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 funny thing is I thought the release of the storm surge would put this debate to sleep.

Surely a suit with that many weapons means you can fire all right?

I guess I was wrong.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever encountered someone who says you can only fire two weapons in real life/during a game? For me reading this and looking at my gaming communities it all seems highly theoretical. Nobody here would even think such and argument exists. Kinda like the ''Terminators don't have terminator armour'' and the ''Hive guard don't have eyes so can't shoot'' debates.

 Fruzzle wrote:
Out of curiosity, has anyone ever encountered someone who says you can only fire two weapons in real life/during a game? For me reading this and looking at my gaming communities it all seems highly theoretical. Nobody here would even think such and argument exists. Kinda like the ''Terminators don't have terminator armour'' and the ''Hive guard don't have eyes so can't shoot'' debates.

Unfortunately, the 'can only fire 2 weapons' is in the standard tournament FAQ in Australia. People are trying to get that ruling changed, but as is it may only fire 2 weapons down under.

 Fruzzle wrote:
The funny thing is I thought the release of the storm surge would put this debate to sleep.

Surely a suit with that many weapons means you can fire all right?

I guess I was wrong.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever encountered someone who says you can only fire two weapons in real life/during a game? For me reading this and looking at my gaming communities it all seems highly theoretical. Nobody here would even think such and argument exists. Kinda like the ''Terminators don't have terminator armour'' and the ''Hive guard don't have eyes so can't shoot'' debates.

I remember taking that last one a step farther and (comedically) asserting that helmeted Space Marines may not be targeted because armor is not technically part of the body, and you have to be able to draw line of sight to the body.

 Fruzzle wrote:
The funny thing is I thought the release of the storm surge would put this debate to sleep.

Surely a suit with that many weapons means you can fire all right?

I guess I was wrong.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever encountered someone who says you can only fire two weapons in real life/during a game? For me reading this and looking at my gaming communities it all seems highly theoretical. Nobody here would even think such and argument exists. Kinda like the ''Terminators don't have terminator armour'' and the ''Hive guard don't have eyes so can't shoot'' debates.

Locally, it's only two weapons but they essentially have split fire.
No one has been able to provide a RAW reading that suggests otherwise, and GMCs already seem to be competitive with this rule in place.

How many weapons something has is in no way a reflection of its ability to fire all of them. GW makes rules and equipment decisions that are moronic all the time, so I don't place a lot of faith in their ability to write something that makes sense. Either way, that's more of an inference than a RAW reading.

notredameguy10 wrote:

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?

425 is not nearly enough for something with the rules of a GMC. That's how broken GMCs are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fruzzle wrote:
The funny thing is I thought the release of the storm surge would put this debate to sleep.

Surely a suit with that many weapons means you can fire all right?

I guess I was wrong.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever encountered someone who says you can only fire two weapons in real life/during a game? For me reading this and looking at my gaming communities it all seems highly theoretical. Nobody here would even think such and argument exists. Kinda like the ''Terminators don't have terminator armour'' and the ''Hive guard don't have eyes so can't shoot'' debates.

Guess I wouldn't be playing against anyone with Stormsurge models in your area, then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:

 Fruzzle wrote:
Out of curiosity, has anyone ever encountered someone who says you can only fire two weapons in real life/during a game? For me reading this and looking at my gaming communities it all seems highly theoretical. Nobody here would even think such and argument exists. Kinda like the ''Terminators don't have terminator armour'' and the ''Hive guard don't have eyes so can't shoot'' debates.

Unfortunately, the 'can only fire 2 weapons' is in the standard tournament FAQ in Australia. People are trying to get that ruling changed, but as is it may only fire 2 weapons down under.

Why exactly is that unfortunate?

I honestly don't see the problem with GMC only being able to fire 2 weapons.

It allows there to be an actual advantage to be classified as a Super-heavy vehicle.

Martel732 wrote:

 Fruzzle wrote:
The funny thing is I thought the release of the storm surge would put this debate to sleep.

Surely a suit with that many weapons means you can fire all right?

I guess I was wrong.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever encountered someone who says you can only fire two weapons in real life/during a game? For me reading this and looking at my gaming communities it all seems highly theoretical. Nobody here would even think such and argument exists. Kinda like the ''Terminators don't have terminator armour'' and the ''Hive guard don't have eyes so can't shoot'' debates.

Guess I wouldn't be playing against anyone with Stormsurge models in your area, then.

If you come here with a ''We disagree so I don't play attitude'' I don't think you'll have many games regardless.

Pouncey wrote:

 Fruzzle wrote:
The funny thing is I thought the release of the storm surge would put this debate to sleep.

Surely a suit with that many weapons means you can fire all right?

I guess I was wrong.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever encountered someone who says you can only fire two weapons in real life/during a game? For me reading this and looking at my gaming communities it all seems highly theoretical. Nobody here would even think such and argument exists. Kinda like the ''Terminators don't have terminator armour'' and the ''Hive guard don't have eyes so can't shoot'' debates.

I remember taking that last one a step farther and (comedically) asserting that helmeted Space Marines may not be targeted because armor is not technically part of the body, and you have to be able to draw line of sight to the body.

WP sir!

Akiasura wrote:

 Fruzzle wrote:
The funny thing is I thought the release of the storm surge would put this debate to sleep.

Surely a suit with that many weapons means you can fire all right?

I guess I was wrong.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever encountered someone who says you can only fire two weapons in real life/during a game? For me reading this and looking at my gaming communities it all seems highly theoretical. Nobody here would even think such and argument exists. Kinda like the ''Terminators don't have terminator armour'' and the ''Hive guard don't have eyes so can't shoot'' debates.

Locally, it's only two weapons but they essentially have split fire.
No one has been able to provide a RAW reading that suggests otherwise, and GMCs already seem to be competitive with this rule in place.

How many weapons something has is in no way a reflection of its ability to fire all of them. GW makes rules and equipment decisions that are moronic all the time, so I don't place a lot of faith in their ability to write something that makes sense. Either way, that's more of an inference than a RAW reading.

I don't really want to join the debate because everything has already been said and said again...and again...and... you get the point. But to me and both my gaming groups it's rather obvious to everyone. Like I said it reminded me of those debates and things like ''How many spiders'' in that one necrons formation or lance vs. quantum shielding, things so obvious I can't believe people argue over it or would even play it some other way. If know it's not very fair of me to say this and than talk about it anyway AND not offer a rule argument but.... We're in general discussion and for the arguments, this threat has plenty.

Trasvi wrote:

 Fruzzle wrote:
Out of curiosity, has anyone ever encountered someone who says you can only fire two weapons in real life/during a game? For me reading this and looking at my gaming communities it all seems highly theoretical. Nobody here would even think such and argument exists. Kinda like the ''Terminators don't have terminator armour'' and the ''Hive guard don't have eyes so can't shoot'' debates.

Unfortunately, the 'can only fire 2 weapons' is in the standard tournament FAQ in Australia. People are trying to get that ruling changed, but as is it may only fire 2 weapons down under.

I feel really sorry for you to be honest. It makes it almost completely unplayable and it is THE answer for tau for a lot of problem match up (Wraith) Knights. Takes 2 turn to fire away your missiles (And nothing else, seems legit. ).

"If you come here with a ''We disagree so I don't play attitude'' I don't think you'll have many games regardless."

I have BA, so I'm already effectively not playing this game.

Has anyone pointed out the exception in GMC rules that exempt them from the 2 weapon limit yet?

The 'each' from the exemption from having to fire at one target isn't in anyway an exemption from the two weapon limit. It's an 'each of the weapons it may fire'. Which is 2 because because of MC limits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Quickjager wrote:
I honestly don't see the problem with GMC only being able to fire 2 weapons.

It allows there to be an actual advantage to be classified as a Super-heavy vehicle.

Also this.

Martel732 wrote:"If you come here with a ''We disagree so I don't play attitude'' I don't think you'll have many games regardless."

I have BA, so I'm already effectively not playing this game.

Martel, I've been reading DakkaDakka for ages and honestly, you're right, blood angels are unpowered and they are not fun to play in a competitive environment. I want to comment you for your perseverance but I would also like to encourage you not to continuously feel sorry for yourself and inject ''blood angels are terribad'' in every discussion. If you'd come down (or up, or left, I have no idea where you are) and you are not as dour in person as you are online lots of people would play with you. And they would bring a balanced list. And you'd get to charge with your dead company. I feel your unhappyness stems from a couple of things
-Blood Angels are bad/fckd up the bum with their codex
-Your meta is very competitive so you can't have fun with your chosen army
-You have a desire to win, or at least not loose every game with 0 chance.

All of this is outside of your control except for maybe who you play with.

Mozzyfuzzy wrote:Has anyone pointed out the exception in GMC rules that exempt them from the 2 weapon limit yet?

The 'each' from the exemption from having to fire at one target isn't in anyway an exemption from the two weapon limit. It's an 'each of the weapons it may fire'. Which is 2 because because of MC limits.

Have you actually read this thread? Or all the threads in YMDC about this?

EDIT: Threat vs thread is hard.

 Fruzzle wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Fruzzle wrote:
The funny thing is I thought the release of the storm surge would put this debate to sleep.

Surely a suit with that many weapons means you can fire all right?

I guess I was wrong.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever encountered someone who says you can only fire two weapons in real life/during a game? For me reading this and looking at my gaming communities it all seems highly theoretical. Nobody here would even think such and argument exists. Kinda like the ''Terminators don't have terminator armour'' and the ''Hive guard don't have eyes so can't shoot'' debates.

Guess I wouldn't be playing against anyone with Stormsurge models in your area, then.

If you come here with a ''We disagree so I don't play attitude'' I don't think you'll have many games regardless.

How would you work out this disagreement though?
One person believes that GMCs only fire 2 weapons, and has the RAW argument backing them up. They feel that they are strong enough with this restriction, so there is no issue.
One person believes that GMC can fire every weapon, and points out the word "each" as their RAW argument. They feel that without this, GMCs are very weak, so this ruling makes sense.

Unless they agree not to use GMCs, there is no way to resolve these different view points. It's a big problem with GW, because these things happen all the time.

 Fruzzle wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Fruzzle wrote:
The funny thing is I thought the release of the storm surge would put this debate to sleep.

Surely a suit with that many weapons means you can fire all right?

I guess I was wrong.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever encountered someone who says you can only fire two weapons in real life/during a game? For me reading this and looking at my gaming communities it all seems highly theoretical. Nobody here would even think such and argument exists. Kinda like the ''Terminators don't have terminator armour'' and the ''Hive guard don't have eyes so can't shoot'' debates.

Locally, it's only two weapons but they essentially have split fire.
No one has been able to provide a RAW reading that suggests otherwise, and GMCs already seem to be competitive with this rule in place.

How many weapons something has is in no way a reflection of its ability to fire all of them. GW makes rules and equipment decisions that are moronic all the time, so I don't place a lot of faith in their ability to write something that makes sense. Either way, that's more of an inference than a RAW reading.

I don't really want to join the debate because everything has already been said and said again...and again...and... you get the point. But to me and both my gaming groups it's rather obvious to everyone. Like I said it reminded me of those debates and things like ''How many spiders'' in that one necrons formation or lance vs. quantum shielding, things so obvious I can't believe people argue over it or would even play it some other way. If know it's not very fair of me to say this and than talk about it anyway AND not offer a rule argument but.... We're in general discussion and for the arguments, this threat has plenty.

You said it yourself; it seems obvious to you, but I can't ask you to back up your claims with a RAW argument because there essentially isn't one.
To me, it's obvious that RAW doesn't provide an exception. Why would anyone ignore the rulebook to make GMCs more powerful? They are already far stronger than super heavies.
I've encountered tons of house rules over the years that seem obvious to everyone, but aren't backed up by the rulebook. That doesn't make them right. Sometimes you have to house rule because GW fails to spell something out, but this doesn't seem to be the case to me.

 Fruzzle wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

 Fruzzle wrote:
Out of curiosity, has anyone ever encountered someone who says you can only fire two weapons in real life/during a game? For me reading this and looking at my gaming communities it all seems highly theoretical. Nobody here would even think such and argument exists. Kinda like the ''Terminators don't have terminator armour'' and the ''Hive guard don't have eyes so can't shoot'' debates.

Unfortunately, the 'can only fire 2 weapons' is in the standard tournament FAQ in Australia. People are trying to get that ruling changed, but as is it may only fire 2 weapons down under.

I feel really sorry for you to be honest. It makes it almost completely unplayable and it is THE answer for tau for a lot of problem match up (Wraith) Knights. Takes 2 turn to fire away your missiles (And nothing else, seems legit. ).

Tau have been dealing with Wraithknights for a while now, I'm sure they can still handle them just like everyone else.
Comparing a unit to, what is probably the strongest unit in the game, and saying "Why not us too?" is not a good reason to incorporate a house rule.

The Stormsurge, and indeed all GMC can fire any weapons its equipped with. It's going to be errata'd very soon

 obsidianaura wrote:
The Stormsurge, and indeed all GMC can fire any weapons its equipped with. It's going to be errata'd very soon

Source please.

I saved a copy of this but the credit should go to "Sablednah" from Librarium-online.

Link to the thread I discovered it in is below

http://www.librarium-online.com/forums/40k-rules-help/304441-gargantuan-creatures-shooting.html

Let's play "who didn't read the thread?", shall we?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Let's play "who didn't read the thread?", shall we?

Eh?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Let's play "suo didn't read the thread?", shall we?

I had popcorn while reading.

 obsidianaura wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Let's play "who didn't read the thread?", shall we?

Eh?

Oh NM I see what you mean.

My post is for the source for "errata'd soon" So you can't prove nuffin'

Unless most of you guys are blind, rules are CLEAR

GC's fire just like MC's... I mean come on ... Stop acting like its a big surprise haha

Rules say that you are allowed to shoot 2 weapons each turn but you can target a different unit ( which is great ! )

Its not something new, a lot of units carry a decent number of guns but they can only fire a few of them each turn.

Why would it be different for your unit? Tell me please ? Why would you give the permission to your opponent to ignore this rule while you are forced to respect it with your own units ? That is not commun sense to me lol

I feel bad for you Taus... I mean your codex is SO BAD compared to my orks... It must be a terrible news...

Have fun everyone !

 Fruzzle wrote:

Pouncey wrote:

 Fruzzle wrote:
The funny thing is I thought the release of the storm surge would put this debate to sleep.

Surely a suit with that many weapons means you can fire all right?

I guess I was wrong.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever encountered someone who says you can only fire two weapons in real life/during a game? For me reading this and looking at my gaming communities it all seems highly theoretical. Nobody here would even think such and argument exists. Kinda like the ''Terminators don't have terminator armour'' and the ''Hive guard don't have eyes so can't shoot'' debates.

I remember taking that last one a step farther and (comedically) asserting that helmeted Space Marines may not be targeted because armor is not technically part of the body, and you have to be able to draw line of sight to the body.

WP sir!

Similarly, IG Cadians could only be targeted if you could see their faces or hands, as their uniforms are likewise not part of their bodies. Tyranids and Necrons of all sorts, along with Wraithguard, could easily be targeted because their armor is part of their bodies. : P

alex0911 wrote:
Unless most of you guys are blind, rules are CLEAR

GC's fire just like MC's... I mean come on ... Stop acting like its a big surprise haha

Rules say that you are allowed to shoot 2 weapons each turn but you can target a different unit ( which is great ! )

Its not something new, a lot of units carry a decent number of guns but they can only fire a few of them each turn.

Why would it be different for your unit? Tell me please ? Why would you give the permission to your opponent to ignore this rule while you are forced to respect it with your own units ? That is not commun sense to me lol

I feel bad for you Taus... I mean your codex is SO BAD compared to my orks... It must be a terrible news...

Have fun everyone !

First off, it has already been established the RAW of the rule is ambiguous as "each" can be read different ways. Please don't change the wording by saying it says they can "target a different unit". The wording is "fire each of its weapons at a different target".

Secondly, common sense is if GC are being made with 8 weapons, they are not limited to two. You make a GC that has 2 amazing guns and 2 terrible guns. Does it make sense to even put those guns on there if they are only able to fire 2? Why would I choose to shoot 4 Str 5 shot or 4 str 5 shots when I can use a different weapon to shoot 12 Str 5 shots.or 1 Str 10 Large Blast. RAI are clear

alex0911 wrote:
I feel bad for you Taus... I mean your codex is SO BAD compared to my orks... It must be a terrible news...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
...especially when personal biases come into the mix...

And this here is exactly what I'm talking about. Many people (not all) who are against them firing all weapon have a personal bias, same for those who support them firing all. And, because of that personal bias, people will conveniently ignore evidence to the contrary.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

alex0911 wrote:
I feel bad for you Taus... I mean your codex is SO BAD compared to my orks... It must be a terrible news...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
...especially when personal biases come into the mix...

And this here is exactly what I'm talking about. Many people (not all) who are against them firing all weapon have a personal bias, same for those who support them firing all. And, because of that personal bias, people will conveniently ignore evidence to the contrary.

I think we've pretty much proven that it's supposed to be all weapons.

It's just people clutching at straws that say otherwise.

notredameguy10 wrote:
First off, it has already been established the RAW of the rule is ambiguous as "each" can be read different ways. Please don't change the wording by saying it says they can "target a different unit". The wording is "fire each of its weapons at a different target".

huh? this isn't warmachine. each unit is a discrete target. each model in a unit is NOT a discrete target.

 carldooley wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
First off, it has already been established the RAW of the rule is ambiguous as "each" can be read different ways. Please don't change the wording by saying it says they can "target a different unit". The wording is "fire each of its weapons at a different target".

huh? this isn't warmachine. each unit is a discrete target. each model in a unit is NOT a discrete target.

What you just said has literally zero bearing on anything i said. The way he changed the wording to "target a different unit" from "fire each of its weapons at a different target".

notredameguy10 wrote:

alex0911 wrote:
Unless most of you guys are blind, rules are CLEAR

GC's fire just like MC's... I mean come on ... Stop acting like its a big surprise haha

Rules say that you are allowed to shoot 2 weapons each turn but you can target a different unit ( which is great ! )

Its not something new, a lot of units carry a decent number of guns but they can only fire a few of them each turn.

Why would it be different for your unit? Tell me please ? Why would you give the permission to your opponent to ignore this rule while you are forced to respect it with your own units ? That is not commun sense to me lol

I feel bad for you Taus... I mean your codex is SO BAD compared to my orks... It must be a terrible news...

Have fun everyone !

First off, it has already been established the RAW of the rule is ambiguous as "each" can be read different ways. Please don't change the wording by saying it says they can "target a different unit". The wording is "fire each of its weapons at a different target".

Secondly, common sense is if GC are being made with 8 weapons, they are not limited to two. You make a GC that has 2 amazing guns and 2 terrible guns. Does it make sense to even put those guns on there if they are only able to fire 2? Why would I choose to shoot 4 Str 5 shot or 4 str 5 shots when I can use a different weapon to shoot 12 Str 5 shots.or 1 Str 10 Large Blast. RAI are clear

I dont care about that sentence haha Each of his weapons means the 2 of them since '' IT SAYS SHOOT LIKE MC'S '', which means 2 guns

The only reason why we are still debating on this subject is because people doesnt like that rule... Which i can understand after paying so much for a piece haha

Happy wargaming !





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

alex0911 wrote:
I feel bad for you Taus... I mean your codex is SO BAD compared to my orks... It must be a terrible news...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
...especially when personal biases come into the mix...

And this here is exactly what I'm talking about. Many people (not all) who are against them firing all weapon have a personal bias, same for those who support them firing all. And, because of that personal bias, people will conveniently ignore evidence to the contrary.

I think we've pretty much proven that it's supposed to be all weapons.

It's just people clutching at straws that say otherwise.

Unless you can show me where you read it, you are wrong man. Rules are clear.... Grab your book and read it again....

notredameguy10 wrote:

 carldooley wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
First off, it has already been established the RAW of the rule is ambiguous as "each" can be read different ways. Please don't change the wording by saying it says they can "target a different unit". The wording is "fire each of its weapons at a different target".

huh? this isn't warmachine. each unit is a discrete target. each model in a unit is NOT a discrete target.

What you just said has literally zero bearing on anything i said. The way he changed the wording to "target a different unit" from "fire each of its weapons at a different target".

then please explain how one changes from the other. As I said previously, the GMC shooting rules make sense if you include an 'or': shoot two weapons at a target, 'or' shoot each weapon at a different target.

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

alex0911 wrote:
I feel bad for you Taus... I mean your codex is SO BAD compared to my orks... It must be a terrible news...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
...especially when personal biases come into the mix...

And this here is exactly what I'm talking about. Many people (not all) who are against them firing all weapon have a personal bias, same for those who support them firing all. And, because of that personal bias, people will conveniently ignore evidence to the contrary.

I think we've pretty much proven that it's supposed to be all weapons.

It's just people clutching at straws that say otherwise.

How have you proven an ambiguous wording? I'm confused does the GMC rule now specifically state they can use more than 2 as part of it's exemptions from the MC list?

Before I get asked if I've read the thread again, which helps answer my original question

alex0911 wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

alex0911 wrote:
Unless most of you guys are blind, rules are CLEAR

GC's fire just like MC's... I mean come on ... Stop acting like its a big surprise haha

Rules say that you are allowed to shoot 2 weapons each turn but you can target a different unit ( which is great ! )

Its not something new, a lot of units carry a decent number of guns but they can only fire a few of them each turn.

Why would it be different for your unit? Tell me please ? Why would you give the permission to your opponent to ignore this rule while you are forced to respect it with your own units ? That is not commun sense to me lol

I feel bad for you Taus... I mean your codex is SO BAD compared to my orks... It must be a terrible news...

Have fun everyone !

First off, it has already been established the RAW of the rule is ambiguous as "each" can be read different ways. Please don't change the wording by saying it says they can "target a different unit". The wording is "fire each of its weapons at a different target".

Secondly, common sense is if GC are being made with 8 weapons, they are not limited to two. You make a GC that has 2 amazing guns and 2 terrible guns. Does it make sense to even put those guns on there if they are only able to fire 2? Why would I choose to shoot 4 Str 5 shot or 4 str 5 shots when I can use a different weapon to shoot 12 Str 5 shots.or 1 Str 10 Large Blast. RAI are clear

I dont care about that sentence haha Each of his weapons means the 2 of them since '' IT SAYS SHOOT LIKE MC'S '', which means 2 guns

The only reason why we are still debating on this subject is because people doesnt like that rule... Which i can understand after paying so much for a piece haha

Happy wargaming !





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

alex0911 wrote:
I feel bad for you Taus... I mean your codex is SO BAD compared to my orks... It must be a terrible news...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
...especially when personal biases come into the mix...

And this here is exactly what I'm talking about. Many people (not all) who are against them firing all weapon have a personal bias, same for those who support them firing all. And, because of that personal bias, people will conveniently ignore evidence to the contrary.

I think we've pretty much proven that it's supposed to be all weapons.

It's just people clutching at straws that say otherwise.

Unless you can show me where you read it, you are wrong man. Rules are clear.... Grab your book and read it again....

haha

haha

so funny.

ok, back to the topic, maybe you should care. As the rules for GC say there are exceptions that OVERRIDE the rules of MC. The "shoot each of its weapons at a different target" overrides that the shooting rules of MC

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
How have you proven an ambiguous wording? I'm confused does the GMC rule now specifically state they can use more than 2 as part of it's exemptions from the MC list?

P.70, 'Gargantuan Creatures are Monstrous Creatures (pg 67) that have the additional rules and exceptions given below.'
P.70 under SHOOTING, '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.'
the operative word is 'may', which has me thinking it is an either\or.