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.

 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.

"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"
Correct.
"Both allow you to fire each of it's weapons, but one additionally allows you to fire it at different targets"
How do you reach this (incorrect) conclusion?

Both of them are 1 phrase, 1 permission.

If i tell you:
- You may drive each of your cars when it rains.

Is that permission for you to drive every single car?
Clearly, it is only something you are allowed to do when it rains. If 1 of your cars is being in fixed and your friend currently has 1 of your cars (so you only have 1 car left), then the permission above is that, when it rains, you can drive the 1 car left, even though you have 3.

- it may fire each of its weapons if desired

permission to fire the weapons (would override the MC limit of 2)

- it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired

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

The limit of "2" still stands from previous rules.

 BlackTalos wrote:

- it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired

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

The limit of "2" still stands from previous rules.

this is 100% correct.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

- it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired

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

The limit of "2" still stands from previous rules.

this is 100% correct.

Why is it so hard to understand that it is doing both

 CrownAxe wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

- it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired

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

The limit of "2" still stands from previous rules.

this is 100% correct.

Why is it so hard to understand that it is doing both

Because the language is ambiguous.

Like the old joke about a hungry man finding a genie in a lamp and asking the genie, "Make me a sandwich" after which the genie turns the man into a sandwich.

For rules to be free of ambiguity, some small amount of effort must be made to actually avoid ambiguity. A task which GW seems to take great delight in avoiding.

 BlackTalos 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"
Correct.
"Both allow you to fire each of it's weapons, but one additionally allows you to fire it at different targets"
How do you reach this (incorrect) conclusion?

Both of them are 1 phrase, 1 permission.

Do you need me to go get a 3rd grade English teacher to come teach you how sentence structure works? I'm literally repeating the sentences word for word, and somehow, reading the sentence as it's written is incorrect? Also, where in god's name is there a rule saying 1 phrase can only give 1 permission?

I didn't bother to read the rest of your post because your working on several faulty assumptions. You're not taking rules at face value.

We're given rule A (MC rules), and then rule B (gargantuan creature rules) and then within rule be, we find rule C (may fire each of their weapons at different targets if desired.

Rule A says one thing. Rule B says we use rule A, with additions and exceptions. Rule C is an exception, and therefore, for the sake of what it can shoot, supplants Rule A. If following Rule C as it's written contradicts rule A, when we're told by Rule B we've got permission via additions and exceptions, then Rule C is the rule that should be followed.

You keep pretending like it's a rule that can't be followed in the absence of Rule A. You follow the new rule, because we're told you need to follow the new rule.

Quit throwing out the context of the rule about additions and exceptions, and you'll come to the same conclusion I am. Unless you want to just be pedantic and whinge and think you're right even though a guy on the internet is showing you that you're actually not right. I guess you can throw a temper tantrum if you want to. No sweat off my back.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

- it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired

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

The limit of "2" still stands from previous rules.

this is 100% correct.

Why is it so hard to understand that it is doing both

because it isnt.

There is nothing in the GC rules that override the only fire 2 weapons clause in the MC rules.

The only point of contention here is whether the rule is an "addition" or an "exception". The GC rules clearly say that they are MCs with the following addition and exceptions...

If the sentence, "may fire each of its weapons at different targets" is an addition, then only 2 weapons can be fired since it doesn't override the MC rule of 2 guns.

However, most people I have spoken to, read the rule as an "exception". Meaning that we can forget that the MC rule exists and solely go by the new sentence, "may fire each of its weapons at different targets". If read as an exception, it is pretty clear that this means ALL of its weapons, since it does not mention anywhere about only firing 2 weapons (remember an exception means: forget what came previously)

Unfortunately, no one here seems to agree if the rule is an "addition" to the MC rules, of an "exception".

So, according to BlackTalos that is:

Monsterous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each shooting phase - they must, of coruse, fire both at the same target. They may never go to ground, voluntarily or otherwise.

1) MC permission to fire 2 weapons

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

2) GCs using MC rules with some additions

When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired.
In addition, firing ordnance weapons has no effect on a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan Creature's ability to fire other weapons.
Gargantuan Creatures and Flying Gargantuan Creatures cannot fire overwatch.

3) GCs permission to fire all weapons they have at different targets, plus permission to ignore ordnance restrictions, plus restriction on overwatch

There has been ample arguing about grammar in this thread. I believe that may be because of how the key sentence is written:
When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired.

This is very similiar to something we may unconsciously read by adding a pause in our head, which makes it go like this:
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.

Small change, big effect. Unfortunately, the comma is not there in the rule. Therefore I'll have to agree with the RAW view of Blacktalos.


In my opinion, the author of the GC bits in the BRB did some creative editing when copying the Apocalypse rule to the BRB and messed it up in the process.
Striking out redundant parts of the Apocalypse rule, e.g. the fluff in brackets and the every turn bit (since that is how all shooting weapons work by default) we get this:

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).

This is almost exactly what we have in the current rule and is the logical source for GC rules for the 7th rule book. Botched editing is the only logical explanation why the "each of the GCs weapons" is even in the rule even though it's irrelevant RAW. Until now GCs were few in number and seldomly used, therefore it is quite plausible that nobody noticed that the 7th Ed. RAW was changed from previous RAW and RAI.

HIWPI is therefore following the apocalypse rule, similar to how we still use 6th edition rules to move around in ruins because it was too much work to copy paste those.

 Stephanius wrote:
There has been ample arguing about grammar in this thread. I believe that may be because of how the key sentence is written:
When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired.

This is very similiar to something we may unconsciously read by adding a pause in our head, which makes it go like this:
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.

This I agree is the issue, and I would entirely agree with the reasoning the other way if there were a comma, or an "and" or similar. But of course as you say there is not.

So editions upon editions of rules where Gargantuan Creatures can fire all their weapons, rules that tell you to use additions and exceptions, rules that tell you more specific rules when they're presented...

Matter less to your ability to functionally read rules than a simple comma?

There are no words to describe what I'm feeling right now.

Are you suggesting the following two sentences are semantically the same, then?

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

"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."

I'd also ask that you please try to keep calm. You've bandied words about whinging about some guy on the internet but it appears that you're the one losing your cool over some guy on the internet here.

If you can't keep your cool during an internet forum discussion about the rules of a game of plastic toy soliders then in fact you, good sir, would make a terrible lawyer

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Are you suggesting the following two sentences are semantically the same, then?

Yes.

 SRSFACE wrote:
So editions upon editions of rules where Gargantuan Creatures can fire all their weapons, rules that tell you to use additions and exceptions, rules that tell you more specific rules when they're presented...

Matter less to your ability to functionally read rules than a simple comma?

There are no words to describe what I'm feeling right now.

Hey, if that helps, the missing comma is only more important because this is a RAW discussion. Nobody claimed (yet) that this is RAI.

 SRSFACE wrote:

 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 am not arguing one side over the other. I am, however, pointing out that, linguistically, both readings are correct. Because, we are told to use the monstrous creatures rules, meaning 2 weapons at different targets. But it can also be read to mean all weapons. There is literally no concrete, definitive, be all end all statement that can prove it either way without having a member of the GW rules development team post here, or an FAQ is created.

Using a previously established rules is pointless, they change rules on a whim. Using the idea of previously established rules would leave Rapid Fire weapons firing once at 12" if a unit moves, twice up to 12" or once up to the range of the weapon if the model remains stationary. Or Fire Dragons being a move or fire weapon as established all the way back in Rouge Trader. Forget anything printed prior to this edition, as rules can and do change from previous iterations.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

Using a previously established rules is pointless, they change rules on a whim.

I meant previously established rule as in the one that says "with the following additions and exceptions listed below."

 SRSFACE wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

Using a previously established rules is pointless, they change rules on a whim.

I meant previously established rule as in the one that says "with the following additions and exceptions listed below."

I don't see a removal of the 2 weapon restriction from the MC rules. Aside from those that claim "each" equals "all" which, as I have pointed out, is not necessarily true. You read it as an exception, I read it as an addition. I am not saying you are wrong, because you CAN be right, however, so can I. The linguistics of it, when you read both rules together, also work the way the 2 weapon group is stating. The rule really needs a clarification from the source to end this debate.

I also would like to point out, again, the Wraith Knight ppm, and state that this low cost is due to the limit of 2 weapons as compared to Super Heavy vehicles that are allowed to fire them all, and cost more. Unless I missed one somewhere, the WK is the first actual GC written for 7th edition.

They probably meant to say something akin to, abilities/rules that affect a MC also affect a GC in the same manner. With the obvious exceptions of course.

 SRSFACE wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Are you suggesting the following two sentences are semantically the same, then?

Yes.

A panda walks into a café. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons.

"Why?" asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"Well, I'm a panda," he says. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry in the manual and, sure enough, finds an explanation. "Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 SRSFACE wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

Using a previously established rules is pointless, they change rules on a whim.

I meant previously established rule as in the one that says "with the following additions and exceptions listed below."

I don't see a removal of the 2 weapon restriction from the MC rules. Aside from those that claim "each" equals "all" which, as I have pointed out, is not necessarily true. You read it as an exception, I read it as an addition. I am not saying you are wrong, because you CAN be right, however, so can I. The linguistics of it, when you read both rules together, also work the way the 2 weapon group is stating. The rule really needs a clarification from the source to end this debate.

I also would like to point out, again, the Wraith Knight ppm, and state that this low cost is due to the limit of 2 weapons as compared to Super Heavy vehicles that are allowed to fire them all, and cost more. Unless I missed one somewhere, the WK is the first actual GC written for 7th edition.

They probably meant to say something akin to, abilities/rules that affect a MC also affect a GC in the same manner. With the obvious exceptions of course.

The Tyranid Bio-Titan uses the same rules. The odds are im favour of this being an editing mistake rather than a deliberate change. The WK as GC is unlikely to be a factor considering the publishing timeline.

Each still means all. If you put the sentences together like Mr. Shine has been doing, you end up with a sentence that directly contradicts the one before it.

Are we really going to get into a debate about the Oxford comma?

 Stephanius wrote:
So, according to BlackTalos that is:

Monsterous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each shooting phase - they must, of coruse, fire both at the same target. They may never go to ground, voluntarily or otherwise.

1) MC permission to fire 2 weapons

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

2) GCs using MC rules with some additions

When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired.
In addition, firing ordnance weapons has no effect on a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan Creature's ability to fire other weapons.
Gargantuan Creatures and Flying Gargantuan Creatures cannot fire overwatch.

3) GCs permission to fire all weapons they have at different targets, plus permission to ignore ordnance restrictions, plus restriction on overwatch

There has been ample arguing about grammar in this thread. I believe that may be because of how the key sentence is written:
When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired.

This is very similiar to something we may unconsciously read by adding a pause in our head, which makes it go like this:
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.

Small change, big effect. Unfortunately, the comma is not there in the rule. Therefore I'll have to agree with the RAW view of Blacktalos.


In my opinion, the author of the GC bits in the BRB did some creative editing when copying the Apocalypse rule to the BRB and messed it up in the process.
Striking out redundant parts of the Apocalypse rule, e.g. the fluff in brackets and the every turn bit (since that is how all shooting weapons work by default) we get this:

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).

This is almost exactly what we have in the current rule and is the logical source for GC rules for the 7th rule book. Botched editing is the only logical explanation why the "each of the GCs weapons" is even in the rule even though it's irrelevant RAW. Until now GCs were few in number and seldomly used, therefore it is quite plausible that nobody noticed that the 7th Ed. RAW was changed from previous RAW and RAI.

HIWPI is therefore following the apocalypse rule, similar to how we still use 6th edition rules to move around in ruins because it was too much work to copy paste those.

Very well described !
I'd point out that i also agree with you by HIWPI and that the rule should be re-written , as it was in Apocalypse.

Your quote above even points out something new to me, for the RaW:
"Monsterous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each shooting phase - they must, of course, fire both at the same target."

The underlined here is what the GCs RaW is "replacing" with the rule. If the comma you added existed, then it would also modify the first section of that rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SRSFACE wrote:
Each still means all. If you put the sentences together like Mr. Shine has been doing, you end up with a sentence that directly contradicts the one before it.

Are we really going to get into a debate about the Oxford comma?

No, we've all been trying to show you how these phrases actually have different meanings, due to their context, because context is important:

A) "it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired"
B) "it may fire each of its weapons"

or

A) "it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired"
B) "it may fire each of its weapons, at a different target if desired"

Because those phrases are all structurally different.
The current permission presented by the phrase: "it may fire each of its weapons" is not to be taken out of context: It contains a specific, related, and influencing addition: "at a different target if desired"
This addition is part of the phrase and modifies the context of the permission, specifically:
The sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire. (Thanks again Ghaz)

That missing comma (and it's not an Oxford comma) is really making the difference here, so I would agree with RaW = 2 weapons at different targets.

This is ridiculous that this argument is still going on. Here is the simple answer: GW meant for GCs to be able to fire all of their weapons. If they didn't, then the words "each of" is entirely superfluous. They could have written the sentence without those words completely, and THEN it would mean that they could only fire their already defined 2 weapons at different targets. The difference is this:

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

But they didn't write it that way, which would have been the way it was written by someone who was thinking about there being a 2 weapon limit, if it was intended that they keep that limit. Instead, they wrote:

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

"Each of", in this context, clearly means "all", as it was a completely unnecessary word otherwise.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
This is ridiculous that this argument is still going on. Here is the simple answer: GW meant for GCs to be able to fire all of their weapons. If they didn't, then the words "each of" is entirely superfluous. They could have written the sentence without those words completely, and THEN it would mean that they could only fire their already defined 2 weapons at different targets. The difference is this:

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

But they didn't write it that way, which would have been the way it was written by someone who was thinking about there being a 2 weapon limit, if it was intended that they keep that limit. Instead, they wrote:

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

"Each of", in this context, clearly means "all", as it was a completely unnecessary word otherwise.

I agree with your example and ruling, the original GW intent looks like it was supposed to mean all weapons. I don't have the new codex in front of me, but somebody also told me the WK profile lists it as only a Gargantuan Jump creature. Is it also still mentioned as a monstrous creature?

At this point it's a lot of rules lawyering and picking apart the grammar. I feel like we've all spent wayyyy more time and thought on this than ever GW did.

 clamclaw wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
This is ridiculous that this argument is still going on. Here is the simple answer: GW meant for GCs to be able to fire all of their weapons. If they didn't, then the words "each of" is entirely superfluous. They could have written the sentence without those words completely, and THEN it would mean that they could only fire their already defined 2 weapons at different targets. The difference is this:

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

But they didn't write it that way, which would have been the way it was written by someone who was thinking about there being a 2 weapon limit, if it was intended that they keep that limit. Instead, they wrote:

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

"Each of", in this context, clearly means "all", as it was a completely unnecessary word otherwise.

I agree with your example and ruling, the original GW intent looks like it was supposed to mean all weapons. I don't have the new codex in front of me, but somebody also told me the WK profile lists it as only a Gargantuan Jump creature. Is it also still mentioned as a monstrous creature?

At this point it's a lot of rules lawyering and picking apart the grammar. I feel like we've all spent wayyyy more time and thought on this than ever GW did.

Yes, but that's almost always the case, since the GW rules authors have found a way to write rules without ever thinking about anything at all (especially not rules).

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
This is ridiculous that this argument is still going on. Here is the simple answer: GW meant for GCs to be able to fire all of their weapons. If they didn't, then the words "each of" is entirely superfluous. They could have written the sentence without those words completely, and THEN it would mean that they could only fire their already defined 2 weapons at different targets. The difference is this:

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

But they didn't write it that way, which would have been the way it was written by someone who was thinking about there being a 2 weapon limit, if it was intended that they keep that limit. Instead, they wrote:

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

"Each of", in this context, clearly means "all", as it was a completely unnecessary word otherwise.

No, because "it may fire its weapons at a different target" is not specific enough to split up ALL the weapons.

If they wrote it that way, you would be forced to fire all of your weapons at this same "different target", which is different from what? Other models in the MC's Unit? It is just too vague and would make no sense as a Rule...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"This is ridiculous that this argument is still going on. Here is the simple answer:"

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

"Monsterous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each shooting phase - they must, of course, fire both at the same target."

This Rule:"When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired"
is an additional rule that give an exception to what i have highlighted in the Monstrous Creature rule.

It is, indeed, very simple.

 BlackTalos wrote:

"Monsterous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each shooting phase - they must, of course, fire both at the same target."

This Rule:"When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired"
is an additional rule that give an exception to what i have highlighted in the Monstrous Creature rule.

It is, indeed, very simple.

The problem is whether it is an addition, OR an exception. If it is an addition, there is no issue and the "comma" doesn't matter at all. MC can fire 2 weapons, GC can fire 2, each at different targets.

If it is an exception, then we ignore any references that came before and read the sentence as a stand-alone statement. GC can fire each (meaning all) weapons at different targets.

Unforntunately, GW has not clarified whether the rule is an addition or exception. It can be correctly read as either. Therefore an FAQ is needed and until then (read: never) discuss with your opponent before each game.


-

 Galef wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

"Monsterous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each shooting phase - they must, of course, fire both at the same target."

This Rule:"When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired"
is an additional rule that give an exception to what i have highlighted in the Monstrous Creature rule.

It is, indeed, very simple.

The problem is whether it is an addition, OR an exception. If it is an addition, there is no issue and the "comma" doesn't matter at all. MC can fire 2 weapons, GC can fire 2, each at different targets.

If it is an exception, then we ignore any references that came before and read the sentence as a stand-alone statement. GC can fire each (meaning all) weapons at different targets.

Unforntunately, GW has not clarified whether the rule is an addition or exception. It can be correctly read as either. Therefore an FAQ is needed and until then (read: never) discuss with your opponent before each game.
-

And that is what so many have been trying to explain so far: It can only be an exception if there is a conflict between the original Rules, and the "advanced Rules".

It is an exception:
MCs "must fire both at the same target". A gargantuan has the exception that "it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired".
Therefore the rule is an exception regarding what you can target with your weapons.

But the sentence cannot, at the same time, give information on how many weapons you can fire.
Unless, as many have put forward, you add some sort of conjunction to the phrase, giving it 2 meanings combined into 1. (Such as a comma or "and"...) Which is why the entire discussion does indeed rest on the English Grammar, and how phrase construction works.

You are assuming that the "exception" is only to a section of the rule (the part you have underlined in orange). It can easily be read as an exception to the rule in its entirety, meaning that it replaces the "2 weapons" part.

I am not saying that this IS correct, but that it CAN be correct. Both interpretations can be correct, but conflict with each other.

Does this issue affect any model other than the WK?

 Galef wrote:
You are assuming that the "exception" is only to a section of the rule (the part you have underlined in orange). It can easily be read as an exception to the rule in its entirety, meaning that it replaces the "2 weapons" part.

I am not saying that this IS correct, but that it CAN be correct. Both interpretations can be correct, but conflict with each other.

Does this issue affect any model other than the WK?

1) It affect all Gargantuans, but the WK is the main one with "more than 2 primary weapons and want to use all of them"

2)I'm not assuming anything past reading the RaW: "it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired".
That phrase only refers to whether or not you can select multiple targets with each of the weapons you fired.
It does not refer to how many weapons you are allowed to fire.

As such, it only conflicts with the MC Rules about what targets you may select to fire at.

And as i have argued many "can be read 2 ways" arguments before, it does not seem to me like this is one of them. It is simply a misunderstanding of the construction of the rule i have just quoted.
I feel like i'm really starting to repeat myself here, but the qualifier "at a different target" is not an additional permission to one that already exists. You cannot separate it from the Action of that phrase: "it may fire each of its weapons"
You just cannot separate them, and take each as a Rule in a vacuum. They are 1 phrase, constructed without interruption as 1 statement, and provide 1 permission to the Game.

I could do the same with multiple other Rules:

Furious Charge: In a turn in which a model with this special rule charges into combat, it adds +1 to its Strength characteristic until the end of the Assault phase.

So, can i say "it adds +1 to its Strength characteristic" is a Rule for my model? Or is "until the end of the Assault phase" a Specification for the Rule?

Hatred: A model striking a hated foe in close combat re-rolls all failed To Hit rolls during the first round of each close combat.

So, can i say "re-rolls all failed To Hit rolls" is a Rule for my model? Or is "during the first round of each close combat" a Specification for the Rule?

Master-crafted: Weapons with the Master-crafted special rule allow the bearer to re-roll one failed roll To Hit per turn with that weapon.

So, can i say "allow the bearer to re-roll one failed roll To Hit per turn" is a Rule for my model? Or is "with that weapon" a Specification for the Rule?

They are all the same: a Specific permission that must be read as a whole. You cannot just read "it may fire each of its weapons" and find permission to fire more weapons than what you were restricted to...

I still don't see how that makes the "replaces the whole rule" interpretation invalid. Which is sad, because your argument is very well thought out and logical. I agree 100% that your interpretation is correct. But I can also agree that it replaces the 2 weapons limitation as well.

However, when I first read the rule, I read it as replacing the entire MC shooting section, not just the phrase about shooting both weapons at the same target. Clearly many other players still read it this way. I went through the process of magnetizing the shoulder guns on my WK. Now I have doubts that effort was even worth it.

If you can only fire 2 weapons, then there is no point in upgrading a WK to the shoulder weapons, unless you are fielding the Sword/shield variant. This is going to cause so many arguments and further fuel the flames of Eldar hate