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.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
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.

I agree that they probably should. Though most super heavy vehicles cost a lot more so "grossly unfair" is an overstatement.

The fact that a super heavy vehicle can fire all its weapons is also a carry over from vehicle rules with the additions that it always counts as stationary and can fire at different targets.
The fact that a GC can fire 2 is a carry over from MC rules with the addition that it can fire at seperate targets

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
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.

And when were the rules for Gargantuan Squiggoths released? Prior to Escalation (might just be pre-7th not 100% sure), Gargantuan Creatures could fire all their weapons.

I played wraith heavy Iyanden Eldar with the old Codex and will enjoy playing them with the new Craftworlds Dex. If necessary I'll most likely opt not to take additional constructs beyond the wraithhost to avoid steamroller problems, but I will be playing one or more Wraithknights regularly.

Yet, IMHO, RAW a Wraithknight can fire only two weapons, since there is no comma between the two parts of the sentence where we hear two permission only by reading it with a pause.

Funny enough, BlackTalos agreed earlier in the thread that RAI is most likely supposed to be as before in Apocalypse. Please don't accuse him of bias or confuse a discussion about what the rules actually say (e.g. threads in this forum) with a futile RAI / HIWPI brainstorming session.

 Ghaz wrote:
"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.

Adding words is a sure way to claim RAI, unless you can show "that is has permission to fire" in the rules somewhere.

Fragile wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
"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.

Adding words is a sure way to claim RAI, unless you can show "that is has permission to fire" in the rules somewhere.

It's not RAI, it is RAW as there are rules to back up that a Gargantuan Creature can only fire two weapons since they follow the rules for Monstrous Creatures and those rules only allow them to fire two weapons.

Except for the "each" clause, which your trying to break down, but your adding words to justify it.

And the other side isn't?

 BlackTalos wrote:

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

Playing Eldar or not shouldn't matter, and it certainly doesn't make anyone a douche like Belly said if you think some poorly written rules mean something different.

I don't own any Eldar or gargantuan creatures, but that shouldn't make my opinion anymore qualified. But it's the internet, so, it isn't surprising that people will go there.

You say you can't add anything to that, so I think it's clear that "each weapon" means "each weapon" and that means it can fire each weapon, not each weapon allowed. If it meant "it may fire each of its allowed weapons at a different target", it would say "it may fire each of its allowed weapons at a different target" or "it may fire each of its weapons it can fire at different targets" or anything else to similar effect. But it doesn't, and you can't insert "allowed" when it doesn't say it.

I don't buy that 1 phrase can't alter more than one subject at a time. Just about every single specific rule that alters a more general rule overrides multiple aspects of the general rule, there's no way that you can say that a sentence can't have an effect on more than one other sentence at a time.

Except once again, you're trying to take a sentence that only applies to what it can target and make it mean what it can fire and what it can target. The grammar does not support that. It would need to be worded something like "... may fire each weapon, and at different targets if they wish..." to allow what you claim. The wording just does not support it firing more than two weapons.

But once again I ask, why can't it do both?

Every other specific rule can override and change multiple aspects of many different rules in different phrases with a single sentence.

 BlackTalos wrote:
It's rather simple.

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

Exactly.

A GC with 4 guns may fire each of them at different targets, so it needs to select 1 different target per weapon.

The MC limitation does not apply when firing at a different target for each weapon.

Otherwise, it's like you're arguing that a Jump Pack Infantry is still limited to regular Infantry movement of 6", despite it saying that it can move 12". Jump Pack movement is completely separate from Infantry movement, in the same way that GC shooting can be completely separate from MC shooting.

You keep arguing for a different rule that is not supported by RAW:
"may fire the second weapons at a different target."

That's not what it says, and you should stop arguing like it does.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

But once again I ask, why can't it do both?

Every other specific rule can override and change multiple aspects of many different rules in different phrases with a single sentence.

Because you're trying to make a single sentence which only deals with what can be targeted mean two different things. Grammar doesn't work that way.

There are 2 rules in shooting:
1) models can only fire 1 weapon.
2) units can only target 1 unit.

Gargantuan creatures are generally 1 model units.

Gargantuan creatures use the rules for MCs.

Mcs change the first rule(with a caveat that the second still applies)

Gargantuan creatures change the second rule only.

The oft-used statement is that gcs are mcs with additions and exceptions. Then claiming that the gc rules replace the mc rules on 2 weapons; this fails in that the 2 rules are not individually addressed.

Per RAW gcs can simply fire 2 weapons, each at different targets.

HIWPI: I let them fire all weapons and at sepatate targets, but then there are several RAW I ignore in favour of either playability or just narrative awesomeness(a squiggoth with multiple weapons, all crewed, should ve able to fire all of them; the squiggoth itself is not doing the firing).

 Ghaz wrote:

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

But once again I ask, why can't it do both?

Every other specific rule can override and change multiple aspects of many different rules in different phrases with a single sentence.

Because you're trying to make a single sentence which only deals with what can be targeted mean two different things. Grammar doesn't work that way.

Saying that a sentence can only have an effect on or only refer to strictly one subject at a time is ... I don't even know, I've never heard anyone ever try and say something like this. The English language is very much capable of that.

General english language, and rules language are 2 different animals.

In rules(or law) you must specifically address 1 subject at a time.

In this instance each cannot mean "each it has possesion of", but rather "each already established as available".

Where can I get a reference for reading the rules correctly since they aren't in basic English?

Let me try to be of assistance in parsing the sentence.

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.
[-----------Condition that explains when the following permission is applicable-----------], [-Permission to target as many units as you have weapons ]
It really does not matter if you take "each of its weapons" to mean "each weapon it has permission to fire from the MC rules" or "each shooting weapon present on the model".
The permission only applies to how many different targets you may select. Being allowed to target 32 units does not help you fire more than the 2 weapons you had permission to fire anyway.

Compare this sentence to what many people - myself included initially - read instead:
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.
[-----------Condition that explains when the following permission is applicable-----------], [Permission to fire all weapons][Permission to target whatever you want]
The exact same words can be separated into two permissions by as little as a pause, which is indicated by a comma, or an conjuction such as "and". Alas, that is where the GW copy writer failed and left us in this mess.

What's more, compare the following sentence, which was the rule from Apocalypse before it was copy-butchered into the 7th Edition BRB:
Gargantuan Creatures can fire all of their weapons every turn, and they can fire them at different targets if they wish (...fluff...).
Clean, clear and separated by a nice ", and" we have two permissions here. Alas, these rules are outdated. =/

 Stephanius wrote:
Let me try to be of assistance in parsing the sentence.

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.
[-----------Condition that explains when the following permission is applicable-----------], [-Permission to target as many units as you have weapons ]
It really does not matter if you take "each of its weapons" to mean "each weapon it has permission to fire from the MC rules" or "each shooting weapon present on the model".
The permission only applies to how many different targets you may select. Being allowed to target 32 units does not help you fire more than the 2 weapons you had permission to fire anyway.

Compare this sentence to what many people - myself included initially - read instead:
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.
[-----------Condition that explains when the following permission is applicable-----------], [Permission to fire all weapons][Permission to target whatever you want]
The exact same words can be separated into two permissions by as little as a pause, which is indicated by a comma, or an conjuction such as "and". Alas, that is where the GW copy writer failed and left us in this mess.

What's more, compare the following sentence, which was the rule from Apocalypse before it was copy-butchered into the 7th Edition BRB:
Gargantuan Creatures can fire all of their weapons every turn, and they can fire them at different targets if they wish (...fluff...).
Clean, clear and separated by a nice ", and" we have two permissions here. Alas, these rules are outdated. =/

This is the way i've been trying to explain it for 8 pages, but it always ends up in "No you're wrong" and the thread never seems to get anywhere....

I would point out that by pure RaW, there is actually a second formulation:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
It's rather simple.

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

Exactly.

A GC with 4 guns may fire each of them at different targets, so it needs to select 1 different target per weapon.

The MC limitation does not apply when firing at a different target for each weapon.

Otherwise, it's like you're arguing that a Jump Pack Infantry is still limited to regular Infantry movement of 6", despite it saying that it can move 12". Jump Pack movement is completely separate from Infantry movement, in the same way that GC shooting can be completely separate from MC shooting.

You keep arguing for a different rule that is not supported by RAW:
"may fire the second weapons at a different target."

That's not what it says, and you should stop arguing like it does.

This is one completely valid interpretation:
The RaW here is that either you fire 2 weapons as per normal MC rules, or you can select (in a vacuum) to "fire each of its weapons at different targets"

In this valid interpretation, however, you are forced to fire your weapons at different targets, which means that if only 1 enemy Unit is left on the Board, you can only Fire 1 weapon.

Same situation if you only have 1 enemy Unit in range or Line of Sight, only 1 weapon could be fired.

Thus even though RaW your position is correct, i really don't think that it was written with that intent. Just in the same way that Super Heavy Vehicles could fire 3 weapons at 1 Target, and 2 weapons at another target, the "may (...) if desired" refers to the option of selecting multiple targets (or firing [available weapons] at 1 target, like SHVehicles) not the option choosing MC rules or "each of its weapons at a different target" in a vacuum.

TL: DR you are correct in RaW, but between both RaWs, i think yours is very convoluted

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

Where can I get a reference for reading the rules correctly since they aren't in basic English?

Your High School English course. The spoken English is not proper English. See the use of "literally" in many phrases during the '80's the most. "Totally" as an agreement? The way you speak is a completely different manner as to that in which the language was intended. This is one of the reasons that foreigners sound funny when you speak with them, they are using the textbook version of the language, and you are using a regional dialect/slang version.

 Stephanius wrote:
Let me try to be of assistance in parsing the sentence.

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.
[-----------Condition that explains when the following permission is applicable-----------], [-Permission to target as many units as you have weapons ]
It really does not matter if you take "each of its weapons" to mean "each weapon it has permission to fire from the MC rules" or "each shooting weapon present on the model".
The permission only applies to how many different targets you may select. Being allowed to target 32 units does not help you fire more than the 2 weapons you had permission to fire anyway.

Compare this sentence to what many people - myself included initially - read instead:
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.
[-----------Condition that explains when the following permission is applicable-----------], [Permission to fire all weapons][Permission to target whatever you want]
The exact same words can be separated into two permissions by as little as a pause, which is indicated by a comma, or an conjuction such as "and". Alas, that is where the GW copy writer failed and left us in this mess.

What's more, compare the following sentence, which was the rule from Apocalypse before it was copy-butchered into the 7th Edition BRB:
Gargantuan Creatures can fire all of their weapons every turn, and they can fire them at different targets if they wish (...fluff...).
Clean, clear and separated by a nice ", and" we have two permissions here. Alas, these rules are outdated. =/

This is a very good post. Exalt sir!

Yes, it's very clear that they intended Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures to fire all their weapons, and fire them each at different targets. It is so clear that I intended to let all of my opponents play that way (I have a Wraithknight, but just with two weapons anyways). However, it is also entirely clear that the RAW is "nope - 2 weapons only", and that's what I expect will be enforced at tournaments.

Gargantuan Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase -they must, of course, fire both at the same target. When a Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired.

That is the proper way to parse the two rules, as the Gargantuan Creature rules have nothing to do with how many weapons can be fired, just what they can be fired at.

 Ghaz wrote:

Gargantuan Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase -they must, of course, fire both at the same target. When a Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired.

That is the proper way to parse the two rules, as the Gargantuan Creature rules have nothing to do with how many weapons can be fired, just what they can be fired at.

Though JohnHwangDD is not incorrect either, you can have:

A) "Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase."
= fire up to two of their weapons

B) "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."
= fire each of its weapons at a different target

Where the RaW is that you can select "option A" or "option B" (You can do "option B" because "may (...) if desired")
This give Gargantuans a choice:
either they can "fire up to two of their weapons" or they can "fire each of its weapons at a different target".

However when doing "fire each of its weapons at a different target", there is no choice "may (...) if desired" about whom to target or if you can fire all your weapons... You are forced to do the action:
"fire each of its weapons at a different target", so if only 1 Enemy Unit exists on the board, you could not follow the rule. You are not permitted to fire 2 weapons at the same target either, and though this is correct by RaW, i very much doubt the game is meant to be played that way.
The intent was for the choice "may (...) if desired" to be about your targets, not about which fire mode to choose... It seems very Orky though.... being forced to fire at different targets.

To me, putting it in a real world gaming scenario makes me think about it in another perspective.

If a Wraithnight with 2 D Cannons and 2 Starcannons was on the table, shot each of his D Cannons at my army, and then went on, I would ask "why did you only fire the D Cannons and not each weapon?"

My opponent might say, "Well, it can only fire each of the 2 weapons of the 4 weapons it has...so out of all of the model's weapons, I pick 2 weapons to be which are going to be the group that I can fire each weapon...or something like that."

Then I would say "Oh, I thought it could just fire each weapon on the model...whatevs." And then proceed to rolling dice agreeing with my opponent's convoluted interpretation. I don't play Gargantuan Creatures so I don't mind.

Marshal_Gus wrote:
To me, putting it in a real world gaming scenario makes me think about it in another perspective.

If a Wraithnight with 2 D Cannons and 2 Starcannons was on the table, shot each of his D Cannons at my army, and then went on, I would ask "why did you only fire the D Cannons and not each weapon?"

My opponent might say, "Well, it can only fire each of the 2 weapons of the 4 weapons it has...so out of all of the model's weapons, I pick 2 weapons to be which are going to be the group that I can fire each weapon...or something like that."

Then I would say "Oh, I thought it could just fire each weapon on the model...whatevs." And then proceed to rolling dice agreeing with my opponent's convoluted interpretation. I don't play Gargantuan Creatures so I don't mind.

If a Wraithnight with 2 D Cannons and 2 Starcannons was on the table, shot both D Cannons at one of my Units, I would point out to him:

"You know the rules say you can *fire each of its weapons at a different target* if you want to right?" " You can select a different target for the second D-Cannon"

I would not say anything about shooting more than those 2, because there are no rules to that effect for gargantuans :S

A theme I have been seeing with the argument for all weapons is that the rest of us are trying to nerf the wraithknight(along with the "well then why can the wk have up to 4 weapons?").

Here's the thing about that: the wk has always been able to have up to 4 guns, and could only ever fire 2 of them. Depending on your arm loadout you may or may not want to bother with those shoulder guns. 2 heavy Ds? Don't bother. Sun and shield? Take 1. Glaive? Take both.

Nothing about the wks effectiveness changed from its previous mc version other than the str d and stomp(well and the option to lob each d at a different target)

Although if we were to go along the "who had how many before" route, Kap'n Krump makes a good point about the Gargantuan Squiggoth having 4 weapons. The Apocalypse Rules (kindly provided by Stephanius) showed that such a model used to be able to fire all 4, but since 7th Ed (Escalation had the same wording IIRC), that model has indeed received a Nerf.

As i've said many times, i'm not against Eldar players spending all their points to get 4 Shooting Weapons. I'd welcome more point on 1 model so taking it down is more rewarding....

But many have been putting forth a RaW argument, and RaW is clearly "Use MC rules", with permission about "at a different target"

There is a reason for giving the stock WK the two other guns. Assume a WK with 2 Heavy D-cannons, and 2 Scatter Lasers. If playing against a green tide army would you rather use the scat lasers for potentially 8 dead orks, or the d-cannons for 2 dead orks?

Heavy D-cannons can only kill 2 models per turn (max), where as dual starcannons can theoretically kill 4 models, and dual scatter lasers can kill 8.

 Stephanius wrote:
Let me try to be of assistance in parsing the sentence.

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.
[-----------Condition that explains when the following permission is applicable-----------], [-Permission to target as many units as you have weapons ]
It really does not matter if you take "each of its weapons" to mean "each weapon it has permission to fire from the MC rules" or "each shooting weapon present on the model".
The permission only applies to how many different targets you may select. Being allowed to target 32 units does not help you fire more than the 2 weapons you had permission to fire anyway.

Compare this sentence to what many people - myself included initially - read instead:
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.
[-----------Condition that explains when the following permission is applicable-----------], [Permission to fire all weapons][Permission to target whatever you want]
The exact same words can be separated into two permissions by as little as a pause, which is indicated by a comma, or an conjuction such as "and". Alas, that is where the GW copy writer failed and left us in this mess.

What's more, compare the following sentence, which was the rule from Apocalypse before it was copy-butchered into the 7th Edition BRB:
Gargantuan Creatures can fire all of their weapons every turn, and they can fire them at different targets if they wish (...fluff...).
Clean, clear and separated by a nice ", and" we have two permissions here. Alas, these rules are outdated. =/

This helps way more than all of the other one line arguments, "examples", down talking, and other junk in this thread, thank you.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

Where can I get a reference for reading the rules correctly since they aren't in basic English?

Your High School English course. The spoken English is not proper English. See the use of "literally" in many phrases during the '80's the most. "Totally" as an agreement? The way you speak is a completely different manner as to that in which the language was intended. This is one of the reasons that foreigners sound funny when you speak with them, they are using the textbook version of the language, and you are using a regional dialect/slang version.

Yeah, no, this isn't a case of slang vs proper, and there isn't some magical way to read it other then how you read anything else like other people were saying. It is about grammar like Ghaz was saying, but he was saying the answer without really explaining well how he got there.

 Happyjew wrote:
There is a reason for giving the stock WK the two other guns. Assume a WK with 2 Heavy D-cannons, and 2 Scatter Lasers. If playing against a green tide army would you rather use the scat lasers for potentially 8 dead orks, or the d-cannons for 2 dead orks?

Heavy D-cannons can only kill 2 models per turn (max), where as dual starcannons can theoretically kill 4 models, and dual scatter lasers can kill 8.

For some reason i thought they were large blasts(likely all the fear and doom from the rumors/release)

...The wrongness is so strong on this thread...

"You Make Da Call?" Maybe needs to become "You Make It Up?"

I'm not happy that so many people have marched to a inexplicable conclusion based on a string farcical tangents. And they've done it with zeal that is breathtaking.

And while politeness is essential, this thread is now (to me) a cemetry where common sense came to die.

But if players want to weild "the reedy wand of warrior tenuous" rather than "the meaty blood axe of obvious" I can't stop you, until of course it gets FAQ'd and this thread finally crawls into the abyss it came from