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.

The ITC has ruled it can fire all its weapons. GW and Forge world emails have ruled it can fire all its weapons. I believe there was a white dwarf battle report playing that it can fire all its weapons. If your waiting for an official FAQ, not going to happen, but for some reason emails from the company that wrote the rules arn't good enough.

 master of ordinance wrote:

(And by the way, I can assure you that I have an immaculate grasp of Her most Gracious and Benevolent Royal Majesties English)

*Majesty's

While I don't have an English degree, or the ability to read the minds of GW's rules team, I've always understood that GMCs can fire all their weapons, each at separate targets - and if they get a second shooting attack can do it all again. The clarification I've seen from semi-official sources (semi-official since anything short of an official GW FAQ is scoffed at) seems to support my understanding.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
The ITC has ruled it can fire all its weapons. GW and Forge world emails have ruled it can fire all its weapons. I believe there was a white dwarf battle report playing that it can fire all its weapons. If your waiting for an official FAQ, not going to happen, but for some reason emails from the company that wrote the rules arn't good enough.

"Official email responses" have been shown in the past to be contradictory, incorrect, and unauthenticable. The only official rulings that are exceptable are FAQs and Errata published by GW in a downloadable format. ITC, LVO/BAO, and Adepticon are great house rules, but tgey aren't official rulings.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
The ITC has ruled it can fire all its weapons. GW and Forge world emails have ruled it can fire all its weapons. I believe there was a white dwarf battle report playing that it can fire all its weapons. If your waiting for an official FAQ, not going to happen, but for some reason emails from the company that wrote the rules arn't good enough.

"Official email responses" have been shown in the past to be contradictory, incorrect, and unauthenticable. The only official rulings that are exceptable are FAQs and Errata published by GW in a downloadable format. ITC, LVO/BAO, and Adepticon are great house rules, but tgey aren't official rulings.

SJ

So lets see here, an ambiguously written rule that is argued both ways.

One interpretation has email confirmations from FW, GW, and WD, was voted in by the community on a significant margin, and is used by essentially all tournaments.
The other interpretation has nothing.

Which one makes sense to use... hmm...

notredameguy10 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
The ITC has ruled it can fire all its weapons. GW and Forge world emails have ruled it can fire all its weapons. I believe there was a white dwarf battle report playing that it can fire all its weapons. If your waiting for an official FAQ, not going to happen, but for some reason emails from the company that wrote the rules arn't good enough.

"Official email responses" have been shown in the past to be contradictory, incorrect, and unauthenticable. The only official rulings that are exceptable are FAQs and Errata published by GW in a downloadable format. ITC, LVO/BAO, and Adepticon are great house rules, but tgey aren't official rulings.

SJ

So lets see here, an ambiguously written rule that is argued both ways.

One interpretation has email confirmations from FW, GW, and WD, was voted in by the community on a significant margin, and is used by essentially all tournaments.
The other interpretation has nothing.

Which one makes sense to use... hmm...

You are barking up the wrong tree. Please, by all means, house rule however you want. Just don't mistake your house rule as RAW or RAI.

SJ

Well the version that says the Stormsurge gets to fire all its weapons if it's emplaced is the most elegant, at least..

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
The ITC has ruled it can fire all its weapons. GW and Forge world emails have ruled it can fire all its weapons. I believe there was a white dwarf battle report playing that it can fire all its weapons. If your waiting for an official FAQ, not going to happen, but for some reason emails from the company that wrote the rules arn't good enough.

"Official email responses" have been shown in the past to be contradictory, incorrect, and unauthenticable. The only official rulings that are exceptable are FAQs and Errata published by GW in a downloadable format. ITC, LVO/BAO, and Adepticon are great house rules, but tgey aren't official rulings.

SJ

So lets see here, an ambiguously written rule that is argued both ways.

One interpretation has email confirmations from FW, GW, and WD, was voted in by the community on a significant margin, and is used by essentially all tournaments.
The other interpretation has nothing.

Which one makes sense to use... hmm...

You are barking up the wrong tree. Please, by all means, house rule however you want. Just don't mistake your house rule as RAW or RAI.

SJ

You are acting like a child plugging your ears screaming "la la la" because you don't want to listen to what everyone else is telling you.

There is no RAW interpretation for this rule as it is ambiguous. There done. Therefore, you have to look at all other sources to determine what to use. And as I said:

One interpretation has email confirmations from FW, GW, and WD, was voted in by the community on a significant margin, and is used by essentially all tournaments.
The other interpretation has nothing.

Plus the fact that the evidence for RAI are too numerous to count.

Raw is unclear so we need to try to balance the scales

 Toofast wrote:
How is this even a debate? Go look up the definition of "each" if you really still think they can only fire 2 weapons...

Again, the rule in question deals with what can be targeted and not how many weapons can be fired. So 'each weapon at a different target' is completely different than 'each weapon, and at different targets'.

 Toofast wrote:
How is this even a debate? Go look up the definition of "each" if you really still think they can only fire 2 weapons...

1. I have 4 puppies.
2. I'm allowed to give 2 puppies away.
3. When I give puppies away, I'm allowed to give each puppy to a different person.

How many puppies can I give away?

If the rule said 'may fire both weapons at different targets', it would be clear in the general case but would break if, eg, the Stormsurge had a Multitracker that allows it to fire 3 weapons. The 'each' language is perfectly acceptable to use to indicate any number as desired.

I think RAI is obvious that GMCs can fire all weapons. But at the same time, I think strict RAW points the other direction.

Trasvi wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
How is this even a debate? Go look up the definition of "each" if you really still think they can only fire 2 weapons...

1. I have 4 puppies.
2. I'm allowed to give 2 puppies away.
3. When I give puppies away, I'm allowed to give each puppy to a different person.

How many puppies can I give away?

If the rule said 'may fire both weapons at different targets', it would be clear in the general case but would break if, eg, the Stormsurge had a Multitracker that allows it to fire 3 weapons. The 'each' language is perfectly acceptable to use to indicate any number as desired.

I think RAI is obvious that GMCs can fire all weapons. But at the same time, I think strict RAW points the other direction.

1. I have 4 puppies
2. I'm normally allowed to give 2 puppies away.
3. Now instead I am allowed to give each puppy away to a different person.
4. I can give all 4 puppies away, each to a different person.

You can just as easily say this. The problem is interpretation of the word "each". And since it is completely unclear, you have to fall back on all other possible resources to figure out a ruling. Being able to fire all weapons has been confirmed in emails from WD, GW, FW, was voted in by the community by a significant margin, and is the clear RAI.

Step 3 is wrong. It doesn't change how many puppies you're allowed to give away, just who you can give them to.

 Ghaz wrote:
Step 3 is wrong. It doesn't change how many puppies you're allowed to give away, just who you can give them to.

says who? you? The rule says GC are now allowed to "fire each of its weapons at a different target". Just like I said " Now instead I am allowed to give each puppy away to a different person."

Fire each of its weapons at a different target. If it has 4 weapons, that means if i fire all 4 i am firing each of its weapons.

Tell me how thats different lol

notredameguy10 wrote:
3. Now instead I am allowed to give each puppy away to a different person.

Except that nowhere in the rules are we told that the allowance to give each puppy to different people is instead of the 2-puppy giveaway allowance.

So that leaves us with one interpretation that relies on the actual, written rules, and another that relies on adding to the actual, written rules.

The 'can fire all weapons' interpretation may well be RAI, but it's not RAW.

Being able to fire all weapons has been confirmed in emails from WD, GW, FW, ....

Which means nothing more than that it's the way a few random people who work for GW think it works. If it doesn't come from the studio, it's no more 'official' than just asking some guy at the local store.

 insaniak wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
3. Now instead I am allowed to give each puppy away to a different person.

Except that nowhere in the rules are we told that the allowance to give each puppy to different people is instead of the 2-puppy giveaway allowance.

So that leaves us with one interpretation that relies on the actual, written rules, and another that relies on adding to the actual, written rules.

The 'can fire all weapons' interpretation may well be RAI, but it's not RAW.

Being able to fire all weapons has been confirmed in emails from WD, GW, FW, ....

Which means nothing more than that it's the way a few random people who work for GW think it works. If it doesn't come from the studio, it's no more 'official' than just asking some guy at the local store.

The rules for GC overrule those of MC. Therefore, even if MC can fire 2, if it says "may fire each of its weapons at a different target" in the rule for GC, that overrides the MC rules. Therefore, If I choose to shoot all 4 weapons, I am following the rules for GC

notredameguy10 wrote:
The rule says GC are now allowed ...

No, it doesn't.

 insaniak wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
The rule says GC are now allowed ...

No, it doesn't.

"May fire each of its weapons". If I have 4 weapons how many am I allowed to fire if the rules say I can fire each weapons?

that completely overrides the shooting rules for MC

notredameguy10 wrote:
The rules for GC overrule those of MC

Only where they explicitly state as much.

The rules for GCs specifically state that they are MCs, with a few additional rules and exceptions.

Nowehere in the GC rules does it state that they are not bound by the number of weapons that an MC can fire.

if it says "may fire each of its weapons at a different target" in the rule for GC, that overrides the MC rules.

Yes, indeed it does. But since it doesn't mention a quantity, there is nothing to over-ride the number of weapons, just who they can target.

 insaniak wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
The rules for GC overrule those of MC

Only where they explicitly state as much.

The rules for GCs specifically state that they are MCs, with a few additional rules and exceptions.

Nowehere in the GC rules does it state that they are not bound by the number of weapons that an MC can fire.

if it says "may fire each of its weapons at a different target" in the rule for GC, that overrides the MC rules.

Yes, indeed it does. But since it doesn't mention a quantity, there is nothing to over-ride the number of weapons, just who they can target.

Saying they can "fire each of its weapons" overrides the amount of weapons it can fire.

notredameguy10 wrote:
"May fire each of its weapons". If I have 4 weapons how many am I allowed to fire if the rules say I can fire each weapons?

You would be allowed to fire 4.

That's not what the rules say, though. They say that you may fire each of its weapons at a different target. Nowhere in that rule does it say 'now' or 'instead' as you claimed. You can't just add extra words (or remove them) in and claim that the meaning of the rule remains the same. Words matter. And so does punctuation.

You're reading the rule as -

'...may fire each of its weapons, at different targets if desired.'

...when what it actually says is -

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



The former is permission to fire as many weapons as it has, and to fire them at different targets. The latter is permission to fire as many weapons as you are firing at different targets. It has no impact on how many weapons you can fire.

notredameguy10 wrote:
says who? you?

Which is as much 'official' support as you have for your position.

notredameguy10 wrote:
The rule says GC are now allowed to "fire each of its weapons at a different target". Just like I said " Now instead I am allowed to give each puppy away to a different person."

Fire each of its weapons at a different target. If it has 4 weapons, that means if i fire all 4 i am firing each of its weapons.

Again, the rule you keep quoting has nothing to do with how many weapons you can fire. Zilch, zero, nada. It only deals with what you are permitted to target. The rules literally say "Gargantuan Creature can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase... It may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired".

 Ghaz wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
says who? you?

Which is as much 'official' support as you have for your position.

You mean besides the fact the GW, WD, FW have all confirmed in emails they can fire all weapons? Or the clear RAI that they should be able to fire all weapons?

Regardless of what you believe. I am happy that every single Hobby Store in a 100 mile radius of where I live have some common sense.

Common sense is a myth. There are 6 billion or so versions of common sense on the planet. Even limited to two weapons, the Stormsurge is not a fair model for many lists to go up against.

Martel732 wrote:
Common sense is a myth. There are 6 billion or so versions of common sense on the planet. Even limited to two weapons, the Stormsurge is not a fair model for many lists to go up against.

Really lol? Stormsurge is extremely balanced being able to fire all of its weapons. It costs freakin 435 points kitted out and has T6 and a 3+ save. Limit it to 2 weapons and it is absolutely terrible for the cost.

1 Str 10 AP2 large blast
and on average 12 Str 5 AP5 shots.

You know what else does that? Necron Doomsday Ark and that costs 170 points.

And lol on the philosophical nature of common sense. "Touch that and it will kill you" whats the common sense of that situation?

notredameguy10 wrote:

"Touch that and it will kill you" whats the common sense of that situation?

That would depend on your desired outcome. And on how reputable you consider the source of that warning.


The point is, while there may indeed be situations where people generally agree on what 'makes sense', there will be far more where opinions are divided. 'Common sense' is fine for making judgement calls for yourself... but just because something makes sense to you doesn't automatically mean it makes sense to someone else, or that someone else won't have a completely different explanation that they feel is more sensible.

Take the example at hand. It was suggested in this thread that it makes sense for GCs to be able to fire all of their weapons because super heavies can. But (as was also mentioned earlier in the thread) it also makes sense that they would be limited along the lines of the relationship between walkers (which can fire all weapons) and MCs (which are limited to 2).

Which of those interpretations makes more sense comes down to subjective opinion.


And it's all complication even further when you're talking about game rules... because what makes sense within the context of the rules often doesn't actually make a lot of real-world sense.


So, at the end of the day, 'common sense' is fine for establishing how you would prefer to play. It's less useful for declaring an interpretation of the rules the 'correct' one.

Video games are nice in that all of the rules are built into the computer, so barring someone cheating via hacking, if WH40k were a video game, we could determine the answer to this question by someone taking a Stormsurge and letting it loose on a target and seeing how many of its guns it can fire at once.

Of course, sometimes the programmers don't get it right and things glitch unexpectedly, but then when they fix it, it's fixed for everyone and the community's concern is reporting the glitch to the developers instead of trying to figure it out themselves and getting some input from the devs via e-mail over what it's supposed to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

notredameguy10 wrote:
And lol on the philosophical nature of common sense. "Touch that and it will kill you" whats the common sense of that situation?

Trick your enemies into touching it?

Is more easy. Join the rules of MC and GMC:

A GMC are MC (so they can shoot two of their weapons). But "may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired".


Also it put "may" and not "can"... That is a little huge difference.
Of course a GMC may shoot each weapon to different target, but that is not the same to "they can shoot each weapon".


And dman, if they say that are like MC, why not say "but not limit to shoot just 2 weapons, they can shoot all" or something xDD

here was my take on the same topic made on the tau forum:


Your interpretation is MC's rule --> GC's rule; whereas most of us interpret GC's rule is in addition(GC's rule is very clear about the word addition) to that of MC's rule, thus GC's --> MC's rule. That is why even though the word 'each' may be ambiguous, the 2 weapon limit stays with the MC. That GC's rule sentence overrides the MC's rule sentence.

so if I have a missile launcher I can use all firing modes at the same time?

the GMC rules make sense if you insert an OR.
A Gargantuan Monstrous Creature can fire two weapons at a single target.
OR
A Gargantuan Monstrous Creature can fire each weapon at a different target.

Personally, RAW is extremely unclear, and can be effectively argued both ways, especially when personal biases come into the mix.

On the other hand, them being allowed to fire all weapons have pretty much been confirmed via multiple sources, so I go with that.