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.

So what are you butt-hurt about? The clear line of rules interaction, or the taking a single line out of context and applying it to multiple rules that are not addressed?

Note that for the Wraithknight this whole point is largely academic. The CWD formations are so big, that my 1500 point list has only room for two, a windrider host (the others are more expensive) and a wraithhost. This leaves me with 122 points to spend on options. With farseer, jetbike, viper and lord upgrade options I see more bang for the buck in each case.

A FAQ will hopefully be released sometime for the sake or poor squiggoths - or maybe they sell us 8th Edition soon rather than provide errata

ConanMan wrote:
...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

So refute the point. Don't sit there and bitch about it, seemingly incapable of actually constructing an intelligent argument against what others have carefully composed.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

ConanMan wrote:
...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

So refute the point. Don't sit there and bitch about it, seemingly incapable of actually constructing an intelligent argument against what others have carefully composed.

We don't even know his position, he may well not be trying to refute the referenced rules but instead is complaining about the all weapons camp.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

ConanMan wrote:
...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

So refute the point. Don't sit there and bitch about it, seemingly incapable of actually constructing an intelligent argument against what others have carefully composed.

We don't even know his position, he may well not be trying to refute the referenced rules but instead is complaining about the all weapons camp.

His position is bellow. Arguing for all weapons.

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

And grammar, lol, says the one ignoring the grammar of the sentence and adding a pause where there isn't one.

This thread is gonna just go in circles for a while, cause the argument has been made pretty clearly for the 2 weapons side. The only question left is is the rule an Addition or Exception, and that is not gonna be answered here (although for the record i'm sure its an addition not exception).

EDIT - spelling, my bad

 Iron_Warden wrote:
This thread is gonna just go in circles for a while, cause the argument has been made pretty clearly for the 2 weapons side. The only question left is is the rule an Addition or Exception, and that is not gonna be answered here (although for the record i'm sure its an addition not exception).

Skipping the derailing of personal rants, i'm not entirely certain i've understood the Addition V Exception option?

Is this the same as JohnHwangDD's position (Addition) as opposed to the general thread consensus (Exception) ?
Or is this an entire different matter within the general thread consensus?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Iron_Warden wrote:
This thread is gonna just go in circles for a while, cause the argument has been made pretty clearly for the 2 weapons side. The only question left is is the rule an Addition or Exception, and that is not gonna be answered here (although for the record i'm sure its an addition not exception).

Skipping the derailing of personal rants, i'm not entirely certain i've understood the Addition V Exception option?

Is this the same as JohnHwangDD's position (Addition) as opposed to the general thread consensus (Exception) ?
Or is this an entire different matter within the general thread consensus?

The rules for Gargants are in addition to the rules of MCs, unless they overule. So a GC follows the rules for MCs when shooting. with the additions, and/or exceptions, listed under GC shooting. The people saying 2 weapons are say the rule under GC is an addition, ie can fire 2 weapons (MC) and can fire each at a different target (GC additional rule). The guys saying they can fire all are arguing the GC rule is an exception, ie they can fire each weapon (all of them) at different targets.

Personally i think its an addition, so 2 weapons. Especially when looking at wordings of similar rules and old rules for the same actions.

 Iron_Warden wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Iron_Warden wrote:
This thread is gonna just go in circles for a while, cause the argument has been made pretty clearly for the 2 weapons side. The only question left is is the rule an Addition or Exception, and that is not gonna be answered here (although for the record i'm sure its an addition not exception).

Skipping the derailing of personal rants, i'm not entirely certain i've understood the Addition V Exception option?

Is this the same as JohnHwangDD's position (Addition) as opposed to the general thread consensus (Exception) ?
Or is this an entire different matter within the general thread consensus?

The rules for Gargants are in addition to the rules of MCs, unless they overule. So a GC follows the rules for MCs when shooting. with the additions, and/or exceptions, listed under GC shooting. The people saying 2 weapons are say the rule under GC is an addition, ie can fire 2 weapons (MC) and can fire each at a different target (GC additional rule). The guys saying they can fire all are arguing the GC rule is an exception, ie they can fire each weapon (all of them) at different targets.

Personally i think its an addition, so 2 weapons. Especially when looking at wordings of similar rules and old rules for the same actions.

Ah yes, agreed. JohnHwangDD's position is the 'exception' ruling then.
The problem i have with that is as said previously:
You are forced to fire at different targets, when that really doesn't make sense by RaI: You *should* always be able to fire your weapons at the same Target. I am also unsure whether it allows you to only fire 1 or 2 out of "(All of them)", so you would only be able to follow the "exception" rule if you had 4 different targets for your 4 weapons.... Which just seems too convoluted compared to the 'addition'.

Though not incorrect in RaW either.

You are forced to fire at different targets, when that really doesn't make sense by RaI: You *should* always be able to fire your weapons at the same Target.

Rules for shooting instruct that a unit must choose a single enemy unit as a target.

Rules for Monstrous Creatures expand on the above:
Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase - they must, of course, fire both at the same target.

So up to two and all at the same target.

Of Gargantuan Creatures we know this:
Gargantuan Creatures are Monstrous Creatures (pg 67) that have the additional rules and exceptions given below.

Of their Shooting we know this:
When a Gargantuan Creature ... makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired.

That can be read two ways:
1) To further expand MC's allowance of shooting up to two weapons, but at different targets, if so desired
2) To replace the limit of up to two weapons to allow as many as they have, and at different targets, if so desired

Where do you get forced to fire at different targets?

My interpretation is the 2nd point, as the shooting rules also state that In addition, firing Ordnance weapons has no effect on a GC ...'s ability to fire other weapons.

Ordnance weapons, not an Ordnance weapon. And again weapons, not a weapon. Putting everything in context, it makes sense that they can fire as many weapons as they have at any target they desire, as long as they can be seen.

Naw wrote:
Where do you get forced to fire at different targets?

Without agreeing with it, I believe the idea is that permission for firing each weapon as complete replacement for the basic Monstrous Creature rules is inseparably linked with "at a different target".

Taking the plural form of weapons in that sentence to mean multiples in both ways is a false assumption. The plural form is simply grammatically correct when multiple options would exist; which would be necessary in the case of a gmc with 3 weapons, 2 of them ordnance. In this case firing 1 Ordnance weapon(out of the 2) does not preclude you from firing either the other ordnance weapon or your non-ordnance weapon(your other "weapons"). So here you could have a plurality of ordnance weapons the use of any 1 of which does not preclude you from firing your other weapons(one of which is also ordnance).

It also allows for any ordnance weapon to be fired, not just a single specific ordnance weapon, same goes for all other weapons the model might have(the not just a specific weapon)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Taking the plural form of weapons in that sentence to mean multiples in both ways is a false assumption.

It is not an assumption, it is how it is written. You can keep your view, I will keep mine. I also do not field any GMC's and think WK is way underpriced, no bias there.

Naw wrote:
That can be read two ways:
1) To further expand MC's allowance of shooting up to two weapons, but at different targets, if so desired
2) To replace the limit of up to two weapons to allow as many as they have, and at different targets, if so desired

Where do you get forced to fire at different targets?

Because, as Stephanius explained very well in a previous post: there is no comma.

Therefore the RaW: "it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired." Is 1 permission and ONE permission only.

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

So, as you correctly put it, it is either/or:
1) To further expand MC's allowance of shooting up to two weapons, but at different targets, if so desired
2) To replace the limit of up to two weapons to allow as many as they have, and at different targets, if so desired

For 2) you are not allowed to use the conjunction "and", because the rule is not written so.

The use of "it may", with the addition of "if desired" seems like they wanted it to refer to 2 options (choosing different targets AND choosing a number of weapons).
But as grammar would have it, they are both liked to a single choice.
That choice can be read as
1) an addition to an existing Rule
2) an exception to the existing MC rule. The exception is a single allowance: To fire each of its weapons at a different target.

Naw wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Taking the plural form of weapons in that sentence to mean multiples in both ways is a false assumption.

It is not an assumption, it is how it is written. You can keep your view, I will keep mine. I also do not field any GMC's and think WK is way underpriced, no bias there.

The following is not a dig at you nor a personal attack.

I think you misunderstand what a false assumption is. It is an incorrect conclusion logically drawn from presented evidence that can be disproven.

I have already shown how the plural use does not mean all weapons can be fired based soley on those lines, but now i will present further evidence:

Ordnance weapons(note plurality) is a weapon type. In that weapon type you have the various rules that concern those weapons. Skipping down to the second paragraph(which concerns itself with the firing of these weapons), we find the portion of rules the gmc rules are modifying(4th sentence): "Furthermore, if a non-vehicle model fires an Ordnance weapon, the the massive recoil from the Ordnance weapon means that the model cannot fire other weapons that phase, nor will it be able to charge in the ensuing Assault phase."

Now note the plurality in "other weapons" in the above horrible run-on sentence; that is as in no single other weapon may be fired, even if it is another Ordnance weapon(which is also why the "Ordnance weapon" is in the singular; because you cannot fire multiples at all). This is the same use as in the gmc rules where they do use plurality in "Ordnance weapons", but that is because you are specifically allowed to fire multiples of those.

The point of all this is that the rule you referred to neither refutes nor supports either position in this thread; it is plural in both cases because that is grammatically correct when there are any multiple options.

I dont get why this is so complicated, the rule clearly says can fire each of its weapons, that means he can fire 2 weapons if it has 2 and 4 weapons if it has 4.

Dont get me wrong, I seriously feel the Wraithknight is massively overpowered and I really dont want it to get any more powerfull but the rule itself is very clear, the rule that Gargantuan have goes over the restriction that the regular MC have.

If I have 4 weapons, and the rule for me and shooting is I can shoot each of my weapons, I can shoot 4 weapons. anything beyond that seems like rules lawyering.

 fartherthanfar wrote:
I dont get why this is so complicated, the rule clearly says can fire each of its weapons, that means he can fire 2 weapons if it has 2 and 4 weapons if it has 4.

Except that's not what it says.

 fartherthanfar wrote:
I dont get why this is so complicated, the rule clearly says can fire each of its weapons, that means he can fire 2 weapons if it has 2 and 4 weapons if it has 4.

Dont get me wrong, I seriously feel the Wraithknight is massively overpowered and I really dont want it to get any more powerfull but the rule itself is very clear, the rule that Gargantuan have goes over the restriction that the regular MC have.

If I have 4 weapons, and the rule for me and shooting is I can shoot each of my weapons, I can shoot 4 weapons. anything beyond that seems like rules lawyering.

It's nice that you voiced your opinion. Unfortunately, you have added nothing to the debate. Per RAW, GCs can only fire 2 weapons. HYWPI might be all weapons. While the language of the targeting rule for GCs could be read is an override of the 2 weapon limit, it can also be read is written, which adds the ability to target more than one unit.

SJ

Yeah I'm on the side that thinks the rules are pretty clear and they can't.

I agree they should be able to. I also agree they should cost more per model lol. Neither happen to be the way it is

I found this thread when looking up this very question.

I asked the White Dwarf team and the got back to me. Hopefully this will see print and become official - but here's what they said...

Please see YMDC Tenet #2.

Yeah, if you're gonna spoof it, at least show headers...

I really want that email to be true (either ruling is fine) but there's no way I'm going to trust a 1st time poster with an unverifiable email.

Has there been any majority rulings from common tournament circuits yet?

one of the rules issues with saying a GC may only fire two weapons.

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

if a GC is allowed to fire each of its weapons at a different target, and we restrict it to firing 2 weapons per a MC, we are restricting the more specific rule for GCs where it says they may fire each of their weapons at a different target it desired. Which is not how the rules are supposed to work.

Yes MCs can only fire 2 weapons, and GCs count as MCs, but may fire each of their weapons at a different target.

If an MC has 4 weapons and we say it can only fire 2, is it getting to fire each of its weapons at a different target? Nope.

The GC rule does not specify it may fire all of its weapons, but it does specifiy it may fire each of its weapons at a different target, how many weapons does a GC with 6 weapons have? They it may fire each of those 6 weapons, at the strange RAW point of different targets.

another badly written GW rule.

going from a completely RAW point, a GC can fire 2 weapons, or each weapon it has with no maximum at a different target. Different than what, no idea. go go gw.

HIWPI- they can fire all their weapons, unless they have a special rule in their entry/weapon that limits otherwise, at whatever targets they have LOS/range to, including multiple targets. Reasoning- RAW they are allowed to fire each of their weapons at different targets. It does not say they get split fire, or may fire at two different targets, it says they may fire each weapon.

Each of 2 us still each; that does not restrict the gc bonus rule of more than 1 target.

As the actual rules stand now it can fire 2 weapons as it is a MC and that rule allows 2(with a restriction that only 1 target is allowed); then the gc rule allows those 2 to each fire at different targets.

Would I whine and cry about an FAQ that either changes the rule or "clarifies" it as all weapons? No, not in the least. That is just not what the rules currently state.

If the gmc was not stated to be an mc with additional rules and exceptions and said the same base phrase on firing each weapon at a separate target, that we could just chalk up to poor GW rules writing and assume that implied permission to fire every weapon(because like similar rules it would be meaningless without that assumption)

Let's imagine, for the moment, that the GW wording is actually ambiguous, in that either interpretation could be correct by RAW and English language construction.

You'd think this would be a relatively acceptable concept on its face, given it is a combination of GW (not known for brilliance in rule construction) and the English language (not particularly known for clarity)... but apparently when some people decide on an interpretation being correct, the concept of a different interpretation also being correct can be disconcerting. Certainly is for me sometimes, though here, I can understand both logical/grammatical pathways taken, and I personally feel they both have potential validity.

Where RAW is ambiguous, it seems worthwhile to consider some of the context that can shed light on the intent of the rulemakers, i.e. RAI.

First, it's probably worthwhile to consider previous iterations of rules, if any exist.

In this case, the rules for Shooting with Gargantuan Creatures used to be explicitly on the side of shooting all weapons: Gargantuan Creatures could fire each of their weapons, and each weapon could fire at a different target, if desired. Monstrous Creatures at the time were limited to firing two weapons, but could always fire on the move.

Superheavy Vehicles had and have a similar lack of limit to the old GCs on weapons they can fire. Vehicles at the time were not limited on the number of weapons they could fire, but their accuracy and some firepower was limited by their mobility.

The old GC and SHV rules, thus, had both the mobility of MCs and the unlimited firepower of Vehicles.

Facially this seems conceptually balanced, though it may present game balance issues given the relative lower durability of SHVs per HP compared to (similarly armored) GCs per W.

Nevertheless, all previous editions that I'm aware of have left both GCs and SHVs unlimited in mobility and firepower compared to their lesser MC/Vehicle brethren. I would consider this reasonably strong (though certainly rebuttable) supporting evidence that a rule interpretation that favors firing all weapons would be preferred.


Second, we should consider the differences in practical results between unlimited weapon fire and limiting fire to two weapons when applied to the GCs designed by GW.

For a vast majority of the previous GCs made before the Ta'unar and Stormsurge, this has not been an issue at all (being limited to two weapons by the unit choices) or makes very little difference (there are two main weapons and one or two small, niche backup weapons that wouldn't be used often).

I feel the most absurd result in a "may only fire two weapons" interpretation has to be the most recent GC added, the Stormsurge. Though it initially demonstrates the same "two main weapons, with 1-2 niche weapons just in case" build as previous GCs, its ability to fire twice with each weapon becomes... well, not entirely meaningless, but certainly an immense waste of potential firepower that seems intended given the otherwise relatively fragile statline necessary for the Stormsurge to even be competetive, let alone compete with a Wraithknight.

The existence of the Stormsurge's "Fire every weapon twice" special rules alone is merely tangental evidence, but I feel its most important to consider the only example of new Tau battlesuits that we've seen so far of the new Codex, the Ghostkeel. Ghostkeel armor comes with a Multitracker, even though the Ghostkeel only has a maximum of two weapons it can fire (and as a MC, can already fire both). Meanwhile, the Stormsurge as a GC starts out with more than the supposed limit of 2 weapons, but does not come with exactly the wargear provided to every other suit system the Tau produce?

Given two otherwise potentially reasonable interpretations, one should probably use the interpretation that doesn't indelibly hamstring or overpower the most recent beneficiaries of that interpretation.

I don't think allowing the Stormsurge to fire twice with every weapon every shooting phase is going to overpower the Stormsurge, though others might disagree I suppose. I do think a limit to 2 weapons on the Stormsurge is absurdly limiting its firepower (it needs all it can get to be viable for 360+ points), and that too might provoke disagreement.



TLDR: In conclusion, if you can accept the premise (as I do) that both interpretations of the rules are POTENTIALLY logically and grammatically valid, the best rule interpretation falls to the context of how the game is played, the rationality of the resulting mechanics, and the long-view context of the rules in previous editions of the game.

I feel there's strong contextual clues that support the "fires each weapon AND at different targets" interpretation. Previous editions gave GCs that ability, and the MC/Vehicle mobility/firepower dynamic hasn't altered significantly in the most recent rules iteration. The sheer number of weapons (and the amount of times they can be fired) on the most recent GCs also strongly suggests to me that GW did not presume GCs were limited to 2 shooting weapons per ranged attack. The Tau's history of Multitracker access, and especially its most recent iteration (until the next codex hits in a few weeks) in which multitrackers are hardwired into every suit) suggesting that GW didn't think Multitrackers made sense in GCs is basically icing on the cake.

For those who feel this text is ambiguous, but also feel that GCs should be limited to two weapons this edition... What contextual clues suggest that GW intended such a firepower limitation on GCs?

Edit: I actually left out another inquiry: Anyone have access and the ability to accurately translate a 7th edition rulebook in another language?

Seems like the GC rules as written in German could provide some seriously powerful clues on the most appropriate rule interpretation.

An unclear rule being translated into a different language is unlikely to provide any further clarity, since translations are often different to the original.



Meanwhile, this was fairly thoroughly hashed out last time around, and so lacking anything new to add to the discussion, I think we'll put this back to bed.