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.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit."

It does not have to shoot each at a different enemy than the first if it does not want to, but it can...

Therefore you can shoot 3 weapons from a single model at either 1, 2, or 3 targets if you want.

Agreed.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit."

It does not have to shoot each at a different enemy than the first if it does not want to, but it can...

Therefore you can shoot 3 weapons from a single model at either 1, 2, or 3 targets if you want.

Actually BCB has a point. If you have 3 weapons you can fire all 3 at one unit or you can fire one weapon each at 3 different units. They don't say the one model can fire multilple weapons at one unit and some weaspons at a second unit. Technically they would have to include that in the options of what you can do in order for you to have permission to do it.

Going by the sentence about multiple models in a unit getting to fire at different targets, the implication there is that you can split the fire how you want, making their intention clear for single models by saying "similarly", but if you go by what they said for the single firing alone you only get to fire either all weapons at 1 unit or 1 weapon at as many different units as you have weapons. Everybody plays it that you can mix and match shooting on units so that you can put multiple weapons on one and some on a second while not being forced to fire only one weapon at each unit if you want to shoot more than one. That's not what the RAW says for single models, however, it was poor wording on GW's part there. If you didn't have the subsequent sentence about what units "similarly" do, there wouldn't have been an indication that a single model can shoot multiple weapons at one unit and a weapon at a second unit.

Except that it can shoot each weapon at a different target, but it does not have to. It can...

So 3 weapons fired from a single model can target 2 units, or 1 unit, or 3 units.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except that it can shoot each weapon at a different target, but it does not have to. It can...

So 3 weapons fired from a single model can target 2 units, or 1 unit, or 3 units.

Sorry, you failed to address the issue. You have permission to fire all weapons at one target. You have permission to fire at different units with one weapon each. Saying "it does not have to" doesn't suddenly manufacture permission to do something they haven't given you permission to do. What you "can" do is one of the two choices they give by RAW. If you have 3 weapons, they give you permission to fire all 3 at one unit, or 1 weapon each at 3 different units. Please provide the rules quotation that specified that one model may fire multiple weapons, but not all weapons at one unit while firing another weapon at a second unit.

BCB has done it again!

Genuinely curious though - what does it take to actually spot these errors?

No, again there is an implicit added clause that bob is adding - that the weapons must fire at targets different to every other weapon. That clause does not exist in the actual rules, meaning their interpretation cannot be "raw"

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except that it can shoot each weapon at a different target, but it does not have to. It can...

So 3 weapons fired from a single model can target 2 units, or 1 unit, or 3 units.

Sorry, you failed to address the issue. You have permission to fire all weapons at one target. You have permission to fire at different units with one weapon each. Saying "it does not have to" doesn't suddenly manufacture permission to do something they haven't given you permission to do. What you "can" do is one of the two choices they give by RAW. If you have 3 weapons, they give you permission to fire all 3 at one unit, or 1 weapon each at 3 different units. Please provide the rules quotation that specified that one model may fire multiple weapons, but not all weapons at one unit while firing another weapon at a second unit.

I have addressed the issue, maybe I didn't make it clear to you, let me elaborate.

As long as a gun targets a unit that is different than the fist unit selected as a target, the rest of the guns are firing at a different enemy unit. Therefore there is permission to target 2 units with 3 weapons from a single model. What you "can" do is one of the two choices they give by RAW (Which includes targeting 2 units with 3 weapons from a single model)

They give you permission to fire all 3 at one unit, they also give you permission to fire 1 weapon each at 3 different units, they also give you permission to fire 1 at a unit, and 2 at a second unit because those two guns are firing at a different enemy unit than the first weapon.

The rules quote is right here "If a model has several weapons, it can shoot all of them at the same target, or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit." - BRB

If you have a model with 3 guns, 1 gun shooting unit A and 2 guns shooting unit B is allowed because guns 1 and 3, and guns 1 and 2 are each shooting at a different enemy unit.

 skchsan wrote:
BCB has done it again!

Genuinely curious though - what does it take to actually spot these errors?

He has not, because his argument is not correct

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, again there is an implicit added clause that bob is adding - that the weapons must fire at targets different to every other weapon. That clause does not exist in the actual rules, meaning their interpretation cannot be "raw"

Really?

"If a model has several weapons, it can shoot all of them at the same target, or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit. "

If you have 3 weapons, and fire two at one enemy unit and 1 at a second enemy unit, then you are not shooting each at a different enemy unit, are you? You have 2 weapons firing at the same unit.

Imagine that...another banal BCB thread. BCB should just full hog and post a YouTube video report and play the game in the weird magical realm as he reads it.

 doctortom wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, again there is an implicit added clause that bob is adding - that the weapons must fire at targets different to every other weapon. That clause does not exist in the actual rules, meaning their interpretation cannot be "raw"

Really?

"If a model has several weapons, it can shoot all of them at the same target, or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit. "

If you have 3 weapons, and fire two at one enemy unit and 1 at a second enemy unit, then you are not shooting each at a different enemy unit, are you? You have 2 weapons firing at the same unit.

It does not matter that you have 2 weapons firing at the same unit, both of those weapons are shooting at a different enemy unit than the first weapon. Therefore well within RAW to do so.

Gun 1 Selects unit A as a target. (It can shoot each [weapon] at a different enemy unit.)

Guns 2 and 3 must pick a different enemy unit instead of selecting the unit Gun 1 targeted... (This can both be Unit B or one can shoot unit B and one can shoot Unit C)

 doctortom wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, again there is an implicit added clause that bob is adding - that the weapons must fire at targets different to every other weapon. That clause does not exist in the actual rules, meaning their interpretation cannot be "raw"

Really?

"If a model has several weapons, it can shoot all of them at the same target, or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit. "

If you have 3 weapons, and fire two at one enemy unit and 1 at a second enemy unit, then you are not shooting each at a different enemy unit, are you? You have 2 weapons firing at the same unit.

Yes, you are firing at a different unit
Just not a different unit to every other weapon. At least one weapon is firing at a different unit, thus the second clause is satisfied

If you disagree, show the exact wording that forces every weapon to fire at a different unit to every other weapon. It doesn't 3sist, hence pointing out you are reading an implicit restriction that simply and literally does. Not. Exist.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except that it can shoot each weapon at a different target, but it does not have to. It can...

So 3 weapons fired from a single model can target 2 units, or 1 unit, or 3 units.

Sorry, you failed to address the issue. You have permission to fire all weapons at one target. You have permission to fire at different units with one weapon each. Saying "it does not have to" doesn't suddenly manufacture permission to do something they haven't given you permission to do. What you "can" do is one of the two choices they give by RAW. If you have 3 weapons, they give you permission to fire all 3 at one unit, or 1 weapon each at 3 different units. Please provide the rules quotation that specified that one model may fire multiple weapons, but not all weapons at one unit while firing another weapon at a second unit.

I have addressed the issue, maybe I didn't make it clear to you, let me elaborate.

As long as a gun targets a unit that is different than the fist unit selected as a target, the rest of the guns are firing at a different enemy unit.

Nope, sorry. "fire each at a different enemy unit" is not the same as "fire multiple weapons at one unit and a weapon at a different unit." Two weapons are firing at the same unit, not different units. By RAW, that sentence is not permission to fire multiple weapons at one unit and one weapon at another.

As I said before, the rule was poorly written for single models. The intention is clear that you can fire multiple weapons at one unit while still splitting fire off (thanks to the subsequent statement for multimodel units), but it's not in the RAW for single model units.

The resulting interaction is probably not what was intended by the rules writer... But as written, BCB is right in the most literal sense, without an ounce of assumption, possible.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, again there is an implicit added clause that bob is adding - that the weapons must fire at targets different to every other weapon. That clause does not exist in the actual rules, meaning their interpretation cannot be "raw"

Really?

"If a model has several weapons, it can shoot all of them at the same target, or it can shoot each at a different enemy unit. "

If you have 3 weapons, and fire two at one enemy unit and 1 at a second enemy unit, then you are not shooting each at a different enemy unit, are you? You have 2 weapons firing at the same unit.

Yes, you are firing at a different unit
Just not a different unit to every other weapon. At least one weapon is firing at a different unit, thus the second clause is satisfied

If you disagree, show the exact wording that forces every weapon to fire at a different unit to every other weapon. It doesn't 3sist, hence pointing out you are reading an implicit restriction that simply and literally does. Not. Exist.

"fire each weapon at a different unit"

I have 3 weapons. The first weapon fires at one unit. Okay.

The second weapon fires at a second unit. We're still okay.

The third weapon also fires at the second unit. But, each weapon fires at a different unit according to the statement, and the third weapon is not firing at a different unit than the other weapons, it's firing at the same unit as the second weapon. Therefore, each weapon is not being fired at a different unit. For what you are saying, it would have to say something on the lines "subsequent weapons after the first can be fired at a unit or units other than the first". You are reading in that there is a primary unit and a different unit. It says each fires at different units, which means each one has to hit a different unit - no duplications.

Which again begs the question, who cares?

BCB and similar folks seem to enjoy being "clever" and showing off on the internet how well they can read and disect rules, but to what end?

Do you guys (who do this ad nauseum) actually email GW and tell them you found what you believe to be a typographical error - or do you just posit it here on dakka to create exhaustingly stupid threads?

Is a service being provided to the community, when everyone else in the world reads the rule, understands its purposes and plays it as such? When, if asked, any TO in the entire world would judge it as most people read it, etc. There's no alternate version of 40K being played based on these supposed errors.

We've seen a handful of these silly rules interpretations addressed by FAQ's, errata and occasional messages to GW on facebook. Every single time, the answer has been in favour of the overall intent/general common sense consensus. GW has never once come out and said "Oh, our bad - we wrote that somewhat oddly...guess that's the rule now!". That's not a thing.

So is it typical epeenery and laziness which creates these constant silly threads? As witnessed above, if people agree BCB is "technically" right ---- who cares? No one will ever play it that way so it's a moot point. If someone can enlighten me to the greater purpose they believe is being achieved outside of "Look internet, I'm clever, yolo!" I'm all ears.

 Elbows wrote:
Which again begs the question, who cares?

BCB and similar folks seem to enjoy being "clever" and showing off on the internet how well they can read and disect rules, but to what end?

Do you guys (who do this ad nauseum) actually email GW and tell them you found what you believe to be a typographical error - or do you just posit it here on dakka to create exhaustingly stupid threads?

Is a service being provided to the community, when everyone else in the world reads the rule, understands its purposes and plays it as such? When, if asked, any TO in the entire world would judge it as most people read it, etc. There's no alternate version of 40K being played based on these supposed errors.

We've seen a handful of these silly rules interpretations addressed by FAQ's, errata and occasional messages to GW on facebook. Every single time, the answer has been in favour of the overall intent/general common sense consensus. GW has never once come out and said "Oh, our bad - we wrote that somewhat oddly...guess that's the rule now!". That's not a thing.

So is it typical epeenery and laziness which creates these constant silly threads? As witnessed above, if people agree BCB is "technically" right ---- who cares? No one will ever play it that way so it's a moot point. If someone can enlighten me to the greater purpose they believe is being achieved outside of "Look internet, I'm clever, yolo!" I'm all ears.

He's technically correct... The BEST KIND of correct.

Reading BCB's post is kind of like watching 'Best of Vine Compliations' on youtube. Some of them are so stupid you can't help but laugh.

 Elbows wrote:
Which again begs the question, who cares?

BCB and similar folks seem to enjoy being "clever" and showing off on the internet how well they can read and disect rules, but to what end?

Do you guys (who do this ad nauseum) actually email GW and tell them you found what you believe to be a typographical error - or do you just posit it here on dakka to create exhaustingly stupid threads?

Is a service being provided to the community, when everyone else in the world reads the rule, understands its purposes and plays it as such? When, if asked, any TO in the entire world would judge it as most people read it, etc. There's no alternate version of 40K being played based on these supposed errors.

We've seen a handful of these silly rules interpretations addressed by FAQ's, errata and occasional messages to GW on facebook. Every single time, the answer has been in favour of the overall intent/general common sense consensus. GW has never once come out and said "Oh, our bad - we wrote that somewhat oddly...guess that's the rule now!". That's not a thing.

So is it typical epeenery and laziness which creates these constant silly threads? As witnessed above, if people agree BCB is "technically" right ---- who cares? No one will ever play it that way so it's a moot point. If someone can enlighten me to the greater purpose they believe is being achieved outside of "Look internet, I'm clever, yolo!" I'm all ears.

You could say the same thing about the people who are saying that he's wrong with the RAW when he's "technically" correct. That's where the multipage arguments start from; it takes more than one side to argue. If we go "uh huh, nice point on RAW, but that's not how the game is generally played" without arguing the RAW, you probably aren't going past the first page.

RAW is daft in a number of situations. Maybe this one should be added to the list: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/750856.page

 skchsan wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
[...] BCB and similar folks seem to enjoy being "clever" and showing off on the internet how well they can read and disect rules, but to what end?

Do you guys (who do this ad nauseum) actually email GW and tell them you found what you believe to be a typographical error - or do you just posit it here on dakka to create exhaustingly stupid threads?

Is a service being provided to the community, when everyone else in the world reads the rule, understands its purposes and plays it as such? When, if asked, any TO in the entire world would judge it as most people read it, etc. There's no alternate version of 40K being played based on these supposed errors. [...]

So is it typical epeenery and laziness which creates these constant silly threads? As witnessed above, if people agree BCB is "technically" right ---- who cares? No one will ever play it that way so it's a moot point. If someone can enlighten me to the greater purpose they believe is being achieved outside of "Look internet, I'm clever, yolo!" I'm all ears.

He's technically correct... The BEST KIND of correct.

Reading BCB's post is kind of like watching 'Best of Vine Compliations' on youtube. Some of them are so stupid you can't help but laugh.

I don't know whether BCB emails GW or not.

What I do know is that, if I were GW, I would read BCB's threads. Yeah, sometimes they're silly, sometimes they're overly nuanced, usually they're not going to change how anyone plays the game. But the fact is that more tightly-written rules benefit everyone. People abuse unclear rules. People find loopholes. And if I want to make sure that my rules are airtight, then I'm going to hope that there's someone like BCB out there to help make them that way.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
It would make a mockery of some super heavy tanks.

And that means what exactly? The rules are clear, you've just been playing them wrong.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
It would make a mockery of some super heavy tanks.

And that means what exactly? The rules are clear, you've just been playing them wrong.

And it’s clear you are wilfully misunderstanding the rules then using that as a soap box to attack others. But what’s new? You know what the rule means and how it’s played... proclaiming everyone to be “playing then wrong” is foolish.

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except that it can shoot each weapon at a different target, but it does not have to. It can...

So 3 weapons fired from a single model can target 2 units, or 1 unit, or 3 units.

Sorry, you failed to address the issue. You have permission to fire all weapons at one target. You have permission to fire at different units with one weapon each. Saying "it does not have to" doesn't suddenly manufacture permission to do something they haven't given you permission to do. What you "can" do is one of the two choices they give by RAW. If you have 3 weapons, they give you permission to fire all 3 at one unit, or 1 weapon each at 3 different units. Please provide the rules quotation that specified that one model may fire multiple weapons, but not all weapons at one unit while firing another weapon at a second unit.

I have addressed the issue, maybe I didn't make it clear to you, let me elaborate.

As long as a gun targets a unit that is different than the fist unit selected as a target, the rest of the guns are firing at a different enemy unit.

Nope, sorry. "fire each at a different enemy unit" is not the same as "fire multiple weapons at one unit and a weapon at a different unit." Two weapons are firing at the same unit, not different units. By RAW, that sentence is not permission to fire multiple weapons at one unit and one weapon at another.

As I said before, the rule was poorly written for single models. The intention is clear that you can fire multiple weapons at one unit while still splitting fire off (thanks to the subsequent statement for multimodel units), but it's not in the RAW for single model units.

Your argument is not correct. neither is BCB's.

If at least one weapon is firing at a different unit the second clause is satisfied.

"it can shoot each at a different enemy unit." is not the same as "Must fire every weapon at a different unit to every other weapon" you are saying the second is true without any rules backing.

 doctortom wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


If you disagree, show the exact wording that forces every weapon to fire at a different unit to every other weapon. It doesn't 3sist, hence pointing out you are reading an implicit restriction that simply and literally does. Not. Exist.

"fire each weapon at a different unit"

I have 3 weapons. The first weapon fires at one unit. Okay.

The second weapon fires at a second unit. We're still okay.

The third weapon also fires at the second unit. But, each weapon fires at a different unit according to the statement, and the third weapon is not firing at a different unit than the other weapons, it's firing at the same unit as the second weapon. Therefore, each weapon is not being fired at a different unit. For what you are saying, it would have to say something on the lines "subsequent weapons after the first can be fired at a unit or units other than the first". You are reading in that there is a primary unit and a different unit. It says each fires at different units, which means each one has to hit a different unit - no duplications.

I bolded the bit you didn't actually address. At all.

The third weapon is firing at a different unit to the first weapon. Pstatement is entirely complied with.

You are STILL adding a restriction that does not exist. At all.

If you disagree, show the wording that requires every weapon to fire at. A different unit to every other weapons. Page and para please.

All that is required to counts as having fired at "different" targets is for all weapons to not fire at the "same" target.

Situation: weapons A & B fire at target X and weapon C fires at target Y,

Weapon A DID fire at a different target than weapon C
Weapon B DID fire at a different target than weapon C
Weapon C DID fire at a different target than weapons A or B.

All weapons can be said to have fired at a different target. Even though A & B fired at the same target, it was still a different target than C.

-

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except that it can shoot each weapon at a different target, but it does not have to. It can...

So 3 weapons fired from a single model can target 2 units, or 1 unit, or 3 units.

Sorry, you failed to address the issue. You have permission to fire all weapons at one target. You have permission to fire at different units with one weapon each. Saying "it does not have to" doesn't suddenly manufacture permission to do something they haven't given you permission to do. What you "can" do is one of the two choices they give by RAW. If you have 3 weapons, they give you permission to fire all 3 at one unit, or 1 weapon each at 3 different units. Please provide the rules quotation that specified that one model may fire multiple weapons, but not all weapons at one unit while firing another weapon at a second unit.

I have addressed the issue, maybe I didn't make it clear to you, let me elaborate.

As long as a gun targets a unit that is different than the fist unit selected as a target, the rest of the guns are firing at a different enemy unit.

Nope, sorry. "fire each at a different enemy unit" is not the same as "fire multiple weapons at one unit and a weapon at a different unit." Two weapons are firing at the same unit, not different units. By RAW, that sentence is not permission to fire multiple weapons at one unit and one weapon at another.

As I said before, the rule was poorly written for single models. The intention is clear that you can fire multiple weapons at one unit while still splitting fire off (thanks to the subsequent statement for multimodel units), but it's not in the RAW for single model units.

Your argument is not correct. neither is BCB's.

If at least one weapon is firing at a different unit the second clause is satisfied.

"it can shoot each at a different enemy unit." is not the same as "Must fire every weapon at a different unit to every other weapon" you are saying the second is true without any rules backing.

Can shoot each at a different enemy unit means exactly that - each weapon is shooting at a different enemy unit. You have permission to do that. You haven't demonstrated how firing 3 weapons at 2 units is firing each weapon at a different enemy unit. It doesn't say firing other weapons at a unit other than the first unit, which is how you are interpreting that.

 Galef wrote:
All that is required to counts as having fired at "different" targets is for all weapons to not fire at the "same" target.

Situation: weapons A & B fire at target X and weapon C fires at target Y,

Weapon A DID fire at a different target than weapon C
Weapon B DID fire at a different target than weapon C
Weapon C DID fire at a different target than weapons A or B.

All weapons can be said to have fired at a different target. Even though A & B fired at the same target, it was still a different target than C.

-

That isn't what the rule is asking for though.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


If you disagree, show the exact wording that forces every weapon to fire at a different unit to every other weapon. It doesn't 3sist, hence pointing out you are reading an implicit restriction that simply and literally does. Not. Exist.

"fire each weapon at a different unit"

I have 3 weapons. The first weapon fires at one unit. Okay.

The second weapon fires at a second unit. We're still okay.

The third weapon also fires at the second unit. But, each weapon fires at a different unit according to the statement, and the third weapon is not firing at a different unit than the other weapons, it's firing at the same unit as the second weapon. Therefore, each weapon is not being fired at a different unit. For what you are saying, it would have to say something on the lines "subsequent weapons after the first can be fired at a unit or units other than the first". You are reading in that there is a primary unit and a different unit. It says each fires at different units, which means each one has to hit a different unit - no duplications.

I bolded the bit you didn't actually address. At all.

The third weapon is firing at a different unit to the first weapon. Pstatement is entirely complied with.

You are STILL adding a restriction that does not exist. At all.

If you disagree, show the wording that requires every weapon to fire at. A different unit to every other weapons. Page and para please.

I did address it. It says fire each weapon at a different unit. It doesn't say fire a weapon at a unit, and fire your other weapons at a different unit. "Fire each weapon at a different unit" IS athe wording requiring each weapon to be fired at a different unit - exactly as it states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
All that is required to counts as having fired at "different" targets is for all weapons to not fire at the "same" target.

Situation: weapons A & B fire at target X and weapon C fires at target Y,

Weapon A DID fire at a different target than weapon C
Weapon B DID fire at a different target than weapon C
Weapon C DID fire at a different target than weapons A or B.

All weapons can be said to have fired at a different target. Even though A & B fired at the same target, it was still a different target than C.

-

It doesn't say that all weapons do not have to fire at the same target, it says that each weapon has to fire at different targets. Weapon B has to fire at a different target than weapon A since firing a weapon at A would be firing at the same target. Weapon C has to fire at a target other than weapon A or weapon B in order to fire at a target other then each of the other weapons - EACH weapon has to fire at a different target. It's not a case of a main target then getting to fire at a different target - each one has to have a different target, which means no duplication of targets.

Does it say that all weapons must fire at a wholly different and seperate target than all other weapons? Or does choosing a different target that at least 1 of the weapons chose suffice (which is my argument)

If all weapons DID NOT choose the same target, than all weapons chose different targets. It is that simple (or at least GW seems to think so, with the way they write rules).
Even if 2 weapons select the same target, as long as a different target is chosen for the 3rd weapon, than "different" targets were selected by all weapons.

If the rule is asking us to chose different targets, that satisfies this requirement. And this is how everyone has read it for over a year now.

EDIT: Btw BaconCatBug, I am not saying your interpretation of this rule is wrong, simply that it is not as absolute as you are claiming. If either interpretation is valid, than the most permissive can be used.

-

After saying you can fire all weapons at one unit, it says you can fire each weapon at a different unit. It does not say you fire one weapon at a target and fmay fire other weapons at different targets, which is what it would need to say for your interpretation to be RAW. Since it says each weapon may fire at a different target without making a reference to firing the first weapon, then saying each weapon fires at a different target means firing at a different target from all the other weapons, not just the first weapon (which is not mentioned in their statement at all.) If 2 weapons target the same unit, then they aren't firing at different units, and you aren't following what the rule says. It says "each" weapon, not just "weapons may be fired at different units". It's the "each" that's forcing a new unit as a target for each weapon.

As I pointed out earlier, the subsequent statement about multiple models just firing and saying "similarly" provided context on what the RAI is for this, and people played by the RAI for over a year now.

But all you need to satisfy the "each" weapon fires at a different target is for it to select a different target from at least 1 other weapon.
It doesn't matter if weapons A and B select the same target, as long as weapon C selects a different target, then "each" weapon has selected a different target from the perspective of at least one other weapon.

We are given permission to select the same target.
We are given permission to select different targets.
The rules do not make the above sentences exclusive.

-