believe you actually have to forge the narrative. For example on a roll of 1 the gargantuan creature explodes with a strength d apoc explosion. On a roll of 4 it turns into a chaos spawn, and on a roll of 6 your opponent has to lick a battery for 39 seconds.

Here's a video of Reece from Frontline Gaming testing out the new eldar during a livestream.
http://www.twitch.tv/frontlinegaming_tv/v/4484550
At 1:13:10 you can see him fire all 4 of the wraithknight's weapons at different targets.

Not to say that Reece could never get a rule wrong, but considering his status in the 40k scene, I feel his opinion carries a lot more weight than my own.

The MC rules give you permission to fire 2 weapons. The GMC rules give you permission to fire each of those at different targets if you so wish. It's not complicated.

GMCs can fire all of their weapons AND can target different units with each weapon.

GMCs do follow the rules for MCs, with the changes noted in their section, which includes completely different shooting rules. If that section was meant to add to the MC rules rather than overwrite them, the rule would use "fire both weapons" rather than "each" weapon.

The wraith knight can only add two more regular heavy eldar weapons, which are widely available armywide at cheaper point cost and cannot have Strength D in both ranged and melee on the same model.

My understanding has always been they could fire all of their weapons. I've never seen it played any other way.

If we compare it with a similar example in the BRB.

In the rules for super-heavy vehicles it states:

When a super heavy vehicle makes a shooting attack, it is always treated as if it had remained stationary in the Movement phase (even if it actually moved), and it may fire each of its weapons at different targets if desired.

The first part of this sentence is giving permission to fire ALL of its weapons (due to the rules for vehicles allowing the vehicle to fire ALL weapons if it remains stationary and at full BS) and the last part is saying it may fire at different targets.


For gargantuan creatures consider this; the rule for all models is they can fire one weapon per shooting phase. The rules for monstrous creatures specifically state that they may fire two weapons a phase. Therefore it would follow on from this that if gargantuan creatures could fire all weapons it would have a similar sentence to super heavy vehicles something like:

When a gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it can fire all of its weapons, and it may fire each of its weapons at different targets if desired.

But instead the rule only contains the part stating it can fire its weapons at different targets. It never states that it may also fire all of its weapons.

You know, the "limited at 2 weapons" makes complete sense by RaW...

I'm going to have to change my mind on this: Gargantuan MC have permission to split fire, but that same permission does not include a permission to fire more weapons than the standard MC.

Super-Heavy vehicles are treated as Stationary. If Normal stationary vehicles were limited to 5 Weapons, then SHV would be limited to 5 weapons. That is the RaW.

I can understand that by HIWPI some GMC might want to be "equals" of SHV though, and fire 3+ weapons too =P

Yep, Superheavy vehicles have permission to fire all of their weapons as per the vehicle rules. GMC have permission to fire up to two weapons as per the MC rules. The additional rules in the superheavy and GMC sections in both cases allow you to fire each weapon that is eligible to fire at different targets. Which for GMC remains 2 weapons that can be fired.

Some people here are trying to argue that "each" means "all" in this case which is clearly incorrect when you actually read the rules in context and not base arguments on the interpretation of a single word trying to gain an illegal advantage.

it may fire each of its weapons

I do indeed agree that it is the above taken out of the full context which leads to possible confusion. But why would the SHV say "it is always treated as if it had remained stationary"? Only to make the above redundant?
That is what lead me to believe that GMC are indeed limited to 2 weapons, as you say.

Do a lot of GMC have more than 2 weapons? (to get an idea of whom this affect greatly?)

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Some people here are trying to argue that "each" means "all" in this case which is clearly incorrect when you actually read the rules in context and not base arguments on the interpretation of a single word trying to gain an illegal advantage.

But if it did in fact say 'ALL' instead of 'EACH' in the rule description, it would make 0 sense. If the wording was "may fire ALL of it's weapons at different targets" it would be more confusing, at least to me.

In either case, I think it's also fair to note either side of the argument could be said to be taking a single word and using it for illegal advantage. One trying to stop Gargantuans from using all of their weapons, and one for it.

1. You can fire two weapons.
2. You can fire each weapon at a different target.

Above is what we're effectively told for GCs. Nowhere are we told that we can fire more than two weapons... just that each weapon we fire can be fired at a different target.

each ēCH/ determiner & pronoun determiner: each; pronoun: each 1. used to refer to every one of two or more people or things, regarded and identified separately. "there are 47 books and each must be read"

So, the word each is used to refer to every one of two or more things. These things must be identified separately. In our case, the things are the two weapons the GC has permission to fire. I think this is a basic misunderstanding of what the word 'each' means.

When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired.

emphasis mine.

What are "its weapons"? The weapons the model possesses.
That can be zero, two or 23, depending on the model.

If the number of weapons is always two (2) as per MC rules, why should the weapons of the model be referenced?

Including split fire in the GMC special rules would have that effect, yet we have a different rule with two distinct permissions,
1) fire each weapon and
2) different target.

 Kriswall wrote:
1. You can fire two weapons.
2. You can fire each weapon at a different target.

Above is what we're effectively told for GCs. Nowhere are we told that we can fire more than two weapons... just that each weapon we fire can be fired at a different target.

each ēCH/ determiner & pronoun determiner: each; pronoun: each 1. used to refer to every one of two or more people or things, regarded and identified separately. "there are 47 books and each must be read"

So, the word each is used to refer to every one of two or more things. These things must be identified separately. In our case, the things are the two weapons the GC has permission to fire. I think this is a basic misunderstanding of what the word 'each' means.

I'm quite sure i agree with this, and why the confusion occurs.

 Stephanius wrote:
Including split fire in the GMC special rules would have that effect, yet we have a different rule with two distinct permissions,
1) fire each weapon and
2) different target.

I disagree with this. That phrase gives permission only:
1) may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired

= This model has permission to: every ("each") weapon can select a different target.

But it does not give the permission "1)" that you think it does.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
1. You can fire two weapons.

 Stephanius wrote:
Including split fire in the GMC special rules would have that effect, yet we have a different rule with two distinct permissions,
1) fire each weapon and
2) different target.

I disagree with this. That phrase gives permission only:
1) may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired

= This model has permission to: every ("each") weapon can select a different target.

But it does not give the permission "1)" that you think it does.

That is your assertion, which is not conclusively supported by RAW.
I love how you left "fire" out of your reshuffled quote.

Compare the GMC BRB rules with the copy-pasta source, which before 7th was Apocalypse:

Gargantuan Creatures can fire all of their weapons every turn, and they can fire them at different targets if they wish (creatures of such enormous size normally have more than one brain – or even crew – controlling different parts of the body).

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/a/apoc6thupdate.pdf

If "fire each of it's weapons" wasn't meant to specifically override the "fire 2 weapons" MC rule, it would have been easy to avoid by either referencing the MC allowance of 2 weapons specifically or by not referencing the model's weapons. Yet, what we got is the essentially unchanged Apocalypse rule.

The obivous reason to state that the model may "fire each of it's weapons" is that each of the models weapons may be fired.

I haven't played with the new Eldar codex yet and I'm rather worried that my Iyanden force may be too strong, but I'd rather choose to dial back my list than have someone tell me that an explicit permission is in fact not there.

Compare the GMC BRB rules with the copy-pasta source, which before 7th was Apocalypse:

Gargantuan Creatures can fire all of their weapons every turn, and they can fire them at different targets if they wish (creatures of such enormous size normally have more than one brain – or even crew – controlling different parts of the body).

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/a/apoc6thupdate.pdf

If "fire each of it's weapons" wasn't meant to specifically override the "fire 2 weapons" MC rule, it would have been easy to avoid by either referencing the MC allowance of 2 weapons specifically or by not referencing the model's weapons. Yet, what we got is the essentially unchanged Apocalypse rule.

The obivous reason to state that the model may "fire each of it's weapons" is that each of the models weapons may be fired.

I haven't played with the new Eldar codex yet and I'm rather worried that my Iyanden force may be too strong, but I'd rather choose to dial back my list than have someone tell me that an explicit permission is in fact not there.

You literally just proved the point that it can only fire 2 weapons as per the monstrous creatures special rule, so they have changed the rule from what you quoted to no longer include the phrase "can fire all of their weapons every turn". So the RAW is now you can only fire 2 weapons as per the monstrous creatures special rules and due to the gargantuan creature special rule you may fire these at different targets.

And if you look above I posted the example of the super-heavy special rules, where it states, prior to saying it can fire each weapon at different targets, that it can fire all weapons (via the vehicle shooting special rules) AND also the example YOU just gave as well proves that you can only fire 2 weapons per shooting phase. The old rules specifically stated separately that you can fire all weapons AND fire each weapon at different targets, the new rule states you may fire each weapon at a different target ONLY, as per the way they worded the old rule and the super-heavy special rule.

Quick question, could we expect GW to have a word-of-god answer to this problem? Or is that not something they often do?

Do people usually just wait for a big tournament to declare the ruling as per their interpretation? Just not sure what the history is for situations like this.

Yeah I think so, I think the debate is what is meant by the RAW. That's what FAQs are for, the latest FAQ was released January of this year. I wonder how many people ask GW on rule confirmation and how many come to forums, maybe most people come to forums so they don't get asked questions so GW can't answer them? I wonder if people decided to ask GW more about their rules if it would improve the way they write them or release FAQ's more frequently. It could be the case that no one emails them as much anymore, so to them it seems like the rules are well written. If they were forced to divert more resources to answering emails about rules they would see the problems?

 Korlandril wrote:

Compare the GMC BRB rules with the copy-pasta source, which before 7th was Apocalypse:

Gargantuan Creatures can fire all of their weapons every turn, and they can fire them at different targets if they wish (creatures of such enormous size normally have more than one brain – or even crew – controlling different parts of the body).

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/a/apoc6thupdate.pdf

If "fire each of it's weapons" wasn't meant to specifically override the "fire 2 weapons" MC rule, it would have been easy to avoid by either referencing the MC allowance of 2 weapons specifically or by not referencing the model's weapons. Yet, what we got is the essentially unchanged Apocalypse rule.

The obivous reason to state that the model may "fire each of it's weapons" is that each of the models weapons may be fired.

I haven't played with the new Eldar codex yet and I'm rather worried that my Iyanden force may be too strong, but I'd rather choose to dial back my list than have someone tell me that an explicit permission is in fact not there.

You literally just proved the point that it can only fire 2 weapons as per the monstrous creatures special rule, so they have changed the rule from what you quoted to no longer include the phrase "can fire all of their weapons every turn". So the RAW is now you can only fire 2 weapons as per the monstrous creatures special rules and due to the gargantuan creature special rule you may fire these at different targets.

And if you look above I posted the example of the super-heavy special rules, where it states, prior to saying it can fire each weapon at different targets, that it can fire all weapons (via the vehicle shooting special rules) AND also the example YOU just gave as well proves that you can only fire 2 weapons per shooting phase. The old rules specifically stated separately that you can fire all weapons AND fire each weapon at different targets, the new rule states you may fire each weapon at a different target ONLY, as per the way they worded the old rule and the super-heavy special rule.

Korlandril has it spot on here and in his previous posts. RAW clearly allows a GMC to fire 2 weapons maximum as per the MC rules. The only difference is that a GMC can fire them at different targets.