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 Lantern (carried by Mortarion) is a Pistol 1 weapon that when it hits a target it draws a line between Mortarion and that unit and hits everything under that line.

But pg. 180 of the core rules says that pistols can only fire at the closest enemy target, so by definition nothing will be between Mortarion and the target unit... So...

 Gorlack wrote:
The Lantern (carried by Mortarion) is a Pistol 1 weapon that when it hits a target it draws a line between Mortarion and that unit and hits everything under that line.

But pg. 180 of the core rules says that pistols can only fire at the closest enemy target, so by definition nothing will be between Mortarion and the target unit... So...

No. That's not what the rule says. From page 180 of the main rulebook:

A model can fire a Pistol even if there are enemy units within 1" of its own unit, but it must target the closest enemy unit.

You're only limited to firing at the closest enemy unit if there is an enemy unit within 1" of the firer. Otherwise you're free to choose any target within range, barring any other restrictions.

We have been debating that locally as well, but the two conditions doesnt seem to be dependent on one another. A Pistol can shoot an enemy in close combat. It can also only target the nearest enemy. It doesnt say that "when targeting enemys in CC you can only shoot the nearest" it just says that a Pistol can shoot into CC and that it must target the nearest.

But since Im the one playing Morty I hope you can convince me othervise

Nothing requires Pistols to always fire at the closest target. That stipulation is only if the unit is within 1" of an enemy unit. Trying to apply half of that rule to all Pistol shooting is... stretching. And incorrect.

Like I said, there is no "then" or "if" or "when". It simply says: pistols can be shot into CC and must target the nearest enemy. Doesnt seem to be a condition of the latter part that the first part is in effect. It doesnt say "when doing so" or "in this case". That seems to indicate a universitality to the rule.

 Gorlack wrote:
Like I said, there is no "then" or "if" or "when". It simply says: pistols can be shot into CC and must target the nearest enemy. Doesnt seem to be a condition of the latter part that the first part is in effect. It doesnt say "when doing so" or "in this case". That seems to indicate a universitality to the rule.

Its all one sentence. That's what ties the two together. It can do A, but if it does A then B applies.

Does highlight that different regions of the world read sentence structure differently.
Makes just as much sense to read it as Permission with internalized Restrictions as it does to read it as separate Permission and Restriction.

Opening Poster,
Consider the Lantern as it is a good indicator to which is most likely correct:-
Which of the two interpretations allows the Lantern to function as clearly intended?


(Corrected terminology for Ghaz)

It's not two restrictions however. Its granting a permission (being able to fire a Pistol while enemy units are are within 1" of the firer's unit), with a restriction on that permission (it must target the closest enemy unit).

How do you show that to someone who doesn't parse the sentence the same way?
Particularly, if they live in a region of the world where others are reading the sentence as containing a separate Restriction....

This is why the Lantern is a very good Liptis test; it contains additional instructions that can only function within the 'Permission with internalized restriction' interpenetration.

(Corrected Terminology for Ghaz)

 JinxDragon wrote:
How do you show that to someone who doesn't parse the sentence the same way?
Particularly, if they live in a region of the world where others are reading the sentence as 2 Restrictions....

This is why the Lantern is a very good Liptis test; it contains additional instructions that can only function within the '1 Restriction with two parts' interpenetration.

Is telling someone that they 'can fire' a restriction? No. You've granted them permission to fire. The restriction is on page 179:

First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit.

Looking at the sequencing doesnt help us. You are allowed to choose a target, then you need to choose weapons. And pg. 180 specifically says

"each type of ranged weapon also has an additional rule that, depending on the situation, might affect the accuracy of the weapon or when it can be fired. These are as follows:"

The rules that follow are rules that restrict when shooting is possible, like advancing and shooting heavy. Pg. 179 doesnt allow us to circumvent that either.

Its all one sentence. That's what ties the two together. It can do A, but if it does A then B applies.

See, there is the differens. You just added an "if". But there is no extra if in the core rules wording.

Post 2017/09/15 17:58:12 Subject: Lantern not functioning?
Does highlight that different regions of the world read sentence structure differently.
Makes just as much sense to read it as 2 Restrictions in one sentence as it does to read it as 1 Restriction with two parts.


Consider the Lantern though, it is a good indicator to which is most likely correct:-
Which of the two interpretations allows the Lantern to function as intended?

This is closer to something useful. RAI have been the name of the game in 8th, so we will probably be using the Lantern as it is supposed to be used. But RAW I still cant see it.

I see you've already made up your mind, but I'll ask you this. If you tell someone that they can go to the closest game store, but they can't buy anything are you telling them that they actually can't go to any other game store?

My mind is certainly not made up, but I can't see any provisions in the rule that allows you to choose a target that is not the closest. You even added the word "if" in your example because otherwise you can't create that allowance.

I unfortunately can't see the connection between pistols targeting and local game stores if you are trying to create another rules sentence and then apply that sentence to the current pistol example, then your created sentence needs to be a little clearer for me to understand it

And I don't see a provision that you must choose the closest unit if the firing unit is NOT within 1" of an enemy unit, just one for when it IS within 1" of an enemy unit.

Okay, I was trying to find the exact quote to show where I could see no provisions:

A model can fire a Pistol even if there are enemy units within 1" of its own unit, but it must target the closest enemy unit.

But that quote actually goes on to say:

A model can fire a Pistol even if there are enemy units within 1" of its own unit, but it must target the closest enemy unit. In such circumstances the model can bla bla

So it does actually seem like the rule clears itself up in that part. Great news for my new Mortarion model

 JinxDragon wrote:
Does highlight that different regions of the world read sentence structure differently.
Makes just as much sense to read it as 2 Restrictions in one sentence as it does to read it as 1 Restriction with two parts.


Consider the Lantern though, it is a good indicator to which is most likely correct:-
Which of the two interpretations allows the Lantern to function as intended?

Not if you speak english it doesn't.

I'd argue this thread began with a misreading and misunderstanding packaged as an 'interpretation'. It's just wrong, and the rule doesn't say what the OP thinks. When everyone is telling the OP how the rule works and they don't accept consensus, eh, what can you do?

This seems to be a big trend here on Dakka.

This thread is ridiculous.

OP - You're doing it wrong.

It's blindingly obvious how pistols are supposed to work but people like to deliberately misinterpret it and refuse explanations to the contrary.

There is a comma before the but, this indicates the second clause is dependant on the first. You use but without a comma for independant clauses. Yay for obscure grammar rules.

And it sounds from the rules quote that it can hit friendly units under the line as well. It could well be a penalty to shooting with it.

Drager wrote:
There is a comma before the but, this indicates the second clause is dependant on the first. You use but without a comma for independant clauses. Yay for obscure grammar rules.

You have it the wrong way around. You put a comma before "but" when it links two independent clauses, not when it links an independent and dependent clause. In this case, we don't need the comma to tell us the clause is independent. We can tell because the clause could stand on its own as a sentence (i.e. "It must target the closest enemy unit."). I don't see how it matters, though. The authors could have worded it slightly differently to make the clause dependent ("A model can fire a Pistol even if there are enemy units within 1" of its own unit but must target the closest enemy unit."), but the meaning would stay the same.

This is making my brain hurt don't even know why it's being discussed.