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.

GC is an additional rule.

Consider how Jump Pack is an additional rule. Jump Infantry can still A. move as Infantry. But they can also B. move 12" ignoring cover. They can't do both. It's A or B.

I don't read WD for batreps, so I have no idea what RAI is supposed to be. I suppose if GW does a few batreps in which they show a GC with 3+ weapons shooting them all, and concentrating fire, or deliberately spreading fire, that might give a clue.

Otherwise, if we're trying to parse the phrase "it may fire each of its weapons at a different target" under RAW, I can't see how my interpretation doesn't work as a possible valid choice.

Mostly, I just wanted to show how silly the argument had gotten.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 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...?

Because, it really does depend on if it is a exception, or an addition. If it is an addition you may fire 2 weapons at up to 2 different targets. If it is an exception, you may fire all weapons at as many targets as you have weapons. There is enough obscurity to the writing to be a valid interpretation either way.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Personal opinions have nothing to do with the RAW.

I'm not going to get into a RAW debate with you here, as it's impossible for either of us to win. There are 2 ways that sentence can be interpreted, and BOTH of them are 100% valid in both structure and context. You can make the assertion that you're defending RAW till you die of old age, but it won't make you right unless you can somehow alter the meaning of the word "each" not to be all inclusive in certain context. But since I feel, based on your response, that you won't agree to disagree, I'll engage in the game you started. Here goes:

Because it can be interpreted both ways, I am right, and any evidence you have that could shift an opinion one way or another is irrelevent because RAW has nothing to do with opinions and I choose to read it this way. Na na boo boo. Haha.

The rule as written is that a GC can fire each of its weapons at different targets. The argument that your side is making is: If a GC can fire each of its weapons at different targets, then it can fire each of its weapons. Understood in one sense, the argument is sophistical. In another sense, it's tautologous. Sure. The GC can fire each of its weapons...but each of which of its weapons? Presumably, the ones that it can fire at different targets.

Which weapons are those? Well, the book doesn't tell us. You'll want to say: "each weapon it has." But that's not what the rules say. The last time that the rulebook got specific was a few pages earlier in the MC section, where it told us that MCs can fire up to two weapons in the shooting phase.

Thus, the natural reading, for me, is:

A GC may fire each [of the two] of its weapons [that it's allowed to fire as an MC] at different targets if desired. [I.e,. in addition to being an MC, a GC gains splitfire.]

I believe there is your mistake. You assert that a GMC is also an MC. What the rule tells you is to use GMC rule for shooting instead of the MC rule.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
GC is an additional rule.

Consider how Jump Pack is an additional rule. Jump Infantry can still A. move as Infantry. But they can also B. move 12" ignoring cover. They can't do both. It's A or B.

I don't read WD for batreps, so I have no idea what RAI is supposed to be. I suppose if GW does a few batreps in which they show a GC with 3+ weapons shooting them all, and concentrating fire, or deliberately spreading fire, that might give a clue.

Otherwise, if we're trying to parse the phrase "it may fire each of its weapons at a different target" under RAW, I can't see how my interpretation doesn't work as a possible valid choice.

Mostly, I just wanted to show how silly the argument had gotten.

The thing is, your parsing of the phrase is actually correct grammatically and structurally, just as much as the "limited to 2" is...
But the "can fire all weapons" as a single permission is not. As a summary:

Interpretation 1

MC are limited to 2 weapons, and are limited to 1 target.
Gargantuan rules specify that you can select multiple targets, but do not remove the limit of 2 weapons.

GMC can fire 2 weapons, at different targets.

Interpretation 2

MC are limited to 2 weapons, and are limited to 1 target.
Gargantuan rules specify that you can select multiple targets AND that you may fire all of your weapons.

This is grammatically incorrect, as it separates the context of "at a different target"

Interpretation 3

MC are limited to 2 weapons, and are limited to 1 target.
Gargantuan rules give you an alternative option:
- you may fire each of your weapon at a different target (pretty much "this rule in a vacuum", that you can select "When a [GMC] makes a shooting attack")

This interpretation is also correct in RaW, but i highly doubt the RaI. Not because we have not seen GW play it, but because "separate target" options usually allow you to fire all your weapons at 1 target, but make the split-fire an option.
As this interpretation would force you to choose a different target for all your weapons, i'm questioning it's validity (RaI)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:
I believe there is your mistake. You assert that a GMC is also an MC. What the rule tells you is to use GMC rule for shooting instead of the MC rule.

The thing is, they do not say those Rule replace ("Instead") the MC rules... From the book:

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

"additional rules and exceptions" means you have to find conflict, but you do use MC Rules.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
GC is an additional rule.

Consider how Jump Pack is an additional rule. Jump Infantry can still A. move as Infantry. But they can also B. move 12" ignoring cover. They can't do both. It's A or B.

I have no idea what RAI is supposed to be.

Otherwise, if we're trying to parse the phrase "it may fire each of its weapons at a different target" under RAW, I can't see how my interpretation doesn't work as a possible valid choice.

Mostly, I just wanted to show how silly the argument had gotten.

The thing is, your parsing of the phrase is actually correct grammatically and structurally, just as much as the "limited to 2" is...
But the "can fire all weapons" as a single permission is not. As a summary:

Interpretation 1
MC are limited to 2 weapons, and are limited to 1 target.
Gargantuan rules specify that you can select multiple targets, but do not remove the limit of 2 weapons.

GMC can fire 2 weapons, at different targets.

Interpretation 2
MC are limited to 2 weapons, and are limited to 1 target.
Gargantuan rules specify that you can select multiple targets AND that you may fire all of your weapons.

This is grammatically incorrect, as it separates the context of "at a different target"

Interpretation 3
MC are limited to 2 weapons, and are limited to 1 target.
Gargantuan rules give you an alternative option:
- you may fire each of your weapon at a different target (pretty much "this rule in a vacuum", that you can select "When a [GMC] makes a shooting attack")

This interpretation is also correct in RaW, but i highly doubt the RaI. Not because we have not seen GW play it, but because "separate target" options usually allow you to fire all your weapons at 1 target, but make the split-fire an option.
As this interpretation would force you to choose a different target for all your weapons, i'm questioning it's validity (RaI)

WRT, "rule in a vacuum", consider an Eldar Dark Reaper armed with a Missile Launcher *and* a Shuriken Pistol (or SM Dev w/ ML & BP) - in the shooting phase, he has 2 options:
A. fire the Pistol, -or-
B. fire the Heavy Weapon.
The options are mutually exclusive, as the rules do not allow him to fire both. Heavy is in a vacuum relative to Pistol, just an added option.

WRT RAI, I completely agree that #3 is probably not what GW intended; however, #3 is the clearest and most direct interpretation of what GW actually wrote, and has the advantage of being relatively unambiguous. From a RAW standpoint, #3 is far more correct than #2, and much less confusing than #1.

Well this is another 'I'm right' 'No, I'm right' thread which needs to be discussed with an opponent beforehand and said thread needs to be locked before personal insults are thrown about

I sent this to the GW rules email.....sorry. Since GW doesn't do FAQ's anymore they are going to rush 8th edition out early, we will see it in 3-4 months. Hopefully with this issue fixed....but this is GW so expect more to be broken than fixed. Again, I'm sorry I brought this to their attention. Time to start saving for your new $95 rule book.

For a model company, they sure charge a lot for rules.

Its not ambiguous, there is a clear right and wrong here, and there should be no need to discuss this before the game. Those situations come up when there honest to god gaps in the rules. There is no gap here.

The gargantuan creature rules do not change, through addition or exception, the number of weapons that may be fired. They only change the number of targets those weapons may be fired at. Arguing otherwise it tantamount to not seeing the forest for the trees. The sentence includes the clause of 'at a different target."

Some of the confusion is that 'each of its weapons' refers to a single weapon. "Each" is singular and an "each of its weapons" is grammatically interchangeable with "each weapon". The former is preferred in this case because the weapon is in the possession of the subject and the use of "its weapon" is inappropriate to the context of firing more then one weapon.

Understanding that, if we drop the 'at a different target' clause from the sentence it would be equivalent to "When a gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire its weapon." and I don't see how that could possible mean it may fire all of its weapons.

Some grammatically equivalent and less confusing alternatives to the original sentence would be...

"Each time a gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire its weapon at a different target ."
"When a gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, its weapons may each be fired at a different target."

But for the sentence to grant permission to fire all its weapons, it would have to read more like

"When a gargantuan creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire all of its weapons and each of its weapons may be fired at a different target."

It wouldn't need all those changes to say that. Simply changing the word from "each" to "all" would have swayed this argument so far to the side saying they can fire all their weapons that naysayers like you would have been drowned out in the tidal wave of responses. The fact that they used the word "each" is the problem, as it can be taken to mean either "all" OR "each of a previously determined number". But there isn't context to support the latter version. Context is generally found within the literary bounds of where a statement is written. In the paragraph that it's in. If not in the paragraph, then in the surrounding paragraphs.

People keep trying to say that if you read it as saying "MCs may shoot 2 weapons. Treat GCs as though they were MCs, with the exceptions and additions that follow. GCs may fire each of their weapons at a different target if they desire." Then you COULD make the (weak) argument that it's referring to 2 weapons. I say weak because it STILL says exceptions and additions, and even with that wording, it could be read as an exception, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS. That's not the context. There are literally 8 pages of rules, and an entire "chapter/section" between those sentences. It's possible that those two sections were even written by different authors. Context has to do with structure, cadence, and supporting information that gives you insight into the INTENT of the writer. So, you can't discuss taking a rule in context without discussing intent. If ANYONE is a writer, and their intent was that GCs could only fire two weapons, but may fire them at different targets, would they write it that way? The answer is unequivocally no.

Therefore, the only way it would have been written that way is if someone were writing the rules for GCs, as they had always wrote the rules for GCs(Which have always allowed them to fire all of their weapons), and simply wasn't thinking about a rule several sections previous to that one, on a different category of models. If it's an intentional change, it would have been worded clearly because intent requires them to be thinking about it, so obviously the intent was not to change it, but a simple misjudgement of wording because writers aren't nearly as obsessive as their fanbase, picking apart and cross-referencing every single word in the book.

And that is why it's 100% clear that the intent of the writers was for GCs to be able to fire all of their weapons at multiple targets.

"And that is why it's 100% clear that the intent of the writers was for GCs to be able to fire all of their weapons at multiple targets."

Not necessarily. This discussion is proof that it is not 100% clear that that is the intent.

I never played with GC's until the WK was upgraded to one. So, with my reading of the rules, which do state to use MC rules, I can see the interpretation of only 2 weapons as being a correct interpretation. The amount of pages/paragraphs between the GC rules and MC rules matter not, you must reference them when reading the GC rules. As such, you have the context of a limited amount of weapons to fire being added to the rule.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

I never played with GC's until the WK was upgraded to one. So, with my reading of the rules, which do state to use MC rules, I can see the interpretation of only 2 weapons as being a correct interpretation. The amount of pages/paragraphs between the GC rules and MC rules matter not, you must reference them when reading the GC rules. As such, you have the context of a limited amount of weapons to fire being added to the rule.

You said the word "context", which means you HAVE to consider intent of the writer. When considering intent of the writer, see above post. Back to 100%.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

I never played with GC's until the WK was upgraded to one. So, with my reading of the rules, which do state to use MC rules, I can see the interpretation of only 2 weapons as being a correct interpretation. The amount of pages/paragraphs between the GC rules and MC rules matter not, you must reference them when reading the GC rules. As such, you have the context of a limited amount of weapons to fire being added to the rule.

You said the word "context", which means you HAVE to consider intent of the writer. When considering intent of the writer, see above post. Back to 100%.

"It's 100% clear that the intent of the writers was for GCs to be able to fire 2 of their weapons at multiple targets."

Because they wrote in the Rulebook that you have to follow MCs Rules:

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

You are getting your "context" completely wrong, by the way. Location of rules in the BrB are not "context" of the rules. The context of a Rule is how it is written, and what it refers to. In this case, the rules for MCs.

If your argument is now based on the location of the Rule in the Rulebook, then i don't think it's worth going any further.......

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

I never played with GC's until the WK was upgraded to one. So, with my reading of the rules, which do state to use MC rules, I can see the interpretation of only 2 weapons as being a correct interpretation. The amount of pages/paragraphs between the GC rules and MC rules matter not, you must reference them when reading the GC rules. As such, you have the context of a limited amount of weapons to fire being added to the rule.

You said the word "context", which means you HAVE to consider intent of the writer. When considering intent of the writer, see above post. Back to 100%.

While I agree that GW may have intended to allow GC's to fire all weapons, there is also the possibility that they intended to reduce the number of weapons GC's could fire to give superheavy walkers an edge that they wouldn't have otherwise. The cost of the Wraithknight as compared to Superheavy walkers reinforces this belief for me. I ignore Forge world stuff, as it is just written differently, and likely is priced for the FW rules that have a GC firing all weapons. I am not even sure what is a GC other than the Wraithknight at this point, let alone which are actually written for 7th rather than 6th. I know the Transcendent C'tan lost this status.

Limiting GCs to 2 weapons isn't a bad balancing option, as it would make the Glaive & Shield option a lot more competitive.

The problem is that the WK pays full BS4 price for each of the extra weapons, when balance-wise that makes no sense. A double-D WK capped at 2 shots doesn't need the extra guns, because he can't suffer Weapon Destroyed. The number of times he's going to want to fire 2 Scatter Lasers like a War Walker is basically zero - they add basically zero marginal utility because anything he can shoot that way, he can Stomp.

A G&S WK does get full value from those guns, but it's not starting on par with the double-D WK in the first place.

The way that the model is designed and costed, I'm not sure the balancing argument holds.


I am curious to see how GW handles GCs going foward, for things like Squiggoths and eventual TGCs.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

The problem is that the WK pays full BS4 price for each of the extra weapons, when balance-wise that makes no sense. A double-D WK capped at 2 shots doesn't need the extra guns, because he can't suffer Weapon Destroyed. The number of times he's going to want to fire 2 Scatter Lasers like a War Walker is basically zero - they add basically zero marginal utility because anything he can shoot that way, he can Stomp

Do you mean that the utility of shooting each Wcannon at separate vehicles in the enemy's deployment zone, then shooting a Scatterlaser at a closer target to be able to then charge it is worth nothing? I don't understand that logic at all.

The reason for a WK with Wcannons to want a Scatterlaser is to be able to shoot at a target "other" than the target of the Wcannons. If the Wcannons kill their targets, you still have an assault option. But if a WK can only fire 2 weapons, you will never see the Wcannon variant with shouldercannons

Did you not read or understand the bit about assuming that GCs are limited to 2 shots per turn? If you shoot at separate vehicles, that's your 2 shots, so you don't get to shoot the Scatterlasers at something to charge. Maybe you should read it again.

If you want to ensure you have something to charge, a non-blast D shot maybe vaporizing a single infantry model of the target unit pretty much eliminates the chance of breaking it, or killing so many models that you end up outside charge range.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

While I agree that GW may have intended to allow GC's to fire all weapons, there is also the possibility that they intended to reduce the number of weapons GC's could fire to give superheavy walkers an edge that they wouldn't have otherwise.

Do you know anyone, or could you even imagine anyone, who would word the rule that way if, when they were writing it, they were thinking "Yeah, GCs can only shoot 2 weapons."

No. The answer is no. No one would ever write it that way if that's what they were thinking.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Did you not read or understand the bit about assuming that GCs are limited to 2 shots per turn? If you shoot at separate vehicles, that's your 2 shots, so you don't get to shoot the Scatterlasers at something to charge. Maybe you should read it again.

If you want to ensure you have something to charge, a non-blast D shot maybe vaporizing a single infantry model of the target unit pretty much eliminates the chance of breaking it, or killing so many models that you end up outside charge range.

Sorry, I was still reading this thread as a dispute about firing 2 weapons. I get what you are saying now. I was distracted by your avatar

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

While I agree that GW may have intended to allow GC's to fire all weapons, there is also the possibility that they intended to reduce the number of weapons GC's could fire to give superheavy walkers an edge that they wouldn't have otherwise.

Do you know anyone, or could you even imagine anyone, who would word the rule that way if, when they were writing it, they were thinking "Yeah, GCs can only shoot 2 weapons."

No. The answer is no. No one would ever write it that way if that's what they were thinking.

Repeating something many times doesn't make it right.
Your comments add absolutely nothing to your side's argument or this thread that has not been said before.

Grammatically both popular interpretations make sense.

The problem is that the rule does not explicitly state that they can fire all weapons as it did in previous publications.
It is unclear as to the whether the additional shooting rules provided for GMCs are intended to replace the whole shooting section for MCs, or more specifically only the part regarding the number of targets that can be selected.

Arguing RAI and using previous editions as evidence is pointless. RAI is inherently an interpretation of the rules as opposed to fact, and game changes in editions happen all the time.
Maybe it was RAI that GMCs can shoot all their weapons, maybe it wasn't. There is no way to be sure without an FAQ from GW clarifying their intent.

In the meantime, I personally don't consider the ambiguity of the word 'each' to be a sound reason to allow GMCs to fire more than 2 weapons.

I was in the two weapon camp until I read the 2nd sentence.
In addition, firing Ordnance weapons has no effect on a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature's ability to fire other weapons.


It's not firing an ordnance weapon, it's firing plural ordnance weapons not impacting your ability to fire plural other weapons.
If it were 2 shots, it should be written as,
Firing an Ordnance weapon has no effect on the Creature's ability to fire another weapon.

The rule is poorly phrased, but I believe the 2nd half of the rule demonstrates firing more than 2 weapons.

-Matt

 Galef wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Did you not read or understand the bit about assuming that GCs are limited to 2 shots per turn? If you shoot at separate vehicles, that's your 2 shots, so you don't get to shoot the Scatterlasers at something to charge. Maybe you should read it again.

If you want to ensure you have something to charge, a non-blast D shot maybe vaporizing a single infantry model of the target unit pretty much eliminates the chance of breaking it, or killing so many models that you end up outside charge range.

Sorry, I was still reading this thread as a dispute about firing 2 weapons. I get what you are saying now. I was distracted by your avatar

Heh, yeah, that happens. No biggie.


At +20 pts per Scatter Laser / Shuricannon / Starcannon, why wouldn't I just spend 80 for 3 Jetbikes? Or 60 pts on a War Walker? In case the enemy has a D-weapon...

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
I was in the two weapon camp until I read the 2nd sentence.
In addition, firing Ordnance weapons has no effect on a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature's ability to fire other weapons.


It's not firing an ordnance weapon, it's firing plural ordnance weapons not impacting your ability to fire plural other weapons.
If it were 2 shots, it should be written as,
Firing an Ordnance weapon has no effect on the Creature's ability to fire another weapon.

The rule is poorly phrased, but I believe the 2nd half of the rule demonstrates firing more than 2 weapons.

-Matt

It could, but i believe it just uses plural as a constant rather than defining multiple weapons:
"Firing Heavy weapons means a Unit cannot charge"

Weapons, plural, but it is a Rule that applies to all the Units that only have 1 Heavy Weapon.

BlackTalos, you are now ignoring a clear rule that shows a GMC is indeed allowed to fire more than two weapons. Your belief here doesn't count.

Naw wrote:
BlackTalos, you are now ignoring a clear rule that shows a GMC is indeed allowed to fire more than two weapons. Your belief here doesn't count.

Again, the writing is ambiguous, rather than clear.
A clear rule would state: GMCs can fire all their weapons per shooting phase, and each weapon may select and fire at a different target.
No quote provided in the thread thus far can could be considered "clear".

Going back to the quote provided by HawaiiMatt: what does "ability to fire other weapons" refer to?

1) All weapons?
2) All weapons, but the model is still restricted to 2 per turn?
3) Twin-linked weapons? These act as one weapon, but to be grammatically correct still need to be pluralized.

The quote could logically be applied to all three of the given examples.

Let's just agree to disagree. Incidentally my Codex says e.g. twin-linked lascannon, instead of lascannons.

Disclaimer: I do not play Eldar nor do I have any super heavies, GMC's or Knights.

I dont understand why the "2 weapon" camp keeps insisting we refer to the MC rules when we have a more specific rule in the GC rules.

It works just like Maugan Ra. He has rules that allow him to shoot his weapon twice. Now, we still refer to the shooting rules as we would for any other infantry IC, but he still gets to fire twice because his rules say so.

GC are permitted to fire EACH weapon. "Each" is used to refer to every one of two or more people or things. The "things" in this case are "its weapons."

Here is the rules quote:

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.

Here it is again with the definition of "each."

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

This is clear permission to fire any and all weapons belonging to a GC.

Not sure if this has been raised before here but was browsing the rulebook yesterday (looking for stomp rules) and found that the rules of super-heavy vehicles say: '...may fire each of its weapons at different targets if desired.'

This doesn't sort out whether GC rules follow from MC but it does give precedent in the rule book for 'each' meaning 'all on the model' as we know vehicles often have more than 2 weapons.

 Zippokovich wrote:
Not sure if this has been raised before here but was browsing the rulebook yesterday (looking for stomp rules) and found that the rules of super-heavy vehicles say: '...may fire each of its weapons at different targets if desired.'

This doesn't sort out whether GC rules follow from MC but it does give precedent in the rule book for 'each' meaning 'all on the model' as we know vehicles often have more than 2 weapons.

Super-heavy Vehicles are Vehicles and therefore already have permission to fire all of their weapons. So either saying they can fire each of their weapons is redundant (possible), or it is an exception to the normal rules for targeting.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Zippokovich wrote:
Not sure if this has been raised before here but was browsing the rulebook yesterday (looking for stomp rules) and found that the rules of super-heavy vehicles say: '...may fire each of its weapons at different targets if desired.'

This doesn't sort out whether GC rules follow from MC but it does give precedent in the rule book for 'each' meaning 'all on the model' as we know vehicles often have more than 2 weapons.

Super-heavy Vehicles are Vehicles and therefore already have permission to fire all of their weapons. So either saying they can fire each of their weapons is redundant (possible), or it is an exception to the normal rules for targeting.

Redundancy is irrelevant here though.