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.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 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

It's in multiple boomin' emails from multiple legit sources.

notredameguy10 wrote:

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

Exactly, they have split fire... They can shoot 2 weapons on the same unit or 1 at each unit... Why the hell would they refer to MC's about shooting if they overwrite it with a questionnable sentence lol I mean 2x F10 PA2 big blast and 8 destroyers missiles, T6, FNP, 8 wounds 3+ with mb 4++ isnt enough for 360 pts ? Commun sense ? I mean this sentence only proves that any weapons you chose can have the split fire rule, thats it my friend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 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

http://

Not a FAQ, not a rule. This could be a stupid email made by anyone

Ok do you want a bet some money on it?

 obsidianaura wrote:
Ok do you want a bet some money on it?

Wtf? Im not saying it wont ever happen, im just saying its not here yet ( if that ever happen ).

So far, the rule book is clear about it.

alex0911 wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

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

Exactly, they have split fire... They can shoot 2 weapons on the same unit or 1 at each unit... Why the hell would they refer to MC's about shooting if they overwrite it with a questionnable sentence lol I mean 2x F10 PA2 big blast and 8 destroyers missiles, T6, FNP, 8 wounds 3+ with mb 4++ isnt enough for 360 pts ? Commun sense ? I mean this sentence only proves that any weapons you chose can have the split fire rule, thats it my friend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 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

http://

Not a FAQ, not a rule. This could be a stupid email made by anyone

Again, please read the rules before making statements. No were in the book is it referring GC shooting like MC. The beginning of the rules for GC IN GENERAL say they follow the rules of MC in addition to some changes/additions. Then later in the GC shooting section is says they may "fire each of its weapons at a different target". this can be seen as one of those changes mentioned previously.

And in regards to the email, there are multiple emails from FW, GW, and WD, each from confirming the same thing.

Once again unless it's an faq, an email doesn't mean anything. There's also the stories of different replies being given to different people about issues.

The may in that sentence is the option for shooting at 1 or 2 targets. The only sticking point is the each, but in the context of the clarifying GMC rule (these are exemptions etc) it's use is, in my opinion fairly clear.

Hnng phone screen too tiny for last comma, I regret missing it.

 carldooley wrote:
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.'

This rule only affects what the Gargantuan Creature can fire at, not how many weapons may be fired.

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 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

It's in multiple boomin' emails from multiple legit sources.

Screenshots of e-mails aren't likely to prove anything.

I say this because when I was a WD subscriber, I got one of my issues a few days early. I took some photographs and typed up some descriptions, and posted them to Dakka's News/Rumors forum. And as a result, people believed that while it was possible those photographs were real. the collective decision was to call my info "rumors" because photos can be faked.

After those photos were removed from my Photobucket account within 4 hours of being posted and Photobucket informed me my account might be closed due to GW having filed a Cease and Desist order to get those photos taken down, I decided that I'd keep any such advance info to myself, because having my account closed over something that no one believed me about anyways, just wasn't worth it.

 obsidianaura wrote:
Ok do you want a bet some money on it?

Well, that escalated quickly.

We understand that you have an email claiming an errata or FAQ will be released soon.
It's just that....this is doubtful. GW doesn't do many FAQs or Erratas, and haven't in some time. A lot of codexes have issues with various wordings (check out all the 4+ page threads in YMDC) and yet we haven't seen a single FAQ/Errata. If one gets published, that will solve the issue, but that doesn't mean that the original wording couldn't be taken any other way.

It's not like GW is alone in this. DnD 5e has had some Erratas that have contradicted the rules as written quite a bit. That doesn't mean that the original rules as written was read incorrectly, it just meant that RAW didn't match RAI so the RAW needed to be changed.


As was stated, if you can not post a RAW source, it's currently not the rule or at the very least, isn't 100% clear.
People with GMCs would probably like it to be every weapon (unless their GMCs don't have many weapons) and people without GMCs probably don't want them to be any better than they currently are (and make no mistake, they are the best type in the game either way). To claim there is bias on only one side of the fence is deliberately obtuse and shows your own bias in the argument.
We can use supporting statements to try to come to a decision, like "Why reference MC rules at all and not use them?" or "Hey, look at this email" or "Let's discuss the grammar of the sentence and see how it applies" but it's all an inference at the end of the day.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Once again unless it's an faq, an email doesn't mean anything. There's also the stories of different replies being given to different people about issues.

The may in that sentence is the option for shooting at 1 or 2 targets. The only sticking point is the each, but in the context of the clarifying GMC rule (these are exemptions etc) it's use is, in my opinion fairly clear.

Hnng phone screen too tiny for last comma, I regret missing it.

Looks like some1 can read here

 Ghaz wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
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.'

This rule only affects what the Gargantuan Creature can fire at, not how many weapons may be fired.

says you. You can just as easily interpret it as replacing the rules for MC shooting.
Thus the rules for shooting with GC simply read "may fire each of its weapons at a different target" as it completely replaces the rule that MC can shoot 2 weapons.

In the end, you can play with your friends however you want, but all essentially all hobby stores and tournaments use the rules that they can fire all weapons.

 obsidianaura wrote:
Ok do you want a bet some money on it?

There is no way for you to prove that the email is legitimate, and the rules of YMDC do explicitly state that they are not accepted forms of argument here.

Plus, even if the email is actually from Games Workshop, that doesn't make it official. The people who sent that email are customer service people, they know jack squat about the rules and aren't the same people who write the FAQs/Errata. They know how to fix your orders or replace faulty miniatures. They aren't trained or qualified to answer rules questions.

As the saying goes, if you ask GW customer service a rules question 3 times you'll get 3 different and contradictory answers.

So if this becomes an official errata, there will be no advantage to a superheavy vehicle at all over a GMC. What a joke. If that becomes official, I won't be playing games against Stormsurges.

I wouldn't say no advantage. Most Super heavy vehicles can't be hurt by small arms while GMCs can.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
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.'

This rule only affects what the Gargantuan Creature can fire at, not how many weapons may be fired.

says you. You can just as easily interpret it as replacing the rules for MC shooting.
Thus the rules for shooting with GC simply read "may fire each of its weapons at a different target" as it completely replaces the rule that MC can shoot 2 weapons.

But that still doesn't alter how many weapons it can shoot, only that it can shoot multiple targets. That's really all this rule does, when things do get to shoot more than 1 weapon you get rules that specifically state they can shoot 2/all of them. This doesn't do that, unless you sort of take it out of context to apply it to the "can shoot 2 weapons" part of MC rules instead of the "has to shoot 1 target" part of MC rules.

Martel732 wrote:
So if this becomes an official errata, there will be no advantage to a superheavy vehicle at all over a GMC. What a joke. If that becomes official, I won't be playing games against Stormsurges.

Dont worry, this FAQ will never see the day. If they did want us to shoot every guns, they would have said : follow the rules of superheavy for the shooting phase.

Why would they say: follow the rules of MC's plus some exceptions? Easy, because they wanted to give split fire, which is fine i guess.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:
Ok do you want a bet some money on it?

There is no way for you to prove that the email is legitimate, and the rules of YMDC do explicitly state that they are not accepted forms of argument here.

Plus, even if the email is actually from Games Workshop, that doesn't make it official. The people who sent that email are customer service people, they know jack squat about the rules and aren't the same people who write the FAQs/Errata. They know how to fix your orders or replace faulty miniatures. They aren't trained or qualified to answer rules questions.

As the saying goes, if you ask GW customer service a rules question 3 times you'll get 3 different and contradictory answers.

Also, GW Customer Service told me that GW hadn't forgotten Sisters of Battle and they'd get their turn in the spotlight soon enough, when I expressed an interest in replacing my metal Sisters of Battle with plastic ones that I could convert into scaly and furry ladies of war. I think that was at least a year ago.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
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.'

This rule only affects what the Gargantuan Creature can fire at, not how many weapons may be fired.

says you. You can just as easily interpret it as replacing the rules for MC shooting.
Thus the rules for shooting with GC simply read "may fire each of its weapons at a different target" as it completely replaces the rule that MC can shoot 2 weapons.

In the end, you can play with your friends however you want, but all essentially all hobby stores and tournaments use the rules that they can fire all weapons.

Except grammatically It can't allow you to both fire all of your weapons and at different targets. It doesn't matter how hobby stores and tournaments do things because they have no more insight into the rules than anyone else, nor do you have any indication as to why they ruled as they did. They could very easily ignored the written rule and made their house rule based on what they believe GW intended with no support to back that up.

 insaniak wrote:

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.

You know, when I first started this, I was with the 'can fire all weapons' crowd.

But, this has actually made me change my view. I don't think this statement is enough to override the MC restriction about only firing 2 weapons.

 vipoid wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

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.

You know, when I first started this, I was with the 'can fire all weapons' crowd.

But, this has actually made me change my view. I don't think this statement is enough to override the MC restriction about only firing 2 weapons.

You can just as easily say that "may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired" completely overrides the shooting rules for MC; as previously it says there are a list of exceptions to the MC rules


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
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.'

This rule only affects what the Gargantuan Creature can fire at, not how many weapons may be fired.

says you. You can just as easily interpret it as replacing the rules for MC shooting.
Thus the rules for shooting with GC simply read "may fire each of its weapons at a different target" as it completely replaces the rule that MC can shoot 2 weapons.

In the end, you can play with your friends however you want, but all essentially all hobby stores and tournaments use the rules that they can fire all weapons.

Except grammatically It can't allow you to both fire all of your weapons and at different targets. It doesn't matter how hobby stores and tournaments do things because they have no more insight into the rules than anyone else, nor do you have any indication as to why they ruled as they did. They could very easily ignored the written rule and made their house rule based on what they believe GW intended with no support to back that up.

Yes it can lol. Pretend just for a second that it didn't follow MC rules and the shooting rules for GC were simply written as "may fire each of its weapons at a different target". How would you interpret that rule? Its obvious it means it can fire all of its weapons, and you may choose a different target for each weapon.

Thus, you can just as easily say that the "may fire each of its weapons at a different target" is the only shooting rule for GC as it overrides the shooting rules of MC.

Also in regards to tournaments, does it matter? If that is how all hobby stores and tournaments play, that should be all that matters.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I wouldn't say no advantage. Most Super heavy vehicles can't be hurt by small arms while GMCs can.

Small arms are functionally useless against all MCs and GMCs. You'll never do enough damage before your army is massacred.

"If that is how all hobby stores and tournaments play, that should be all that matters."

Australia exists, and has already ruled against your interpretation.

No, it can't without you intentionally ignoring the Shooting rules for Monstrous Creatures.

alex0911 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
So if this becomes an official errata, there will be no advantage to a superheavy vehicle at all over a GMC. What a joke. If that becomes official, I won't be playing games against Stormsurges.

Dont worry, this FAQ will never see the day. If they did want us to shoot every guns, they would have said : follow the rules of superheavy for the shooting phase.

Why would they say: follow the rules of MC's plus some exceptions? Easy, because they wanted to give split fire, which is fine i guess.

Exactly LOL. They would have just given GC the spitfire rule if they wanted it interpreted the way you are saying. Instead, they added an entire section saying "may fire each of its weapons at a different target". Therefore it is clear what RAI

But it does follow MC rules.

Martel732 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I wouldn't say no advantage. Most Super heavy vehicles can't be hurt by small arms while GMCs can.

Small arms are functionally useless against all MCs and GMCs. You'll never do enough damage before your army is massacred.

um no? Small arms fire will obliterate Stormsurges as they are T6 with a 3+ save


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
But it does follow MC rules.

*sigh* i know i was making a point.

It follows MC rules, with EXCEPTIONS. One of those exception is "may fire each of its weapons at a different target". You can just as easily interpret "may fire each of its weapons at a different target" as completely overriding MC shooting restrictions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
No, it can't without you intentionally ignoring the Shooting rules for Monstrous Creatures.

I am not ignore them. the exceptions for GC override any associated rules for MC

notredameguy10 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I wouldn't say no advantage. Most Super heavy vehicles can't be hurt by small arms while GMCs can.

Small arms are functionally useless against all MCs and GMCs. You'll never do enough damage before your army is massacred.

um no? Small arms fire will obliterate Stormsurges as they are T6 with a 3+ save

You and I have very different definitions of "obliterate". T6 3+ save is functionally immortal against boltguns/lasguns. The reality is that there won't be anything left to shoot at this thing if it can fire all weapons and then double up when sieged up. Seriously, if Tau get this thing, I want goddamn Terran siege tanks from Starcraft for my marines.

So just out of curiosity, why is this being discussed in General, instead of being locked due to not going anywhere in YMDC?

Generally, most small arms are on a BS 4 Str 4 platform.
So, each round causes .03737 wounds, so it takes 26 rounds to cause 1 wound.

So, if you possibly get your entire army into rapid fire range, you can 1 round the storm surge with bolters. This is not including it's crazy good range or any other upgrades it has, or what else the Tau army has brought that you may want to shoot at.

Martel732 wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I wouldn't say no advantage. Most Super heavy vehicles can't be hurt by small arms while GMCs can.

Small arms are functionally useless against all MCs and GMCs. You'll never do enough damage before your army is massacred.

um no? Small arms fire will obliterate Stormsurges as they are T6 with a 3+ save

You and I have very different definitions of "obliterate". T6 3+ save is functionally immortal against boltguns/lasguns. The reality is that there won't be anything left to shoot at this thing if it can fire all weapons and then double up when sieged up. Seriously, if Tau get this thing, I want goddamn Terran siege tanks from Starcraft for my marines.

So... a Vindicator?

Martel732 wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I wouldn't say no advantage. Most Super heavy vehicles can't be hurt by small arms while GMCs can.

Small arms are functionally useless against all MCs and GMCs. You'll never do enough damage before your army is massacred.

um no? Small arms fire will obliterate Stormsurges as they are T6 with a 3+ save

You and I have very different definitions of "obliterate". T6 3+ save is functionally immortal against boltguns/lasguns. The reality is that there won't be anything left to shoot at this thing if it can fire all weapons and then double up when sieged up. Seriously, if Tau get this thing, I want goddamn Terran siege tanks from Starcraft for my marines.

i apologize, i jumped the gun. I wasn't thinking of blowguns or lasguns. I was more thinking more along the lines of Atr 5/6 AP3 type guns that normally could do nothing to SHV but will easily kill SS