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.

 Galef wrote:


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.

Well. you might want to shoot 8 shots, instead of 2...

Not worth 30pts for the "option" to not use the D shots. The standard WK does not have an invul, so you are bringing him for the D. Otherwise the Suncannon or D-glaive WKs are much better options.

haha, this is hilarious....

glad my WK is only going to have a suncannon and a single scatter laser, I'll be fine with either interpretation.

Yeah, I probably wont bother with the shoulder weapons just so I can avoid this issue entirely

Captyn_Bob wrote:

 Galef wrote:


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.

Well. you might want to shoot 8 shots, instead of 2...

While both these statements are true, consider that the same weapon options were valid with the previous Eldar codex, while the WK was an MC and could most definitely only fire two weapons.

As a funny aside, I've been building my first Iyanden lists following the new codex, one for a 2000 point game and another for an upcomming 4000 point game.
I find that I'd rather go without WK shoulder weapons even assuming my opponent would be fine with me firing all my GC has. Simply because there are better things to spent the points on. ;-]

The big advantage, of course, being that if I have a third weapon, I can shoot Wcannon A at 1 target, Wcannon B at another, and the Scatter laser at a third target. If both Wcannons obliterate their targets, I still have a valid assault option.

 Galef wrote:
The big advantage, of course, being that if I have a third weapon, I can shoot Wcannon A at 1 target, Wcannon B at another, and the Scatter laser at a third target. If both Wcannons obliterate their targets, I still have a valid assault option.

Granted, the same function the IK's stubber has.
However, the WK has approx 20% chance to kill a 3 HP/LP target with its heavy wraith cannons. That is assuming the target isn't eligible for a cover save. With both cannons at once I assume a 4% chance.

Just like a helldrake back before castration, popping a transport and then rear BBQing the transport content, it can happen, but it is not very likely.

 BlackTalos wrote:


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

But they don't. You keep insinuating this. And you're wrong, definitively.

Go consult the AP writing style guide, or the MLA writing style guide. Go talk to a English professors. Go talk to news editors. Please. You guys keep saying things that aren't true, and are asserting them as though they are. It's egregious. You guys want there to be extra commas, as though that changes the meaning. It doesn't change the meaning like you say it does according to the people who literally create the style guides on how to write the English language. The fact you're confused is your fault for not understanding how the language is written. Quit blaming that on Games Workshop. Own up to it. If you wanted to add unnecessary commas and were writing a novel, it'd be a stylistic choice on your end.

You guys keep trying to say it doesn't overwrite the 2 MC weapon firing restriction, but it does. If I follow the rule and fire each of my weapons at different targets, I'm firing more than two weapons. That is an exception to the MC rule. We're explicitly told to follow the additions and exceptions in the Gargantuan Creature rules. If it reads like a rule that can be followed, and it contradicts a former rule, but we're told there's additions and exceptions, the rule is an exception that needs to be followed.

If I fire all 4 weapons off a Gargantuan Creature that has 4 weapons, and I do that all at different targets if desired, am I "firing each of it's weapons at different targets if desired?" The answer is obviously yes. Doing exactly what something says to do is doing exactly what something says to do. The snozzberries taste like snozzberries. Captain Obvious is Captain Obvious.

Is that an exception to how Monstrous Creatures are worded? Yes. We're told to use the exceptions listed below. Therefore, you may fire each of your Gargantuan Creatures weapons at different targets if desired.

Coming back to a legalistic perspective, to have any weight there you'd need to prove the rules were written on the basis of following either the AP or MLA style guides, and you'd also need to provide a specific reference to where either guide tells us it works how you claim - "It says so in the book" is a useless argument.

Considering also that earlier you made a comment about turning this into a debate over the Oxford/serial comma, which is totally irrelevant to this situaiton, I seriously doubt your authority on the matter...


...but now we're arguing things completely removed from the rules. I really do think we're done here.

 SRSFACE wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:


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

But they don't. You keep insinuating this. And you're wrong, definitively.

Go consult the AP writing style guide, or the MLA writing style guide. Go talk to a English professors. Go talk to news editors. Please. You guys keep saying things that aren't true, and are asserting them as though they are. It's egregious. You guys want there to be extra commas, as though that changes the meaning. It doesn't change the meaning like you say it does according to the people who literally create the style guides on how to write the English language. The fact you're confused is your fault for not understanding how the language is written. Quit blaming that on Games Workshop. Own up to it. If you wanted to add unnecessary commas and were writing a novel, it'd be a stylistic choice on your end.

You guys keep trying to say it doesn't overwrite the 2 MC weapon firing restriction, but it does. If I follow the rule and fire each of my weapons at different targets, I'm firing more than two weapons. That is an exception to the MC rule. We're explicitly told to follow the additions and exceptions in the Gargantuan Creature rules. If it reads like a rule that can be followed, and it contradicts a former rule, but we're told there's additions and exceptions, the rule is an exception that needs to be followed.

If I fire all 4 weapons off a Gargantuan Creature that has 4 weapons, and I do that all at different targets if desired, am I "firing each of it's weapons at different targets if desired?" The answer is obviously yes. Doing exactly what something says to do is doing exactly what something says to do. The snozzberries taste like snozzberries. Captain Obvious is Captain Obvious.

Is that an exception to how Monstrous Creatures are worded? Yes. We're told to use the exceptions listed below. Therefore, you may fire each of your Gargantuan Creatures weapons at different targets if desired.

I just talked to an English Professor. I suppose that means whatever I write next is correct.

Anyways, you continue to take the rules out of context.

Paraphrased... "You can fire two weapons. You can fire each weapon at a different target." We use context to figure out what "each weapon" means. In this context, each refers to the weapons that you are firing. How many weapons are you allowed to fire? You're allowed to fire two weapons. Therefore, you can fire each of the two weapons you are firing at different targets.

Play it however you want, dude. Live the dream. There is no explicit permission to fire more than two weapons. At best, you have an ambiguous permission that requires taking a rule out of context.

Oh yeah, for the record I also studied linguistics and English language teaching at university, and have worked as an English language teacher (in the linguistic sense, rather than say the Shakespearean).

I'm not an English professor or a news editor (I'm not sure what relevance that'd have, though I've worked for several years for the New Zealand Ministry of Justice as a court reporter too!) but I think that suggests I have some clue of how to wield the English language.

 SRSFACE wrote:
You guys want there to be extra commas, as though that changes the meaning. It doesn't change the meaning like you say it does according to the people who literally create the style guides on how to write the English language.

So you're saying that the following two statements mean the same thing?

Let's eat Grandma!
Let's eat, Grandma!

Just trying to understand this as I did quite poorly in High School English.

People telling me I'm taking something out of context, while I'm the only one actually utilizing all the context, continues to remain the funniest thing that's ever happened on this site.

Enjoy being wrong.

Yikes. Bitter much?

 SRSFACE wrote:
People telling me I'm taking something out of context, while I'm the only one actually utilizing all the context, continues to remain the funniest thing that's ever happened on this site.

Enjoy being wrong.

The funniest thing is that you don't realise/can't admit that you're taking the GC rules out of context. You're ignoring the shooting rules for MCs, which need to be read in conjunction with those for GC.

 Galef wrote:
then there is no point in upgrading a WK to the shoulder weapons, unless you are fielding the Sword/shield variant.

Which would make a lot of sense actually, eldar are not the "Full Dakka" type, that's best left to the Orks and SH Walkers
Thanks for that insight, telling a WK player "they're probably meant for the Melee type, as you can only fire 2 weapons" is much better than "You can only fire 2, you're wrong" lol

 SRSFACE wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:


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

But they don't. You keep insinuating this. And you're wrong, definitively.

Well, at least i tried explaining it. And you don't support your claim much past:

 SRSFACE wrote:
If I follow the rule and fire each of my weapons at different targets, I'm firing more than two weapons.[...] We're explicitly told to follow the additions and exceptions in the Gargantuan Creature rules. If it reads like a rule that can be followed, and it contradicts a former rule, but we're told there's additions and exceptions, the rule is an exception that needs to be followed.

[...] The answer is obviously yes. Doing exactly what something says to do is doing exactly what something says to do. The snozzberries taste like snozzberries. Captain Obvious is Captain Obvious.

Which i can summarise as saying:

"That's what the Rule tells me to do" (Not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's how i've just read your post)

I'm not actually asking you what that rule says. I'm asking you to explain WHY you would think it "says so". Just as I tried to explain previously:

 BlackTalos wrote:
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...

Okay I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, or am just really stupid. But the profile for the Wraithknight only lists is as a "jump gargantuan creature". Why is all the discussion for "monstrous creatures" even relevant?

 clamclaw wrote:
Okay I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, or am just really stupid. But the profile for the Wraithknight only lists is as a "jump gargantuan creature". Why is all the discussion for "monstrous creatures" even relevant?

Because the GC rules tell you to follow the MC rules with additional rules and exceptions. What can't be agreed upon is whether the shooting rules are an addition to the MC shooting rules, or if they are an exception to them. If an addition, the GC can only fire 2 weapons and at different targets, if an exception it can fire all weapons at different targets.

The rules can quite literally be read both ways, and be correct linguistically, using both methods. Though some can only see the one way as being correct.

 clamclaw wrote:
Okay I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, or am just really stupid. But the profile for the Wraithknight only lists is as a "jump gargantuan creature". Why is all the discussion for "monstrous creatures" even relevant?

Because of the RaW saying: "Gargantuan Creatures are Monstrous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below. Flying Gargantuan Creatures are Flying Monstrous Creatures that have the additional rules and exceptions given below."

How far does a Flying Gargantuan Creature move? What rules do you use?

 megatrons2nd wrote:
The rules can quite literally be read both ways, and be correct linguistically, using both methods. Though some can only see the one way as being correct.

I would really appreciate if you could back up your statement that it can be read both ways. The only one who was properly arguing the language was Stephanius, and he now agrees that it is to be read as 1 permission and not 2.

I am genuinely curious how you read the permission within a permission...?

Guys, I think you've got the secondary RAW argument all wrong.

MC has a basic option for the model to fire up to 2 weapons at a single target.

GC gives an alternative to fire all of its weapons, with a restriction that they must all be fired at different targets.

So a WK with 4 guns can fire up to 2 of them at a single target, but if it does so, it cannot fire the other 2 guns; or, it may instead fire all 4 guns, but it must select 4 different targets to do so.

In a situation in which there are fewer legal targets than a GC has guns, it has to default to the MC limitation of a single target with a maximum of 2 guns.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Guys, I think you've got the secondary RAW argument all wrong.

MC has a basic option for the model to fire up to 2 weapons at a single target.

GC gives an alternative to fire all of its weapons, with a restriction that they must all be fired at different targets.

So a WK with 4 guns can fire up to 2 of them at a single target, but if it does so, it cannot fire the other 2 guns; or, it may instead fire all 4 guns, but it must select 4 different targets to do so.

In a situation in which there are fewer legal targets than a GC has guns, it has to default to the MC limitation of a single target with a maximum of 2 guns.

Although that is just a different (pretty weird) way of seeing the same thing as others do:

"it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired" = "it may fire each of its weapons" (Which is incorrect - when you say "it may instead fire all 4 guns")

As the first sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire. (thanks yet again Ghaz)

Ah, I see. Did not know there was the modifier for the GC profile to include MC rules from the BRB. Thanks!

I suppose FW's Apocolypse updated rules are ignored since they're secondary to GW's ruling? Because I know FW made a point to clarify that all GC's can fire all weapons each turn.

 clamclaw wrote:
I suppose FW's Apocolypse updated rules are ignored since they're secondary to GW's ruling? Because I know FW made a point to clarify that all GC's can fire all weapons each turn.

I think that since they took that same, perfectly fine wording, and modified it, it might indicate that they tried to change the rule.
But for 7th it seems that they tried to shorten everything, so it could also be that....

 BlackTalos wrote:

 clamclaw wrote:
I suppose FW's Apocolypse updated rules are ignored since they're secondary to GW's ruling? Because I know FW made a point to clarify that all GC's can fire all weapons each turn.

I think that since they took that same, perfectly fine wording, and modified it, it might indicate that they tried to change the rule.
But for 7th it seems that they tried to shorten everything, so it could also be that....

Yeah, I wish that sometimes GW would realize a more wordy rule can actually be less confusing than trying to condense every rule to a sentence or two. A fine balance between the two, but in cases like the MC to GC rules it would have been invaluable.

Maybe GW will release an FAQ with a final ruling?

I have an Ulthwe Wraithknight. It's magnetised, but right now it has a heavy wraithcannon, another heavy wraithcannon, a scatter laser and another scatter laser. I painted each of the weapons bone colour. How many weapons did I paint?

 Tonberry7 wrote:
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.

For the intent why is no one looking at other sources, ie. BRB in another language?

FWIW, I interpret that to mean that while a MC can fire only two weapons at the same target, GMC's expand on this and the rules allow them to fire any number of weapons they have on different targets.

 Bhazakhain wrote:
I have an Ulthwe Wraithknight. It's magnetised, but right now it has a heavy wraithcannon, another heavy wraithcannon, a scatter laser and another scatter laser. I painted each of the weapons bone colour. How many weapons did I paint?

If you only had enough paint for 2 weapons, but you were told: "you may paint each of its weapons in bone colour if desired", how many weapons would you paint?

Remember, the allowance is to paint them "in bone colour" ("at a different target").....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:
For the intent why is no one looking at other sources, ie. BRB in another language?

That could be a good idea.... But i remember that the French Rulebook had a section that had a different meaning to a very clear "English RaW".... So i would not count on it too much
[Edit]:IIRC it was the "select Warlord" section of 6th Edition, where you had the "Warlord has to be chosen from highest Leadership..." section

 Bhazakhain wrote:
I have an Ulthwe Wraithknight. It's magnetised, but right now it has a heavy wraithcannon, another heavy wraithcannon, a scatter laser and another scatter laser. I painted each of the weapons bone colour. How many weapons did I paint?

You painted four. Using context, we know that 'each' refers back to the pre-determined population of four weapons you listed.

Using context in the exact same fashion with the MC/GC situation results in us having a pre-determined population of two firable weapons that the 'each' refers back to.

Thank you for providing an example that perfectly explains why context is so important and why GCs only have permission to fire two weapons, albeit each can be fired at a different target.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Guys, I think you've got the secondary RAW argument all wrong.

MC has a basic option for the model to fire up to 2 weapons at a single target.

GC gives an alternative to fire all of its weapons, with a restriction that they must all be fired at different targets.

So a WK with 4 guns can fire up to 2 of them at a single target, but if it does so, it cannot fire the other 2 guns; or, it may instead fire all 4 guns, but it must select 4 different targets to do so.

In a situation in which there are fewer legal targets than a GC has guns, it has to default to the MC limitation of a single target with a maximum of 2 guns.

Although that is just a different (pretty weird) way of seeing the same thing as others do:

"it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired" = "it may fire each of its weapons" (Which is incorrect - when you say "it may instead fire all 4 guns")

As the first sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire. (thanks yet again Ghaz)

No. You are failing comprehension.
- MC gives option A, limited weapons at single target; -or-.
- GC gives option B, unlimited weapons at completely different targets.
Choose A or B, not both.

"it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired" does not have any limit on number aside from the number of weapons that the model possesses "may fire each of its weapons". The only restriction is that they must each target a different unit "at a different target".

It's not really that different from any other tradeoff in 40k:
A. Fire Heavy weapon at full BS, but cannot move
B. Snap Shot Heavy weapon at BS1, after moving.
Snap Shot grants a new fire mode on the move.

In the MC vs GC example,
A. MC fires 2 weapons at a single target.
B. GC fires X weapons at X different tagets
GC grants a second fire mode that disallows concentration of fire.

It's very balanced, and your interpretation is completely wrong.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Guys, I think you've got the secondary RAW argument all wrong.

MC has a basic option for the model to fire up to 2 weapons at a single target.

GC gives an alternative to fire all of its weapons, with a restriction that they must all be fired at different targets.

So a WK with 4 guns can fire up to 2 of them at a single target, but if it does so, it cannot fire the other 2 guns; or, it may instead fire all 4 guns, but it must select 4 different targets to do so.

In a situation in which there are fewer legal targets than a GC has guns, it has to default to the MC limitation of a single target with a maximum of 2 guns.

Although that is just a different (pretty weird) way of seeing the same thing as others do:

"it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired" = "it may fire each of its weapons" (Which is incorrect - when you say "it may instead fire all 4 guns")

As the first sentence tells you what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire. (thanks yet again Ghaz)

No. You are failing comprehension.
- MC gives option A, limited weapons at single target; -or-.
- GC gives option B, unlimited weapons at completely different targets.
Choose A or B, not both.

"it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired" does not have any limit on number aside from the number of weapons that the model possesses "may fire each of its weapons". The only restriction is that they must each target a different unit "at a different target".

It's not really that different from any other tradeoff in 40k:
A. Fire Heavy weapon at full BS, but cannot move
B. Snap Shot Heavy weapon at BS1, after moving.
Snap Shot grants a new fire mode on the move.

In the MC vs GC example,
A. MC fires 2 weapons at a single target.
B. GC fires X weapons at X different tagets
GC grants a second fire mode that disallows concentration of fire.

It's very balanced, and your interpretation is completely wrong.

I don't think anyone in the thread has mentioned this "Third opinion" before you did, it's either been "all" or "nothing"....

I would ask you consider this rule again, and tell me that it "certainly" points at an "optional change" of the Rules:

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

Does the above give you an "Option" of choosing the MC or GMC rules? Because i really cannot see it...?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Scratch that, you are correct.

I CAN see the above as an option..... But i really really doubt that it was RaI lol