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.

Self-explanatory question. Rulebook is unclear as it states that gargantuans are monstrous creatures with additional rules which would lead one to believe they may only fire 2 weapons.

There's some debate on this.

Camp #1 - Shoots only 2.
It says it can fire each weapon at a different target, but otherwise follows the Monstrous Creature rules, which limit it to 2 guns. It's effectively saying "each weapon it can shoot may choose a different target".

Camp #2 - Shoots as many as it has.
It says it can fire each weapon at a different target, so breaks those Monstrous Creature rules which limits it to two guns. It's effectively saying "each weapon can be shot, and they may all select different targets".


Personally, I subscribe to Camp#1, even though I feel the rules as intended are clearly Camp#2.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/646574.page

This about sums up all points.

It all comes down to "either" or "each". It says "each weapon". For me It meant more than 2.

Since no-one not on crack who knows the english language uses "each" above "either" in that sentence unless they are talking more than 2.

Also, it matches super heavies.Also all gargantuan creatures made by GW with ranged weapons have tonnes of guns that you can buy all of in the codexes.


So in real life?

"Feel free to expect your opponent to let you Fire all unless you are fielding a Wraith Knight"

because that 40 page mindless nerd rage is what it is all about anyway. No-one cares about the other gargantuans. They are bitching about Wraith Knights, or pretending to not be bitching about Wraith Knights.

It's a classic RAW vs. RAI debate.

Be prepared for either argument, but obviously it determines whether some GCs are even worth taking.

 Polonius wrote:
It's a classic RAW vs. RAI debate.

Be prepared for either argument, but obviously it determines whether some GCs are even worth taking.

Worse... it's RAW vs RAW...

The definition of "each" in this case is subjective. There are formally written rules of English that can clarify this (and I think some folks did this in the linked-argument), but if someone must be able to have such a precise understanding of the English language to understand this properly, then that means the wording is suitably unclear that discussions with your opponent/TO ahead of time are the only real-life way of handling this.

That actually sort of makes me more angry .. as if "formal rules of english" isn't a stupid sideswipe from a grammatical peon.

Forget 40k and gargantuans. You use each only when it's a plural when you don't know the maximum number. You use either in every dual where it is a known number.

As as for "having to know english" that is also the point. It is only people who are NOT english mother tongue that are even giving the 2 weapon max argument an outing. As far as I can see it is as plain as daylight. It is the same as "both" vs "all"

Listen: I am not a prude if people get upset in any game about anything I never force it down their throat, and probably, neither do you. But I want to put a pin in that for a minute when I say this : "how the heck does each not mean all"

Quite simply, when each is being used to describe a sub-section of something.

"Tom and Jane, the team captains, have to choose which classmates they want on their teams. They each pick until all the students have been assigned."

In this case, "each" means "each of Tom and Jane" not "each of the classmates". It requires the knowledge of the previous sentence to make sense. If I just say "They each pick until all the students have been assigned." then that might mean each student assigned themselves, or that each of another group assigned the students to teams. You wouldn't actually know for sure without that previous sentence.

In this case, "each" could mean "each weapon they have" or it could mean "each weapon of the ones they could fire" (which, in context with the 2-weapon limit of GMCs, would mean 2 weapons).

Just to check the "english talking english to english people" point I asked my wife 2 mins ago as guninea pig who has never played 40k. And never will!

I said the conuderum

Me: "in 40k there is monsterous creatures and then there is gargantuan creatures, they are different types.."

(Me Goes through the rules)

Me: "so how many weapons can the gargatuan creature.fire"
Wife: (no pause, not a breath) " as many as they have got"
Me: " not just two"
Wife: " no, if they meant two they'd have said it"
Me: "80% of people on the internet says differently"
Wife: "well they're all silly then aren't they"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yarium wrote:
"Tom and Jane, the team captains, have to choose which classmates they want on their teams. They each pick until all the students have been assigned."

Yes but in this case the "each" refers to the team itself being more than one person when complete.

 Yarium wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
It's a classic RAW vs. RAI debate.

Be prepared for either argument, but obviously it determines whether some GCs are even worth taking.

Worse... it's RAW vs RAW...

The definition of "each" in this case is subjective. There are formally written rules of English that can clarify this (and I think some folks did this in the linked-argument), but if someone must be able to have such a precise understanding of the English language to understand this properly, then that means the wording is suitably unclear that discussions with your opponent/TO ahead of time are the only real-life way of handling this.

Well, the RAW hardliners would say that you have two statments: the GC can shoot two weapons, and each weapon can shoot a different target. Those statments are both true without any further assumptions or subtext. So, it can shoot two weapons, and each of them can target a different weapon.

Of course, the RAI crowd would point out the subtext: nobody says each when they mean "both." Many GCs have mroe than two weapons. GCs are analogues to Superheavies, which can shoot all weapons. GCs could shoot all weapons in prior editions. Etcetera, etcetera.

The RAW crowd, looking at the subtext, would say that it makes more sense that GW mistakenly used "each" instead of "both, than to think that GW just forgot to say "GCs can shoot all of their weapons."

I'm a lawyer by training, and this sort of minutae makes me laugh. Why? Because nobody, including the person who literally wrote those rules, knows the correct answer, and there is no authority to just make a damn decision. It's an argument, not about a few lines of text, but about how to read those lines, and what assumptions to make. It also presumes that the written rules are the true rules, which is not a sure thing in a social game.

The best approach is to be a gentleman. If anybody denies you the abliilty to shoot all weapons, just shoot two. If anybody demands to shoot all of their weapons, allow them. It's not worth a fight that has no end.

ConanMan wrote:
Just to check the "english talking english to english people" point I asked my wife 2 mins ago as guninea pig who has never played 40k. And never will!

I said the conuderum

Me: "in 40k there is monsterous creatures and then there is gargantuan creatures, they are different types.."

(Me Goes through the rules)

Me: "so how many weapons can the gargatuan creature.fire"
Wife: (no pause, not a breath) " as many as they have got"
Me: " not just two"
Wife: " no, if they meant two they'd have said it"
Me: "80% of people on the internet says differently"
Wife: "well they're all silly then aren't they"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yarium wrote:
"Tom and Jane, the team captains, have to choose which classmates they want on their teams. They each pick until all the students have been assigned."

Yes but in this case the "each" refers to the team itself being more than one person when complete.

"in 40k there is monsterous creatures and then there is gargantuan creatures, they are different types.."

This is where you are wrong. Gargantuan creatures ARE (pg 70 main rule book second paragraph 1st sentence) monstrous creatures with additional rules and exceptions. As such you would be required to read the monstrous creature rules in addition to the gargantuan creature rules. They are not a different unit type, they are a subtype of a unit type.

My English teacher cousin said only 2 when I presented the relevant sections.

Does anyone have copies of the French or German rule books the could share?. Would be interesting to see how they translate!

Part of this is confusion is because, as a culture, we assume that "rules," be they for a game or for a legal contract, are incredibly nitpicky, and that the closer reading you apply, the more to the truth you are. This is actually pretty incorrect. Courts will almost always find the most "common sense" reading of any legal document.

If you have to pull out a grammar book to show why most people read the rule different from you, odds are, the rule isn't what you think.

The complete issue is that you generally need a counter to each basic rule individually.

There are 2 rules involved fir basic shooting:
1) a unit can only shoot at 1 target per shooting phase.
2) a model can only fire 1 weapon per shooting phase.

MC rules alter the second rule, and specify the first is still in effect via parenthetical reminder text.

GC rules tell you to use MC rules except where specified otherwise, and alter the first rule.

Some read the "each" as "each it can fire" and some read it as "each it has".

"Each it can fire" is more valid RAW as it follows the chain of specific rule changes.

"Each it has" is how Gargantuan Creatures worked up until this edition. Now, just because it worked that way for 4 editions doesn't mean it should work that way now; after all for 4 editions shtransports had the "stable firing platform" rule(passengers always count as stationary when firing out), this os also no longer the case.

I know ITC ruled and put in the FAQ, that GC can fire all weapons during the shooting phase. Our area uses ITC rules, therefore Wraithknights and all other GC can fire as many, and at whomever they want. Honestly being able to shoot my shoulder mounted SL at a different unit than my wraithcannons have never yet to affect even remotely the outcome of the game. And I would like to see anyone show me different. So I am not sure why people cry so much about the wraithknight being able to shoot all of his weapons.

bluestang10 wrote:
I know ITC ruled and put in the FAQ, that GC can fire all weapons during the shooting phase. Our area uses ITC rules, therefore Wraithknights and all other GC can fire as many, and at whomever they want. Honestly being able to shoot my shoulder mounted SL at a different unit than my wraithcannons have never yet to affect even remotely the outcome of the game. And I would like to see anyone show me different. So I am not sure why people cry so much about the wraithknight being able to shoot all of his weapons.

It's not about the actual advantage, but rather the preservation of a viewpoint. There is a view, shared by many, if not a slight majority, of gamers, that the rules are the RULES. That what's written in the rulebook is how to play the game, and any attempt to do otherwise is an affront. I'm sure there is some minor paranoia about an unfair advantage, but I think its more about seeking stability and clarity in gaming, when our day to day lives are chaotic.

I mean, hardly anybody seems to think that a rule limiting GCs to only shooting two weapons is a good rule, they just think its a rule. So therefore it must be followed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

I gues that makes sense. They gusy at my flgs had the same questions because the wording is different than 6th edition which I never played (just got back into 7th). So I can see were people can discuss it in a cirlce all day long. I want to follow the rules and have a fun game.

Following rules and having fun are not necessarily synonymous, as many of the rules are not written clearly enough for both parties to agree, such as this thread proves. The key to having fun with these rules is to talk out what you are doing with your opponent while being as true to the rules as written as you can possibly be.

SJ

Well, I've started playing on 7th, English is not my mother language, and when I read it the first time, I thought a gargantuant creature can fire ALL it's weapons and EACH at a diferent target.

 Wilson wrote:
Does anyone have copies of the French or German rule books the could share?. Would be interesting to see how they translate

I have the spanish version. and it reads:

Spanis BRB wrote:Una Criatura Gargantuesta o Criatura Gargantuesca Voladora puede disparar cada una de sus armas sobre un objetivo diferente si así lo desea. Además(...)

It is as exactly translated as the english version, with the seme ambiguous wording, "cada una de sus armas" "each of it's weapons"

"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."

That is the rule.

But you still need to follow the rules for MC's that restrict MC's to two weapons. Nothing in the GC rules allow you to fire more than two.

"...it may fire each of its weapons at a different target..." This removes the targeting restriction of a single unit, but that is all it does.

Because I'm an idiot and I get sucked into these things, I actually looked up the word "each" in Black's Law Dictionary:

http://thelawdictionary.org/each/

"A distributive adjective pronoun, which denotes or refers to every one of the persons or things mentioned; every one of two or more persons or things, composing the whole, separately considered. The effect of this word, used in the covenants of a'bond, is to create a several obligation."

Note that the word "every" appears in the definition. This is consistent with the colloquial definition, which also includes by reference the concept of every.

So, it's not that people are reading the word "every" into the rules, it's that the concept is generally included in the definition.

Polonius, so what we have is the following rules:

Monstrous Creatures can fire two weapons (at the same target).
Gargantuan Creatures can fire every weapon at a different target.

People who are claiming two weapons, do not read the second sentence as providing permission to fire every weapon, only permission to fire them at different targets. There is no permission to fire every weapon.
People claiming they can fire every weapon are reading it as: Gargantuan Creatures can fire every weapon. Each weapon can fire at a different target.

 Happyjew wrote:
Polonius, so what we have is the following rules:

Monstrous Creatures can fire two weapons (at the same target).
Gargantuan Creatures can fire every weapon at a different target.

People who are claiming two weapons, do not read the second sentence as providing permission to fire every weapon, only permission to fire them at different targets. There is no permission to fire every weapon.
People claiming they can fire every weapon are reading it as: Gargantuan Creatures can fire every weapon. Each weapon can fire at a different target.

That is correct, but the second rule applies to "each of its weapons," which means that the second rule applies individually to every one of its weapons. Meaning, that the second rule allows every one of it's weapons to fire, and at different targets. Since the rule changes a fundamental aspect of MCs (shooting at only one target), it's perfectly plausible that it would change a second (limited to two weapons firing).

The term "Each" is very similar to "every," but it has a stronger component of individuality. The phrase isn't speaking of the collective group as one, but to every member of the group individually.

 Polonius wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Polonius, so what we have is the following rules:

Monstrous Creatures can fire two weapons (at the same target).
Gargantuan Creatures can fire every weapon at a different target.

People who are claiming two weapons, do not read the second sentence as providing permission to fire every weapon, only permission to fire them at different targets. There is no permission to fire every weapon.
People claiming they can fire every weapon are reading it as: Gargantuan Creatures can fire every weapon. Each weapon can fire at a different target.

That is correct, but the second rule applies to "each of its weapons," which means that the second rule applies individually to every one of its weapons. Meaning, that the second rule allows every one of it's weapons to fire, and at different targets. Since the rule changes a fundamental aspect of MCs (shooting at only one target), it's perfectly plausible that it would change a second (limited to two weapons firing).

The term "Each" is very similar to "every," but it has a stronger component of individuality. The phrase isn't speaking of the collective group as one, but to every member of the group individually.

To me the sentence is referring to the 2 weapons allowed to be fired. Each is not every, though it can be every in some circumstances, and can also be each from a given group. Thus a Gargantuan creature has 5 weapons, it is allowed to fire 2 of them, each of the 2 allowed may target a separate unit. If the Gargantuan creature rules did not say to use the Monstrous Creatures rules, then I would agree it would be all the weapons, but you do use the MC rules, that have the limitation. But there is the limitation, so the limitation creates 2 sets, those allowed to be fired at a single target, and whatever is left not being allowed to be fired, of the 2 weapons in the allowed to fire set, each may target a separate unit.

 Polonius wrote:
That is correct, but the second rule applies to "each of its weapons," which means that the second rule applies individually to every one of its weapons. Meaning, that the second rule allows every one of it's weapons to fire, and at different targets. Since the rule changes a fundamental aspect of MCs (shooting at only one target), it's perfectly plausible that it would change a second (limited to two weapons firing).

The rule does effectively indeed read, "Gargantuan creatures can fire every weapon at a different target if desired" but you're here breaking that down into two parts; "Gargantuan creatures can fire every weapon, at a different target if desired."

As a matter of context it's a valid interpretation that the permission to fire every weapon at a different target necessarily refers to every one of the two weapons that they are allowed to fire as Monstrous Creatures with additional rules.

I guess what I'm confused about, the more I think about it, is how the word "each" really does mean "every individual."

Can anybody think of a situation in which the word "each" would clearly and correctly mean "all those allowed?" I'm genuinely curious, as every definition I read for "Each" explicitly includes the concept of "Every." Likewise, the colloquial definition of each seems to indicate that it would include all those present.

As for parsing the sentences, I guess what intrigues me is that the phrase "GCs are MCs that have the additional rules and exceptions given below." is not in the shooting section. It is introductory language. This implies that the rules aren't saying specifically "they shoot like MCs," but more broadly "they are MCs."

So when you get to the shooting rules, it does indeed say "Gargantuan creatures may fire each weapon at a different target if desired." This is awkwardly phrased. We know that "Each weapon" would generally indicate, well, every weapon. We also know that MCs normally only shoot two weapons, and this could be clearly the rule allows both rules (targetting and number of weapons) to be broken.

The argument seems to be that only allowing two weapons is the "safest," because it definitely doesn't break a rule. Because the sentence is unclear, I'm able to see why people think the rule is a touch "back door." However, I'm convinced by the collateral aspects of the rules that, to me, strongly suggest that GCs can fire them all, beyond a relatively plain, if inelegant, reading of the rule.

First, GCs have always fired all weapons, which indicates that there is a precedent. Second, GCs are the analogue to superheavies, which can fire all weapons. Examples of this analogy, beyond the bigger example aspect, include: the ability to Stomp, reduced damage from instant destruction, neither can overwatch, and both can shoot ordnance without any effect on other shooting.

I am in the "GC can only fire 2 weapons" camp, but I can definitely see the ambiguous wording of the rule. Its the "GC creatures follow the rules for MC" part that sells me.

I also don't think the "Super Heavy Vehicles get to fire all their weapons, so GC should as well" has much merit. Regular Vehicles can fire all their weapons, whereas Monstrous Creatures can only fire two - it's one of key the differences between being a Vehicle compare to other unit types. The same applies to SHV vs GC imo.

And ignoring RAW vs RAI arguments for a minute, it's my opinion that GC already have enough advantages over SHV anyway that they shouldn't get to also being able to fire all their weapons too. GC get resistance to Sniper/Poison/Instant Death (ie the 3 things that are the counters to Monstrous Creatures) whereas SHV don't get resistance to Lance/Melta/Haywire (ie the 3 things that are the counters to Vehicles), plus GC get to have an Armour Save and a FNP.

Think of it this way. You go to the store, see a bin of candy that has 50 pieces in it that says five cents each, you take two pieces, and get charged two dollars and fifty cents to buy those two pieces. Why??? Because it is five cents each, and that means every one in the bin, not the set of two that you were going to purchase.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Think of it this way. You go to the store, see a bin of candy that has 50 pieces in it that says five cents each, you take two pieces, and get charged two dollars and fifty cents to buy those two pieces. Why??? Because it is five cents each, and that means every one in the bin, not the set of two that you were going to purchase.

Except you're ignoring the Monstrous Creature rules that limit you to two weapons.

Polonius: you are thinking like a lawyer again.

The game rules are not written to the standards of law, they are written in 6th-grade english(or 5th or something, I forget the grade) just like newspapers and magazines. This is done for the majority of people to be able to read and understand them.

Pulling out black law dictionary for what could best be described as murky language in 40k rules has about as much effect and relevance to what they may have been trying to say as using it to discern what is being said in the harry potter novels. Neither is written in legal language.

But I can appeal to your corporate law background.

Let's say you are trying to enforce a contract. In that contract are the various subsections. Subsection 1 details the terms of use(product or services). 1a details a single use per instance. 1b details that single use applies to a single situation. Then we get to subsection 2 that concerns modifications to the terms based on upgraded packages. 2a informs us that it modifies 1a to allow 2 uses in a single instance but the limitations of 1b still exist. 2b tells you that you get all the benefits of 2a with the following exceptions, then simply states that each use in an instance can be applied to different situations: how many uses do you get per instance?