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.

 BlackTalos wrote:

But in the current writing, there is only 1 permission: choosing different targets. There is no 2nd permission to also fire all of your weapons.

The same sentence that gives permission to fire at multiple targets gives permission to fire more than 2.

The fact of the matter is "each" can be read to mean the same thing as "all". There would be no arguments if the sentence was:

A GC may fire ALL of it's weapons at different targets.

Based on the way it's used in the sentence structure, this is the way the word "each" is being portrayed. It has also historically been the way GCs have always worked in every other book. The RAW supports the interpretation that "each = all" due to the sentence structure, and there is no reason to believe that the RAI is any different than it's been in all the other books before.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
The same sentence that gives permission to fire at multiple targets gives permission to fire more than 2.

Except it doesn't. The sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire.

 Ghaz wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
The same sentence that gives permission to fire at multiple targets gives permission to fire more than 2.

Except it doesn't. The sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire.

QFT.

As written, 2 weapons per turn.

You may shoot each of them at a different target if you so choose.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
The same sentence that gives permission to fire at multiple targets gives permission to fire more than 2.

Except it doesn't. The sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire.

QFT.

As written, 2 weapons per turn.

You may shoot each of them at a different target if you so choose.

Correction:
You may fire ALL of your weapons at different targets if you so choose.

You're still limited to 2 weapons per Turn though

 Kriswall wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I agree with your assessment. I also know that when you start arguing grammar and reading comprehension, the argument is circling the drain. No amount of logical reasoning will convince an adult forum poster that their understanding of grammatical minutiae is incorrect.

The standard outcome will apply... talk to your opponent, check with a TO, etc. GW will post an FAQ shortly after the heat death of the universe.

As a HIWPI though, i always assumed GCs had the full "all weapons", same as Vehicles..... From this discussion i changed my mind on the HIWPI front, but of course, getting agreement on it before a game.

My previous question still stands though: Do a lot of GCs have more than 2 "main" weapons, and feel very frustrated that they can't fire 3?
From memory: DreadKnight is 2, Riptide is 1+systems, Harridan is 2, Bio-Titan is 2 (or 1 TL?), Squiggoth is "passengers" ?

The Riptide isn't a GC. It's an MC. It also has a multitracker, which allows it to fire an extra weapon, for a total of 3... although it can only ever be equipped with 2 weapons.

Ah yes, i'm not sure why i put 2 MC in that list.....
So, which Gargantuans have more than 2 weapons and feel really bad if they can't fire 3? Just the new WraithLord?

That's the only one I can think of.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

But in the current writing, there is only 1 permission: choosing different targets. There is no 2nd permission to also fire all of your weapons.

The same sentence that gives permission to fire at multiple targets gives permission to fire more than 2.

The fact of the matter is "each" can be read to mean the same thing as "all". There would be no arguments if the sentence was:

A GC may fire ALL of it's weapons at different targets.

Based on the way it's used in the sentence structure, this is the way the word "each" is being portrayed. It has also historically been the way GCs have always worked in every other book. The RAW supports the interpretation that "each = all" due to the sentence structure, and there is no reason to believe that the RAI is any different than it's been in all the other books before.

And actually, it would make no difference. If the rule was
A GC may fire ALL of it's weapons at different targets.

Then it would still be limited to 2 weapons: the above tells you what you can target , not how many weapons you can fire (As Ghaz put very aptly)

The rule would have to be:
A GC may fire ALL of it's weapons *and* at different targets.
Then the conjunction in the phrase would indeed create 2 permissions... but currently there is only 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
That's the only one I can think of.

I guess that's why the thread came up..... Does it even have 3 ("main") shooting weapons for there to be a RaI argument here?

The way I read this was that the GC could fire all of it's weapons. My reasoning was that I took the GC shooting rules to be an exception to the MC rules not in addition to those rules. I based this on the portion of the shooting rules that are in contention do not refer back to the MC rules in the same way that the GC movement rules do.

The Garg Squiggoth has two big guns, and two twin linked big shootas. (and can take more shootas, fired by passengers)

 BlackTalos wrote:

The rule would have to be:
A GC may fire ALL of it's weapons *and* at different targets.

Actually, no. That wouldn't be correct. The quoted sentence above is what is known on the internet as an English Fail.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
That's the only one I can think of.

I guess that's why the thread came up..... Does it even have 3 ("main") shooting weapons for there to be a RaI argument here?

No, the Wraith Knight can have the Suncannon plus two vanilla heavy weapons (e.g. Shuriken Cannons)
OR it can have two heavy wraithcannons plus two vanilla heavy weapons.

That means that the 3rd or 3rd&4th gun are widely available elsewhere and are in fact available cheaper elsewhere.
The only point would be the remote(*) chance of blowing up two targets with the wraithcannons and tagging others to still be egilble to assault.
(*) 1 shot heavy wraith cannon vs 3 HP/LP target: 3+ to hit, 4/6 chance of 2-5 on the D table, 1/3 chance to get a 5 or 6 on the D3 roll; 1/6 chance to get a 6. Aggregate chance to kill the model outright 20,98% The odds of that happening with two shots should be about 4% (not great with probability here).

However, clearly, the wraithknight is unlikely to be a factor for RAI here, considering that the new Eldar codex only just now upgraded it to GC and the 7th book was published way ealier while the WK was still an MC.

the rulebook lays it out in a reasonable order

A GC follows the rules for MCs (so only 2 weapons can fire)
It then states with the exceptions given below (or words to that effect, don't have rulebook in front of me)
Below that sentence, under shooting it states it may fire each of it's weapons at a different target.

This is classified as an exception. If GW wanted it to only fire 2 weapons it should have stated that above the "exception" part of specifically stated "each of it's two weapons eligible to fire".

Based on this....I'm pretty solid with it being all weapons.

The exception is what it can target with its shooting, not how many weapons it may fire.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

The rule would have to be:
A GC may fire ALL of it's weapons *and* at different targets.

Actually, no. That wouldn't be correct. The quoted sentence above is what is known on the internet as an English Fail.

1) The use of a comma would correct the issue.

2) please do not mention "English Fail" when you cannot differentiate between *its* and *it's*....

The addition of "and" was a simple modification to prove a point: the phrase would need a conjunction (worded in a correct way, of course) in order to have 2 permission where it currently has just the 1.

 Ghaz wrote:
The sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire.

And I think this explanation is perfect. Simple and easy to understand. I tend to over-complicate things.....

It is an explicit permission on how many weapons you can fire (each) as well as what you can target at it (as many targets as you have weapons.)

We're told the rules following the line "follows MC rules except for changes listed here" that we can fire "each" of it's weapons. Each means anything it's equipped with. Therefore it's a new rule that supercedes the MC rule allowing it to fire 2 weapons.

It doesn't say "each of the weapons it may fire," it says "each of it's weapons."

 SRSFACE wrote:
It is an explicit permission on how many weapons you can fire (each) as well as what you can target at it (as many targets as you have weapons.)

We're told the rules following the line "follows MC rules except for changes listed here" that we can fire "each" of it's weapons. Each means anything it's equipped with. Therefore it's a new rule that supercedes the MC rule allowing it to fire 2 weapons.

It doesn't say "each of the weapons it may fire," it says "each of it's weapons."

Again, "each" can literally mean the two it was previously given an allowance to fire. ie: I am allowed to fire 2 weapons, each weapon may target a different unit.

It can ALSO mean all, it does not ALWAYS mean ALL.

Without an FAQ both sides ARE correct, and you really should discuss it with your opponent before a game. I happen to not read "each" as being everything it has, but as the two previously allowed. A MC can have 4+ weapons, but it can only choose 2 of them to fire, a GC then further allows for each of these 2 to fire at different targets.

 SRSFACE wrote:
It is an explicit permission on how many weapons you can fire (each) as well as what you can target at it (as many targets as you have weapons.)

No. It is only an explicit permission on what you can target.

I have been reading this thread and I have read the rules regarding the topic quite a few times. It seems to me that the issue regards the phrase in the Gargantuan Creatures Shooting section, particularly with what it is referencing: the weapons the Gargantuan Creature (GC) has, or, the weapons it can fire, being that it is also a Monstrous Creature. And where it says that there are additional rules and exceptions regarding Gargantuan Creatures, I find this of little help regarding the topic. Is it an additional rule or an exception?

I believe the plain reading of it ought to be regarded as an exception, perhaps an unfortunate one, simply because it does not elaborate: we are given "its weapons". I don't believe I would insist that my opponent not have his GC fire more than two weapons. That said, without more clarity, I don't think I could insist on my GC firing more than two weapons myself. It seems unclear and best decided prior to the game.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

Again, "each" can literally mean the two it was previously given an allowance to fire. ie: I am allowed to fire 2 weapons, each weapon may target a different unit.

CAN mean that, but doesn't, in the sense of previously established rule.

@Ghaz:

I love that the usual RAW guys are the ones reading between the lines here now, because it suits them. Welcome to being ignored.

I'm not 'reading between the lines', but unlike some, I'm reading the whole sentence instead of stopping at the word 'each'.

Nevermind, not worth it. I'll just reiterate and walk away.

This line:

SHOOTING
Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each shooting phase

Is overwritten by this line:

SHOOTING
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

Because of this line:

Gargantuan Creatures are Monstrous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below.

 Stephanius wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

No, there is only one way to follow all the rules put in place.

Shooting more than 2 weapons on a GC breaks a rule and can not be the correct interpretation.

An GC firing 4 weapons does not "break" the MC 2 weapons rule, it supersedes it.

No it doesn't actually.

Nothing in the GC rules explicitly override the only able to fire 2 weapons rule.

 Ghaz wrote:
The exception is what it can target with its shooting, not how many weapons it may fire.

Exactly!

 SRSFACE wrote:
Nevermind, not worth it. I'll just reiterate and walk away.

This line:

SHOOTING
Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each shooting phase

Is overwritten by this line:

SHOOTING
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

Because of this line:

Gargantuan Creatures are Monstrous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below.

Let's put and then read them together, therefore in proper context, as we're told we must.

"Monstrous Creatures (and Gargantuan Creatures, subject to their own additional rules and exeptions) can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase - they must, of course, fire both at the same target. 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."

Read in context the additional rule/exception is to allow Gargantuan Creatures to shoot their weapons at different targets, but does not explicitly override the permission to fire up to two weapons.

 Mr. Shine wrote:


Let's put and then read them together, therefore in proper context, as we're told we must.

"Monstrous Creatures (and Gargantuan Creatures, subject to their own additional rules and exeptions) can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase - they must, of course, fire both at the same target. 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."

Read in context the additional rule/exception is to allow Gargantuan Creatures to shoot their weapons at different targets, but does not explicitly override the permission to fire up to two weapons.

That's not what we're told we must. That's what you infer is the proper way to do it.

But it means you're literally arguing an explicit rule saying "You may fire each of it's weapons at a different target as desired" doesn't mean "You man fire each of it's weapons at a different target as desired." You're literally making that argument.

 SRSFACE wrote:
That's not what we're told we must. That's what you infer is the proper way to do it.

Errr, that's exactly what we're told to do. You cannot have an additional rule without something to add to, not can you have an exception without having something for it to be an exception to. You must read the Gargantuan Creature rules with the Monstrous Creature rules in mind.

But it means you're literally arguing an explicit rule saying "You may fire each of it's weapons at a different target as desired" doesn't mean "You man fire each of it's weapons at a different target as desired." You're literally making that argument.

You're taking the sentence out of context.

Loving this thread.

For the people thinking that 'each' means 'all' weapons, consider the saying 'each and every'. Which means each without exception, which is the wording they should have used if they meant 'any and all' weapons.

It's not even ambigous, only your minds make it so.

If "fire each of it's weapons at different target" is a rule that can be followed, then it supercedes the restriction of weapons, because we're told we have additional rules to follow.

You're literally arguing I can't run a rule the way it's phrased.

And no, we're not told "put sentences together." We're told it uses X rules with the additions of Y and Z, one of which happens to be "fire each of it's weapons at different targets as desired" which is a rule we can also follow that means something different than "can fire up to two weapons."

You guys would make terrible lawyers.

 SRSFACE wrote:
If "fire each of it's weapons at different target" is a rule that can be followed, then it supercedes the restriction of weapons, because we're told we have additional rules to follow.

You're literally arguing I can't run a rule the way it's phrased.

Um, no. The only superseding that occurs is "may fire... at a different target" over "must... fire both at the same target". You're literally reading a rule's phrasing while putting its context aside.

And no, we're not told "put sentences together." We're told it uses X rules with the additions of Y and Z, one of which happens to be "fire each of it's weapons at different targets as desired" which is a rule we can also follow that means something different than "can fire up to two weapons."

It is impossible to read the Gargantuan Creature rules without reference to what the Monstrous Creature rules say as a basis, so yes, we need to read them together. Running the sentence sequentially as a single quote was meant to be illustrative, not definitive.

You guys would make terrible lawyers.

I'm doubtful you've any actual qualification or experience to base your opinion on, but I am in fact actually a very capable practitioner in the legal industry.

 SRSFACE wrote:
If "fire each of it's weapons at different target" is a rule that can be followed, then it supercedes the restriction of weapons, because we're told we have additional rules to follow.

You're literally arguing I can't run a rule the way it's phrased.

And no, we're not told "put sentences together." We're told it uses X rules with the additions of Y and Z, one of which happens to be "fire each of it's weapons at different targets as desired" which is a rule we can also follow that means something different than "can fire up to two weapons."

You guys would make terrible lawyers.

Quick question for you, do these 2 phrases have the same permission, for you:
- it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired
- it may fire each of its weapons if desired

What does the 1st statement allow, and what does the second statement allow?

One allows you to fire each of it's weapons at a different target, and one allows you to fire each of it's weapons. Both allow you to fire each of it's weapons, but one additionally allows you to fire it at different targets.

You're literally asking "are you allowed to do what you're told you're allowed to do." You have to see how asinine that is in the concept of rules of a game. Or just, like, basic functional human logic, or the trappings of language.

This isn't complicated. Your argument is directly saying the BRB rule that more specific rules supercede basic rules, as well as the Gargantuan Creature rule that gives us additional rules over Monstrous Creatures, suddenly no longer matter. You're telling me I can't follow the more specific rule, even after being told we have additonal/exceptional new rules to follow, TWICE. I don't know how much more clear it needs to be made.

And the worst part is, you're the ones saying I'm taking things out of context, while you're taking things out of context.

 SRSFACE wrote:
One allows you to fire each of it's weapons at a different target, and one allows you to fire each of it's weapons. Both allow you to fire each of it's weapons, but one additionally allows you to fire it at different targets.

You're literally asking "are you allowed to do what you're told you're allowed to do." You have to see how asinine that is in the concept of rules of a game. Or just, like, basic functional human logic, or the trappings of language.

This isn't complicated. Your argument is directly saying the BRB rule that more specific rules supercede basic rules, as well as the Gargantuan Creature rule that gives us additional rules over Monstrous Creatures, suddenly no longer matter. You're telling me I can't follow the more specific rule, even after being told we have additonal/exceptional new rules to follow, TWICE. I don't know how much more clear it needs to be made.

And the worst part is, you're the ones saying I'm taking things out of context, while you're taking things out of context.

The only part of the MC rules for shooting that are superceded by the additional GC rules is the requirement to fire the 2 weapons that are permitted to fire at the samestarget. The GC rules are simply now allowing you to fire each of those 2 weapons at different targets if you desire.

It's only when you incorrectly start taking the GC rules in isolation and therefore out of context (as you are) that problems arise. It means you then start assuming that you can ignore the MC shooting rules entirely and that "each" weapon means "all of its weapons", which has no basis in RAW.