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.

RAW pistols can only target nearest enemy unit. Is this correct?

no you can target who you like within range with the following exception.

You can also fire it if an enemy unit is within 1" but in this case you can only target a unit within 1"

basically if you are 'in combat' you can shoot pistols (normally you cant shoot) but can only shoot the unit you are in combat with. If you are not in comabt e.g. more than 1" away from an enemy model you can target any unit you like within the pistols range

 Latro_ wrote:

basically if you are 'in combat' you can shoot pistols (normally you cant shoot) but can only shoot the unit you are in combat with.

Wrong. From the core rules :

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.

The closest enemy unit is not necessarily the enemy unit which is fighting in CC. Its determined for each model individually. The DC unit is in CC with the three BA model unit. The DC model marked with the red arrow can shoot its pistol (lets pretend DC have pistols) at the two blood angels behind him, because they are the closest enemy unit to him.

ah yea there is that, misread on my part.

that is quite interesting it wont come up a whole lot but opens up some interesting tactics if you are running big units

Reading the core rules it seems that pistols must always target closest enemy unit. Even when you are not in close combat. Dpes it not?

Pure RAW that is correct, I rarely see it played as such but based purely on the RAW pistols can only shoot the closest target.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Pure RAW that is correct, I rarely see it played as such but based purely on the RAW pistols can only shoot the closest target.

I can not see how you come to that conclusion from the pistol special rule in the core rules.

Quote from the core rules, i removed something :

A model can fire a Pistol but it must target the closest enemy unit.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Pure RAW that is correct, I rarely see it played as such but based purely on the RAW pistols can only shoot the closest target.

Not correct, I'm afraid. The "closest" stipulation only applies when a unit fires its Pistols whilst within 1" of an enemy unit. If no enemy units within 1" it can fire as per normal targetting rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:
Quote from the core rules, i removed something :

A model can fire a Pistol but it must target the closest enemy unit.

Well, if you change a rule and quote it incorrectly, what good does that serve? What you posted is not the rule and is not the meaning of the rule.

To hijack this pistol thread, I have a question about using pistols alongside other guns. A model can fire all its guns each shooting phase, unless there's a special rule involved. e.g. a crisis suit could suit all three guns, and at different targets if it wanted. Pretty much every marine unit comes with bolt pistols in addition to other weapons. Just using the tacticals as an example, does that mean you can get 3 s4 shots at 12", two for the bolter and one for the bolt pistol?

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
To hijack this pistol thread, I have a question about using pistols alongside other guns. A model can fire all its guns each shooting phase, unless there's a special rule involved. e.g. a crisis suit could suit all three guns, and at different targets if it wanted. Pretty much every marine unit comes with bolt pistols in addition to other weapons. Just using the tacticals as an example, does that mean you can get 3 s4 shots at 12", two for the bolter and one for the bolt pistol?

No, as the Pistols rules say you cannot fire other weapons if you fire your Pistols.

Your options per model are:

1) Fire all your model's non-Pistol, non-Grenade weapons
2) Throw one Grenade (max one model per squad, unless using Stratagems to permit more)
3) Fire all your model's Pistols

 JohnnyHell wrote:


Not correct, I'm afraid. The "closest" stipulation only applies when a unit fires its Pistols whilst within 1" of an enemy unit. If no enemy units within 1" it can fire as per normal targetting rules.

The rules never say anything about being able to chose targets. It says you must target nearest enemy unit, with the added ability to shoot even if you are within one inch of that enemy unit.

Im sure we can agree gdub didnt intend it to be this way, but thats the wording.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Well, if you change a rule and quote it incorrectly, what good does that serve? What you posted is not the rule and is not the meaning of the rule.

I removed something for better understanding.

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.

They way i understand it, is that it doesnt matter if there are enemy units within 1" or not, the pistol must target the closest enemy unit.

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Well, if you change a rule and quote it incorrectly, what good does that serve? What you posted is not the rule and is not the meaning of the rule.

I removed something for better understanding.

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.

They way i understand it, is that it doesnt matter if there are enemy units within 1" or not, the pistol must target the closest enemy unit.

In which case that's an erroneous understanding - I understand how you got there, but it's not a correct parsing of the rule. The "nearest" is only a condition when firing within 1" of an enemy unit. In general, saying something is a rules quote when it isn't doesn't really help... better to state "my understanding is X" than say it's a quote. Just helps the conversation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

benjamin wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:


Not correct, I'm afraid. The "closest" stipulation only applies when a unit fires its Pistols whilst within 1" of an enemy unit. If no enemy units within 1" it can fire as per normal targetting rules.

The rules never say anything about being able to chose targets. It says you must target nearest enemy unit, with the added ability to shoot even if you are within one inch of that enemy unit.

Im sure we can agree gdub didnt intend it to be this way, but thats the wording.

See above. I understand why you might think that, but it's not a correct parsing of the rule. The Pistol special rules means "If you are within 1" you may shoot, but you must target closest if you do." You can't take half of that rule and say it applies to all Pistol fire - that isn't how rules or sentences work.

To be fair its not about our understanding of the rules. RAW it says target must be nearest enemy. But i do agree with your assumption of the intentions. The wording could easily have been more clear on this. Since it hasent been FAQed i assume noone ever bothered to play the rules this way, but i do find it curious.

benjamin wrote:
To be fair its not about our understanding of the rules. RAW it says target must be nearest enemy. But i do agree with your assumption of the intentions. The wording could easily have been more clear on this. Since it hasent been FAQed i assume noone ever bothered to play the rules this way, but i do find it curious.

It is about understanding of the rule though...

The "closest" stipulation is only when within 1" of the enemy. That's the actual RAW. Saying half a sentence is RAW in its own right is simply incorrect. Not trying to be inflammatory, trying to explain.

You cannot take half of a sentence from a situational rule and say it applies at all times. It's actually not unclear grammatically, though I do understand why some people find it confusing. Hope this helps.

Please dont get me wrong. we intepret the rules the same way and im not trying to advocate otherwise. But technically the rules never states that this only counts when within one inch. That is your ( and my ) understanding of the intentions. The last part of the sentence could have been something like " but when doing so must target that unit."
For instance try this sentence " A pigeon can fly within one yard of a tree, but it has to use its wings."
can the pigeon fly without its wings if i dosent come within one yard of a tree?
Sorry if i come of as an ahole ( pardon my french) My intention with this post was merely to see if the wording of the pistols rule gave cause to further target restrictions.

If nothing else the perhaps we can agree to disagree?

Changing the example doesn't really help illuminate anything to be honest. And that example doesn't give any info to answer the question you posit. So let's leave that diversion?

I don't think we need to agree to disagree... we clearly disagree! ;-) There are numerous threads where people have tried to take this half sentence and claim it as a full rule, but it doesn't make that interpretation any more correct. It fails at a grammar level, unfortunately. I can't really go with agree to disagree as I don't believe that take is correct, RAW or grammatically. Given a Pistol's common range is 12" or below it's rare it'll be an actual in-game, non-internet issue, but it would be incorrect to try and force your opponent to shoot the closest at all times. It only applies in one situation, that being the sentence we're discussing.

If you think an FAQ is required the best course of action is to email the FAQ hotline, tbh. Also you don't come across badly at all - it's nice to debate and discuss!

Sorry to stir this up but as raw i read it to be must always target closest unit. That stray comma does not make the sentence apply only to units in combat when i read it

Certainly i will always play rai and i would not appreciate an opponent who doesnt play it as such.

The problem here is the English language and grammar.

There is a comma not a period in the relevant text line.

The "must target closest" is a continuation of "May shoot if within 1" ". It is not a separate declaration.

The second part of the sentence "but It must target the closest enemy unit" only applies when the first does "A model with a pistol can fire at enemy units within 1" of its own unit" because it is a single grammatical sentence.

If you are not within 1" normal shooting rules apply since nothing in the pistol entry overwrites them.

So not a problem, but the actual meaning conveyed.

 Ordana wrote:
The problem here is the English language and grammar.

There is a comma not a period in the relevant text line.

The "must target closest" is a continuation of "May shoot if within 1" ". It is not a separate declaration.

The second part of the sentence "but It must target the closest enemy unit" only applies when the first does "A model with a pistol can fire at enemy units within 1" of its own unit" because it is a single grammatical sentence.

If you are not within 1" normal shooting rules apply since nothing in the pistol entry overwrites them.

This. This is why I say anyone claiming it always applies is misreading/misparsing the rule.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
The problem here is the English language and grammar.

There is a comma not a period in the relevant text line.

The "must target closest" is a continuation of "May shoot if within 1" ". It is not a separate declaration.

The second part of the sentence "but It must target the closest enemy unit" only applies when the first does "A model with a pistol can fire at enemy units within 1" of its own unit" because it is a single grammatical sentence.

If you are not within 1" normal shooting rules apply since nothing in the pistol entry overwrites them.

This. This is why I say anyone claiming it always applies is misreading/misparsing the rule.

Yup. This is how commas work. This is the correct reading.

IIRC the implication from the rules prior to them mentioning pistols specifically is that they fire normally but have an additional rule that allows them to fire in cqc, in which case they must fire at the closest enemy unit.

I don't understand the confusion here? Like any other ranged weapon pistols work a certain way (as defined by the ranged weapon rules), but they have a special rule that allows them to act uniquely in certain circumstances - in this case fire while in combat at the closest enemy unit. It's no different to a heavy weapon following all the normal rules of shooting weapons but in addition it has a special rule where if I move I add 1 to hit rolls. The argument that pistol a must as RAW target the closest enemy unit is the same as saying that that heavy weapon must always suffer a penalty to hit.

It is clearly not the case.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I don't understand the confusion here?

There's no confusion. It's just people enjoying poking holes into the rules for the fun of it. One guy even carries all his "findings" around in his sig, he's probably really proud of it even.

Don't read too much into these discussions. Noone actually plays it like that / insists on that interpretation outside of the internet.

nekooni wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I don't understand the confusion here?

There's no confusion. It's just people enjoying poking holes into the rules for the fun of it. One guy even carries all his "findings" around in his sig, he's probably really proud of it even.

Don't read too much into these discussions. Noone actually plays it like that / insists on that interpretation outside of the internet.

Problem is this is symptom of GW writers writing not only imbalanced as hell without any concern about balance but simply writing unclear misleading rules resulting in that there's basically common 40k to be played. Every group has to house rule even if it's not blatantly obvious house rule like altering with points.

While nobody(maybe) plays assault weapons like not being able to shoot after running there are actually plenty of rules where people are playing differently than others because GW can't be arsed to do their job and write good clear rules.

So it GW's bad rules that make people forget how a Comma works?

If people don't understand grammar 101 they shouldn't try to rules lawyer.

tneva82 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I don't understand the confusion here?

There's no confusion. It's just people enjoying poking holes into the rules for the fun of it. One guy even carries all his "findings" around in his sig, he's probably really proud of it even.

Don't read too much into these discussions. Noone actually plays it like that / insists on that interpretation outside of the internet.

Problem is this is symptom of GW writers writing not only imbalanced as hell without any concern about balance but simply writing unclear misleading rules resulting in that there's basically common 40k to be played. Every group has to house rule even if it's not blatantly obvious house rule like altering with points.

While nobody(maybe) plays assault weapons like not being able to shoot after running there are actually plenty of rules where people are playing differently than others because GW can't be arsed to do their job and write good clear rules.

It's not misleading nor unclear what they intended. It's really obvious what e.g. assault weapons are meant to do. Pistols are the same.
I'm not saying GW doesn't write bad rules at times, and I agree that there are legitimate issues where the intent isn't glaringly obvious and calling GW out on those is necessary. But Pistol targeting and Assault weapon advancing aren't legitimate issues.

Gawd, not the frickin "Assault weapons don't work" thing again. Congrats. You win 10 internets. Sigh.

Meanwhile, in real life, everyone can perfectly understand the rule and how it should be played.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I don't understand the confusion here?

There's no confusion. It's just people enjoying poking holes into the rules for the fun of it. One guy even carries all his "findings" around in his sig, he's probably really proud of it even.

Don't read too much into these discussions. Noone actually plays it like that / insists on that interpretation outside of the internet.

You owe me a new tshirt as I just laugh-splurted tea down thisone. :-D

 Ordana wrote:
So it GW's bad rules that make people forget how a Comma works?

If people don't understand grammar 101 they shouldn't try to rules lawyer.

Really ? GW is well known for bad choice of words when it comes to rules, but their grammar is always spot on ? Come on