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.

 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.

Please note the preceding sentence. The one that says something like, Super heavy vehicles always count as being stationary and may always fire all of their weapons even when moving, or some such. Note the explicit permission for a super heavy vehicle to always fire every weapon it has. The following sentence is exactly the same as the GC one, and is a permission to target multiple targets.

It actually sets precedent that the sentence is just permission to target multiple units.

 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.

I agree, as it would not be a redundant rule if it referred only to what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire.

But let's agree to disagree, if players REALLY want their WK to be able to fire more than 2 weapons and REALLY need to read the rules that way, i say let them spend their points

I just don't understand why anyone has an issue with this. Perhaps their grasp of the English language is too poor to understand the sentence. It clearly says "...may fire each of its weapons at different targets..." This sentence alone is sufficient to provide all the information required. Context, as some people cite as a counterargument, is irrelevant because the sentence does not refer to any previous statements, and the most relevant clause that may be applied is the caveat that MC rules are superceded by rules listed in the GMC section. Returning to the relevant sentence, it specifically states that each of the GMC's weapons may be fired at a separate target from the others. It does not say that each of the weapons it is allowed to fire may be fired at different targets and therefore no restriction is placed on the number of weapons it may fire. In orderfor each of its weapons to be fired at a different taget from the others, it MUST be allowed tp fire each of the weapons it possesses. Any other interpretation is both grammatically and logically incorrect.

josephking79 wrote:
Context, as some people cite as a counterargument, is irrelevant because the sentence does not refer to any previous statements, and the most relevant clause that may be applied is the caveat that MC rules are superceded by rules listed in the GMC section.

Except you're trying to use a rule that does nothing more than tell us what the model can target as a rule that tells us how many weapons he can fire.

josephking79 wrote:
I just don't understand why anyone has an issue with this. Perhaps their grasp of the English language is too poor to understand the sentence. It clearly says "...may fire each of its weapons at different targets..." This sentence alone is sufficient to provide all the information required. Context, as some people cite as a counterargument, is irrelevant because the sentence does not refer to any previous statements, and the most relevant clause that may be applied is the caveat that MC rules are superceded by rules listed in the GMC section. Returning to the relevant sentence, it specifically states that each of the GMC's weapons may be fired at a separate target from the others. It does not say that each of the weapons it is allowed to fire may be fired at different targets and therefore no restriction is placed on the number of weapons it may fire. In orderfor each of its weapons to be fired at a different taget from the others, it MUST be allowed tp fire each of the weapons it possesses. Any other interpretation is both grammatically and logically incorrect.

Thank you for dredging this topic up from three and a half weeks ago to simply repeat the same thing others have said in the last seven pages.

Can we please have this closed or something?

josephking79 wrote:
I just don't understand why anyone has an issue with this. Perhaps their grasp of the English language is too poor to understand the sentence. It clearly says "...may fire each of its weapons at different targets..." This sentence alone is sufficient to provide all the information required. Context, as some people cite as a counterargument, is irrelevant because the sentence does not refer to any previous statements, and the most relevant clause that may be applied is the caveat that MC rules are superceded by rules listed in the GMC section. Returning to the relevant sentence, it specifically states that each of the GMC's weapons may be fired at a separate target from the others. It does not say that each of the weapons it is allowed to fire may be fired at different targets and therefore no restriction is placed on the number of weapons it may fire. In orderfor each of its weapons to be fired at a different taget from the others, it MUST be allowed tp fire each of the weapons it possesses. Any other interpretation is both grammatically and logically incorrect.

Except nothing overrides the MC rule about only firing 2 weapons.

Nothing in the GC rules states you may fire moew than 2 weapons.

The line that says "...may fire each of its weapons at different targets..." is referring to the weapons it can fire, which is 2 weapons, since the MC rules tell us this.


Please read the whole thread before you post, since this is well hashed out.

 Ghaz wrote:

josephking79 wrote:
Context, as some people cite as a counterargument, is irrelevant because the sentence does not refer to any previous statements, and the most relevant clause that may be applied is the caveat that MC rules are superceded by rules listed in the GMC section.

Except you're trying to use a rule that does nothing more than tell us what the model can target as a rule that tells us how many weapons he can fire.

Ummm. No, I'm not. Not at all. It says "each of its weapons" - this section by itself quantifies the number of weapons it may fire as "each" means "every one of two or more people or things regarded and identified separately" and the things that are being regarded and identified separately are "its weapons". Not two of its weapons, all of them.

josephking79 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

josephking79 wrote:
Context, as some people cite as a counterargument, is irrelevant because the sentence does not refer to any previous statements, and the most relevant clause that may be applied is the caveat that MC rules are superceded by rules listed in the GMC section.

Except you're trying to use a rule that does nothing more than tell us what the model can target as a rule that tells us how many weapons he can fire.

Ummm. No, I'm not. Not at all. It says "each of its weapons" - this section by itself quantifies the number of weapons it may fire as "each" means "every one of two or more people or things regarded and identified separately" and the things that are being regarded and identified separately are "its weapons". Not two of its weapons, all of them.

Selective quoting on your part. It says they may fire each of their weapons "... at a different target if desired". The rule only covers what they can target with their weapons, not how many weapons may be fired. The Monstrous Creature rules allow them to fire two weapons and the Gargantuan Creature rules allow them to fire each of those weapons at a different target if desired.

 DeathReaper wrote:

josephking79 wrote:
I just don't understand why anyone has an issue with this. Perhaps their grasp of the English language is too poor to understand the sentence. It clearly says "...may fire each of its weapons at different targets..." This sentence alone is sufficient to provide all the information required. Context, as some people cite as a counterargument, is irrelevant because the sentence does not refer to any previous statements, and the most relevant clause that may be applied is the caveat that MC rules are superceded by rules listed in the GMC section. Returning to the relevant sentence, it specifically states that each of the GMC's weapons may be fired at a separate target from the others. It does not say that each of the weapons it is allowed to fire may be fired at different targets and therefore no restriction is placed on the number of weapons it may fire. In orderfor each of its weapons to be fired at a different taget from the others, it MUST be allowed tp fire each of the weapons it possesses. Any other interpretation is both grammatically and logically incorrect.

Except nothing overrides the MC rule about only firing 2 weapons.

Nothing in the GC rules states you may fire moew than 2 weapons.

The line that says "...may fire each of its weapons at different targets..." is referring to the weapons it can fire, which is 2 weapons, since the MC rules tell us this.


Please read the whole thread before you post, since this is well hashed out.

I have read a huge amount of this tgread, thank you and I wanted to add my piece. To counter your argument, in what way does the sentence in question specifically refer to the two weapons an MC is restricted to? Answer: in no way whatsoever. The sentence itself provides a new quantity. of weapons that may be fired, namely each weapon the GMC posesses. As previously stated, any other conclusion is logically incorrect.

Again, the Gargantuan Creature rules add nothing to how many weapons can be fired, only what weapons that the Monstrous Creature rules allow to be fired can be fired at. Grammatically that is the only way the rules can be read.

josephking79 wrote:
In order for each of its weapons to be fired at a different target from the others, it MUST be allowed to fire each of the weapons it possesses.

The underlined is an assumption you are making that is not in the original 1 line you quoted ("may fire each of its weapons at different targets")

You got the first part right though, that one line allows you to "In order for each of its weapons to be fired at a different target from the others". On that you are correct. That is what the rule lets you do. But it is 1 phrase, 1 rule. If you add anything to that, such as 'it must therefore be able to...', then you are adding a meaning that is not in that 1 line...

I would wager you play Eldar, but in any case, my closing post still stands:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 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.

I agree, as it would not be a redundant rule if it referred only to what you can target with your weapons, not how many weapons you can fire.

But let's agree to disagree, if players REALLY want their WK to be able to fire more than 2 weapons and REALLY need to read the rules that way, i say let them spend their points

In the section for vehicles it says on page 73 "A vehicle that remained stationary may fire all of it's weapons" so the super heavy section about firing each of its weapons at different targets relates back to the fact it is a vehicle and can fire all it's weapons.

Gargantuan creatures have the same wording for they can fire each of their weapons at different targets, but in the same manner as super heavy is a vehicle and so can fire all it's wepons based on the vehicle section a gargantuan can still only fire 2 weapons as they are a monstrous creature with the extra rule of being able to target multiple units .

 Ghaz wrote:
Again, the Gargantuan Creature rules add nothing to how many weapons can be fired, only what weapons that the Monstrous Creature rules allow to be fired can be fired at. Grammatically that is the only way the rules can be read.

This 100%

josephking79, your argument does not hold water.

This thread proves that.

 HANZERtank wrote:
In the section for vehicles it says on page 73 "A vehicle that remained stationary may fire all of it's weapons" so the super heavy section about firing each of its weapons at different targets relates back to the fact it is a vehicle and can fire all it's weapons.

Gargantuan creatures have the same wording for they can fire each of their weapons at different targets, but in the same manner as super heavy is a vehicle and so can fire all it's wepons based on the vehicle section a gargantuan can still only fire 2 weapons as they are a monstrous creature with the extra rule of being able to target multiple units .

I would also add that vehicles, inherently can shoot all of their weapons. Because they are vehicles, not because the superheavy vehicle rules allow them to.

Wraithknights can only shoot two weapons. No rule gives them permission to shoot more. This is how I interpret it, as an Eldar player with two Wraithknights (and also not a douche).

Belly wrote:
I would also add that vehicles, inherently can shoot all of their weapons. Because they are vehicles, not because the superheavy vehicle rules allow them to.

Not quite correct. Vehicles can shoot all of their weapons if they remain stationary. Super-heavy vehicles always count as remaining stationary; they do not actually have direct or explicit permission to fire all of their weapons as such.

Wraithknights can only shoot two weapons. No rule gives them permission to shoot more. This is how I interpret it, as an Eldar player with two Wraithknights (and also not a douche).

Inclined to agree, coming from the same position.

I know this is pouring oil on a blazing fire to say it but I missed this thread first time round: I can honestly say 90% of the people here do not know what they are talking about, and collectively this thread came to the wrong conclusion utterly: and so it needs fixing.

For that reason josephking79 was right to bring it back up

Probably due to a poor understanding of grammar as english people use it. *It says Monstrous Creatures may fire each of it's weapons*. It says that in a sentence. It then widens the scope to say *at separate targets* anyone who wants to dismantle that sentence cannot do so without un welding these two instructions

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Belly wrote:
I would also add that vehicles, inherently can shoot all of their weapons. Because they are vehicles, not because the superheavy vehicle rules allow them to.

Not quite correct. Vehicles can shoot all of their weapons if they remain stationary.

Incorrect. Vehicles can shoot all of their weapons regardless of how far they move. The only thing that is affected is how many they can shoot at full BS.

Here's an example. My mother gives me 5 £1 coins, but says i can only spend £2 and only one shop. She then gives my big brother 5 £1 coins and says you follow all the instructions I told your little brother, but you can spend your money in several different shops.

I'm only allowed to spend £2 and all in the same shop. My brother can then spend £2 in as many shops as he wants but no more than £2 as thats all I'm allowed to spend and he follows all the same rules except where he can spend it.

 Happyjew wrote:
Incorrect. Vehicles can shoot all of their weapons regardless of how far they move. The only thing that is affected is how many they can shoot at full BS.

Well, yes. In the context of what being a Super-heavy vehicle grants over regular vehicles I assumed we were talking in the context of full BS

ConanMan wrote:
I know this is pouring oil on a blazing fire to say it but I missed this thread first time round: I can honestly say 90% of the people here do not know what they are talking about, and collectively this thread came to the wrong conclusion utterly: and so it needs fixing.

For that reason josephking79 was right to bring it back up

Probably due to a poor understanding of grammar as english people use it. *It says Monstrous Creatures may fire each of it's weapons*. It says that in a sentence. It then widens the scope to say *at separate targets* anyone who wants to dismantle that sentence cannot do so without un welding these two instructions

Did you want to bring a new argument, or did you just forget to read the thread?

You cannot "dismantle that sentence", no, please read the thread as to why.

Those of you arguing that Gargantuan Creatures (i.e. Wraith Knights) can only fire 2 weapons in the shooting phase: Prepare to be disappointed.

By...whom, precisely? Is there a FAQ on the way, or just a locally enforced houserule that few people on here will likely care about?

 BlackTalos wrote:

ConanMan wrote:
I know this is pouring oil on a blazing fire to say it but I missed this thread first time round: I can honestly say 90% of the people here do not know what they are talking about, and collectively this thread came to the wrong conclusion utterly: and so it needs fixing.

For that reason josephking79 was right to bring it back up

Probably due to a poor understanding of grammar as english people use it. *It says Monstrous Creatures may fire each of it's weapons*. It says that in a sentence. It then widens the scope to say *at separate targets* anyone who wants to dismantle that sentence cannot do so without un welding these two instructions

Did you want to bring a new argument, or did you just forget to read the thread?

You cannot "dismantle that sentence", no, please read the thread as to why.

I read it all, I am genuinely aghast, because it is a simple simple thing. seriously, you are wrong guys.. Gargantuan creatures can fire 4 weapons if they have 4, to even suggest otherwise you have to be prepared to

follow an convoluted inference from an indirect source

split the meaning of a multi parted sentence

chose one particular (highly debatable) inference over another on a direct sentence

alternatively you can

chose the much more likely grammatically inference over another on a direct sentence

since I am not prepared to do all three of those convoluted things I choose to read it as it is clearly intended - it is firing all 4 if that's how they bring it

ConanMan wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

ConanMan wrote:
I know this is pouring oil on a blazing fire to say it but I missed this thread first time round: I can honestly say 90% of the people here do not know what they are talking about, and collectively this thread came to the wrong conclusion utterly: and so it needs fixing.

For that reason josephking79 was right to bring it back up

Probably due to a poor understanding of grammar as english people use it. *It says Monstrous Creatures may fire each of it's weapons*. It says that in a sentence. It then widens the scope to say *at separate targets* anyone who wants to dismantle that sentence cannot do so without un welding these two instructions

Did you want to bring a new argument, or did you just forget to read the thread?

You cannot "dismantle that sentence", no, please read the thread as to why.

I read it all, I am genuinely aghast, because it is a simple simple thing. seriously, you are wrong guys.. Gargantuan creatures can fire 4 weapons if they have 4, to even suggest otherwise you have to be prepared to



alternatively you can

chose the much more likely grammatically inference over another on a direct sentence

since I am not prepared to do all three of those convoluted things I choose to read it as it is clearly intended - it is firing all 4 if that's how they bring it

Well that a great argument right there, since you are actually doing:

follow an convoluted inference from an indirect source

split the meaning of a multi parted sentence

chose one particular (highly debatable) inference over another on a direct sentence

It's rather simple.

One Rule:
"may fire each of its weapons at different targets"

One direct meaning:
You have an explicit permission to select different targets for your weapons

The above permission does not allow you to fire any more weapons than your were allowed to fire previously.
That's just you "splitting the meaning" and "following a convoluted inference" that simply does not exist in that Rule

If you REALLY want your WK to be able to fire more than 2 weapons and REALLY need to read the rules that way, hope you enjoy all of your upcoming games



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ConanMan wrote:
*It says Monstrous Creatures may fire each of it's weapons*. It says that in a sentence. It then widens the scope to say *at separate targets* anyone who wants to dismantle that sentence cannot do so without un welding these two instructions

See: ~ ~Incorrectly splitting the meaning of a simple sentence.~ ~ of your own argument.

BlackTalos however angry you are, however adamant you are, however you try to (laughably, and poorly) reverse my sound break down of the choice before us, however in fits of rage you are. however lacking, it doesn't make the illogical incoherent assumption you are ranting over suddenly true.

You are still placing an overwhelming bias on something so flimsy it is a joke. And you know it.

The truth is this is a WraithKnight hate issue. Always was. The reason why 90% of people sided is the same reason 90% of people hated the Eldar codex. It was always such, that is why it was raised. But you are prepared to let all that poison and animosity over that WK hate spill out into a perfectly unrelated rule.

*each* means each. it doesn't mean less than that.

You don't have to jump from a) to b) to c) and then badly hack a) to get the rule you want. you can just read it.

"Each" means "each that it has permission to fire". It doesn't mean more than that when the passage is referring to what you can target, not how many weapons you can shoot.

ConanMan wrote:
BlackTalos however angry you are, however adamant you are, however you try to (laughably, and poorly) reverse my sound break down of the choice before us, however in fits of rage you are. however lacking, it doesn't make the illogical incoherent assumption you are ranting over suddenly true.

You are still placing an overwhelming bias on something so flimsy it is a joke. And you know it.

The truth is this is a WraithKnight hate issue. Always was. The reason why 90% of people sided is the same reason 90% of people hated the Eldar codex. It was always such, that is why it was raised. But you are prepared to let all that poison and animosity over that WK hate spill out into a perfectly unrelated rule.

*each* means each. it doesn't mean less than that.

You don't have to jump from a) to b) to c) and then badly hack a) to get the rule you want. you can just read it.

If you don't have an actual argument, why are you posting? I am not adamant, angry or making assumptions. I am explaining how the Rules work for players who don't.
If they're only here to create an argument "i'm right and you're not", it's the best way to get the thread locked. Is that you intention?

"may fire each of its weapons at different targets" = can select multiple targets for its weapons. That is still a maximum of 2.

I will not convince you. May you enjoy your incorrect games with your WraithKnight.
This is a WraithKnight but*hurt issue, indeed. You want to be able to fire 4 Weapons? Feel free to do so. It does not make you correct, sorry.

You don't have to hate wraith knights to argue over a sentence.

With super heavys and gargantuans moving into the main range the way they have, its only right that eldar should have one. My issue with wraithknights is the points cost. Nothing more.

This is a rule rule interpretation issue. Not a hate issue.

The fact is, when read correctly, in context, the rules say it can fire two weapons at separate targets

ConanMan wrote:BlackTalos however angry you are, however adamant you are, however you try to (laughably, and poorly) reverse my sound break down of the choice before us, however in fits of rage you are. however lacking, it doesn't make the illogical incoherent assumption you are ranting over suddenly true.

You are still placing an overwhelming bias on something so flimsy it is a joke. And you know it.

The truth is this is a WraithKnight hate issue. Always was. The reason why 90% of people sided is the same reason 90% of people hated the Eldar codex. It was always such, that is why it was raised. But you are prepared to let all that poison and animosity over that WK hate spill out into a perfectly unrelated rule.

*each* means each. it doesn't mean less than that.

You don't have to jump from a) to b) to c) and then badly hack a) to get the rule you want. you can just read it.

I play Eldar. I think it should be only 2 weapons, there are other previous posters that are the same. Using all the printed rules and applying each as written, rather than a fraction of the sentence taken out of context, then it will quite clearly be 2 weapons at any target. If you assume it is a complete replacement, then you would be correct in it being every weapon.

The real argument should be about the section being an exception or an addition.

I understand that people are trying to find any way they can to control the overpoweredness of wraithknights, but some GCs, like my gargantuan squiggoth, come stock with 4 weapons and have no options to change them out.

I think to argue that a GC with 4 weapons base can only ever fire 2 is pretty grossly unfair. It makes a lot more sense to compare GC shooting to a super heavy than a MC.

Moreover, the GC section says that a GC is a MC that with additional rules, and one additional rule for shooting is worded precisely like a super heavy tank's rule for firing, which has no limit on how many weapons it can fire.