There’s lots of little things about the game that are easy to get wrong- perhaps you’ll find one or two off this list to help yourself out.
1. Strength D weapons always prohibit the use of Feel No Pain/Reanimation Protocols rolls, regardless of the target’s toughness.
2. A Jetbike that makes a Turbo-Boost movement cannot also make a Thrust move in the assault phase.
3. A model with Runes of the Farseer can choose to reroll some, none, or all of the dice on a given psychic or denial roll. A model using Fortune, on the other hand, must reroll all of the dice if a denial attempt is unsuccessful.
We currently do not play the Runes of the Farseer this way in the ITC, although per RAW, this is correct. This will likely be changing in the near future. -Ed
4. Gargantuan Creatures can fire each of their weapons at a different target, but are otherwise limited to firing only two weapons just as a Monstrous Creature is.
We play this rule as a Gargantuan Creature can fire all of its weapons at different targets (ie. more than two weapons if possible for the model) in the ITC. -Ed
5. DERP
6. A roll on the Destroyer table replaces the To-Wound/Penetration roll, and thus is not affected by the Doom psychic power or other abilities that allow you to reroll wounds or penetrations.
7. Models that suffer a Perils of the Warp result when casting a power roll on the table (and take the effects) immediately, before the enemy makes a Deny the Witch attempt or any other effects happen. Using a Ghosthelm will stop any wounds caused to the Farseer, but not other effects of the Perils.
8. A Warlock Conclave that loses enough models to “forget” a power can choose any power it knows, including a Primaris power.
9. When rolling to wound against a value other than Toughness, you otherwise follow all of the same rules for determining majority value for a squad.
10. Warp Spiders are not limited to using Flickerjump once in a turn- they can do so every time they are declared as the target of a shooting attack.
Abusepuppy- I’m pretty sure that the rules you mentioned for 5. Artillery is from 6th edition. Under the artillery rules there is nothing under movement or shooting with artillery that says that they can’t do snapshots. It’s only when they get assaulted that they can’t shoot overwatch. And then of course artillery that shoots blasts can’t do snapshots.
If there is a rule somwhere in 7ed that says that they can’t shoot snapshots please educate me 🙂
For example my tractor kannons which are heavy 1 with skyfire must shoot snapshots at all ground targets (except skimmers).
Most artillery are blast weapons as well as being heavy. If a heavy weapon moves it has to fire snap shots, blasts/templates can’t fire snap shots. So most artillery can’t move and shoot.
Yeah, I confused the 6E “no snap shots” with the 7E “only during the shooting phase” version. Corrected.
4. and 9. are debatable.
And as Calle mentions above no.5 is flat out incorrect.
If you can find a rule that lets a GC shoot more than two weapons, I’d love to see it.
Likewise, if you know of something that breaks the normal majority rule when rolling to wound against Initiative/Leadership/etc, feel free to cite a page number.
For GC’s:
“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.”
Depending on how a person interprets that in conjunction with the MC rules you can reach 2 equally valid conclusions. Your insistence that your outcome is the correct one is childish.
For majority wounding:
There is no rule either way – we aren’t told how to resolve wounds against varied armour save units. That doesn’t mean “Just apply a similar rule” it means any ruling is a house rule. While i typically will play it as majority, i acknowledge that is a house ruling, and would never assert that it is the “Correct” way to do it.
Why is simply substituting the other attribute (Init, etc) for Toughness not viable? That’s literally what the rules say to do.
#4
“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.”
“each” meaning any weapons it has? I also first thought it can only fire two, because gargantuan is an upgrade to monstrous. But the “upgrade” description quoted above should allow it to fire all its weapons.
Reanimation Protocols in Codex Necrons States that it can’t be taken against str. D
#1
How did you come up with this for FNP? Nothing in the rulebook says D weapons prevent FNP. It counts as strength 10 but if your T6+ then your fine.
The Feel no pain rule (pg 164) says so.
“Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks (pg 163) or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death rule.”
Thanks, can’t believe I missed that!
For no.8 I thought the power they forget is randomly determined.
No, it explicitly says that you select a power.
While I think you’re technically correct (the best kind of correct?) with #4, I believe the intent was to allow them to work like Superheavy Vehicles and fire all of their weapons, AND fire each of them at separate targets. I like the “fire only two” philosophy, but I don’t think that was the intent.
*shrug* You can argue intent until the cows come home, but unless you have a telepath with you that doesn’t really prove much.
The only GC actually affected is the Wraithknight (since it can buy extra guns), and I’m fine with a small nerf to the Wraithknight.
It’s a pretty huge nerf to the Heirophant upgrade weapons as well since you’d have to give up a Bio-cannon’s shooting to fire them, but I suppose that’s a more niche scenario since it’s much more expensive.
Yeah. In a friendly/Apocalypse game I’m sure you could convince people to let you fire three guns with your Heirophant without too much difficulty.
It says you may fire each weapon on page 70. It also states that those rules are an exception to the MC rule… It’s actually kind of a stretch to say you can’t fire more then 2…
Pg70 main rule book
“Gargantuan creatures are MC that have the addition rules and exceptions below.”
“When a gargantuan creature or FGC makes a shooting attack, it may fire EACH weapon at a different target if desired.”
Says two things pretty clearly:
May fire at different target and may fire EACH weapon…. Specifically doesn’t say each weapon it’s allowed to fire, it pretty clearly says each weapon… I don’t understand how that means only two since it’s an addition rule or exception…
under MC you only allow to declare 2 targets. the debate is on “each” does that over written the declaring only 2 targets limit.
you can read it as “each” weapon can fire a different target but you only still limit to 2 targets as MC. not sure this is a correct way to read it but a way to read it.
Alex Yuen the BRB says that MCs can fire 2 weapons, but they have to be at the same target. MCs DO NOT get to fire at 2 targets.
read below
“each
\ˈēch\
adjective
: every one of two or more people or things considered separately” – Miriam-Webster.com
GMCs can fire all of their weapons at different targets. That’s what each means, every single one considered separately.
No.
Consider this:
My car can fit 2 singing kids.
Each of my 5 kids can sing and at different pitches.
Does that mean that all 5 of my kids can fit in my car? No.
While I do believe the intent is that GMC’s should be able to fire all of their weapons and at different targets as well. The RAW doesn’t support it technically. “May fire each of its weapons….” gives you explicit permission to target different units. It doesn’t actually give you explicit permssion to shoot more than 2 weapons.
jy2, it’s not a question of whether or not your car has the capacity, is it? It is a question of whether or not the kids have permission to sing: In my MC (Monstrous Car), 2 kids have permission to sing. In my GC (Gargantuan Car), each of my kids have permission to sing.
Question: How many kids can you get in your GC? Answer: 4.
GC’s follow the rules for MC’s. MC’s can only fire 2 weapons. Unless the rules for GC’s explicitly state that they can fire more than 2 weapons, they have to follow the rules for MC’s. The only rules that “each weapon” allows you to break explicitly is the targeting restrictions. Firing more than 2 weapons is an implicit, logical assumption you are making.
Just like temp weapons and wound allocation. Just because your template hits 5 models (of which 2 are out of LOS), does that mean you can kill them all? No, because the rules for temp weapons do not explicitly override the rules for wound allocation. Even though you can hit and wound all 5 models, you are still bound by the rules of Wound Allocation. Same case applies here. Even though you can fire each of your weapons at different targets, you are still bound by the rules for MC’s for being only able to fire 2 weapons.
BTW, explicit permission would be if the rules said “It can fire all of its weapons and at different targets.”
Ok I’m going to write this out and substitute the definition of EACH.
pp. 70 “Gargantuan Creatures are Monstrous Creatures (pg 67) that have the additional rules and exceptions below… Shooting: When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire ‘every one of two or more’ of its weapons at a different target if desired…”
The rulebook states that this is an exception to the normal rules for MCs. When you use the definition of “each” it is pretty explicit that GMCs get to fire all of their weapons at different targets (if desired).
missing the point on declaring targets which for MC is 2 and firing X numbers of weapons at those declare targets. Does “each” makes it so GC can declares more than 2 targets? 2 targets still works with that definition. Now, like how ITC rule on this one but people need to see the other side of the debate and not just one side and claim is right.
Alex MCs can fire two weapons, but they have to fire them at the SAME target. The GMC rule changes both “it may fire EVERY ONE of its weapons at different targets.” That’s what the “each” means, it can shoot every single weapon at different targets.
Kartr kana i am not saying you are wrong. i am saying the other side also have their merit.
on to MC still declare 2 targets just that both have to be the same targets. Each weapon makes it a target selection most of the time this has to be the same target but rules like split fire can kick in at this time.
This probably sounds anal, but it doesn’t declare two targets, it declares one target twice. The wording is important and needs absolute precision to prevent RAW vs RAI arguments.
For example, if you say MCs get to declare two targets, but those targets have to be the same unit, what happens when you get split fire? Split fire allows a unit to declare two targets, but the MC already gets to do that with the further restriction that those two targets has to be the same unit. So even if you gave it split fire it would still only get to shoot one target. That’s why you say MCs have to declare one target twice, because then split fire would override that and allow it to declare two targets.
The only way to adjudicate rules is to do so literally using the exact definition of every word. If that ruling seems unfair or broken, then the parties can agree to change the rule.
kartr kana: i been agree with you all along but what i am saying that what the debate is. I hate people don’t even see the other side and just say i am right.
regardless on how MC works. that limit of 2 still on MC and carry over to GC. so the debate really is does that rule lift that restriction that carry over from MC (limited to 2).
Car can fit 2 singing kids = MC can fire 2 guns.
Each of the 5 kids can sing at different pitches = each of guns can fire at different targets.
There’s no need for a conjunction. ‘Each’ never stops meaning, ‘every’ (or ‘all’). If it were limited to just two weapons, in order to make sense, the rule would have to specify, ‘each of the weapons it is eligible to fire’.
Correction: you have a car that can fit 5 kids, your wife has a rule that only 2 kids are allowed to sing in it and they have to sing the same song. You have a monster truck that can fit 5 kids, you have a rule that each of the kids is allowed to sing whatever they want. So every one of the two or more kids gets to sing their own song.
You have permission to fire every weapon at a different target. You have a limitation that says you can only fire two weapons. Therefore, you can only fire two weapons total (at different targets)- you are still firing “each” of them at a different target.
If you have a permission and a restriction, you typically abide by the restriction unless the permission is more specific. (For example, if you have a unit that disembarks from an assault vehicle- which says that it may assault the turn it disembarks, a permission- and that ge4ts Pinned when doing so- which carries the restriction “cannot assault,” I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who believes that unit should be allowed to make a charge.)
Ok I’m going to write this out and substitute the definition of EACH.
pp. 70 “Gargantuan Creatures are Monstrous Creatures (pg 67) that have the additional rules and exceptions below… Shooting: When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire ‘every one of two or more’ of its weapons at a different target if desired…”
The rulebook states that this is an exception to the normal rules for MCs. When you use the definition of “each” it is pretty explicit that GMCs get to fire all of their weapons at different targets (if desired).
It’s really dangerous to substitute a generic definition of each, into a rule, and assume that it applies. Most words’ usage and meaning changes subtly with the context.
I could substitute your definition of each into a whole host of rules, and substantially alter the meaning from what anybody actually plays.
Sure you could. And how does it follow that this particular instance of substitution is inaccurate?
I’d like to see all of those usages of “each” as its likely they’re being played wrong as well.
Plus its not a “generic” definition its the only proper definition/usage in the English language and any contextual change is improper usage (slang) and does not change the proper meaning.
“For example, if any part of a model’s base is within 6″ of the base of an enemy mode, the two models are said to be within 6″ of every one of two or more other.”
Makes perfect sense, there is only one definition of each, and context doesn’t matter.
This is the first example in the ebook of 7th ed rules.
For a start, dictionary definitions are nearly never absolute. The definition for each that you give, presupposes that it’s plural. If you add in the specifics of that definition, it precludes singles.
Now the reality is that each is referencing the members of a set.
For each member of the set, do X. Is each completely incorrect if the set has a size of one? Hell no, you can still use it. However, if you replace the word each, with a dictionary definition, the extended wordiness implies a specificity (in this case excluding sets where the size can be 1) which isn’t there.
Suffice to say, just like all of us, rules writers are word users in the context of the vernacular. They don’t write their rules to stand up to semantic assault, via the dictionary. Otherwise, just like a legal document, which is intended to stand up to such abuse, they would define at the start of the rulebook what the word “each” means in the context of this document.
How does it apply? If we take a document written in the vernacular, and apply the most stringent parsing to it’s interpretation, we are misinterpreting what is written.
GW does a reasonable job of explicitly explaining when a rule overwrites a general rule. In this case, we are trying to abuse the non-specific nature of the word “each” to remove a restriction we don’t like. That’s not RAW, and arguably not RAI.
Similarly in 6th edition, you could assault a walker that you couldn’t harm, unless you abused english to the extent that you took a “for example” to actually be an exhaustive list of instances, in order to write out the “assault as infantry” aspects of the rule. The proponents of this argument, endlessly invoked the “RAW vs RAI” argument, while merrily ignoring the fact that nobody uses “for example” in that way. It’s simply semantic abuse.
Interestingly, my iBooks version has a slightly different wording to what is listed here, which I believe changes the meaning.
“…it may fire each of it’s weapons at a different target if desired.”
The one I saw quoted above was:
“When a gargantuan creature or FGC makes a shooting attack, it may fire EACH weapon at a different target if desired.”
Each weapon, doesn’t clearly differentiate between the weapons owned by the GMC and the weapons it is eligible to fire. However “Each of it’s weapons” fairly clearly shows the rules writer is implicitly stating that it’s applying to all the GMC’s weapons.
So, while I still don’t think quoting the dictionary definition of “each” like a bludgeon is a good argumentative style, I think it can fire all 3 weapons.
The models are within 6″ of every one of two or more of the other. There are two models and they are both within 6″ of the other, it sounds silly but it’s still true.
Yes in your tailored example the definition of each does seem to imply that you wouldn’t apply the rule to a set with a single member. Which in the case of a GMC is true. If it only has a single weapon it doesn’t get to fire it at separate targets, because other rules dictate that a weapon can only be fired at single target.
I get that you don’t think I should just use the definition as a “bludgeon” however I disagree (obviously). The definition of “each” is vitally important to the discussion and is not invalidated if a GMC has a single weapon as the rule only takes effect when there are two or more weapons.
When I quoted the BRB I said “each of its weapons” because that’s what my physical copy says. That’s why I think it’s so patently obvious that it gets to fire all of them.
I agree with your point. I don’t think the sticking point is the definition of “each” at all. The question (as far as I thought, when I disagreed) was that in some cases it was reported as being worded with ambiguity as to whether it applied to all weapons, or to the weapons the model was entitled to fire.
Having checked my ibooks version, that ambiguity doesn’t exist. Hence I think it’s pretty open/shut 3 weapons can fire.
Doom specifically says you may reroll failed to wound and Armour penetration rolls.
But D weapons don’t roll to penetrate/wound. Therefore you can’t use Doom to re-roll the destroyer table.
Kartr is correct. The rule book instructs us to roll on the D chart INSTEAD of rolling to wound.
Great info to know… a lot of these have come up in games!
4: ‘Each’ means every.
5. I’m assuming this is because Artillery is commonly Blast-based? Vibro Cannons are a minor exception to this rule, as they are not Blast.
10. ‘Flickerjump’ is a Warp Jump. To make a Warp Jump, “roll once per unit each turn”. How many Warp Jumps can you make a turn? Answer: One. How many Flickerjumps can you make a turn? Answer: One, because Flickerjump IS a Warp Jump.
Warp Jumps are not limited to once per turn anywhere (you just normally don’t have the option of making more than one movement per turn.)
You could argue that, when Flickerjumping you only roll the dice once for the first time and then use that value for every Flickerjump that turn- and I think you’d be correct in that case- but there’s absolutely nothing stating you can only make one jump per turn.
That’s absurd. You ‘can’ argue anything you like, it’s just not a valid argument in this case.
We are reminded that 40K is a permissive rules set; we are not allowed to do things without express (if not necessarily explicit) permission. We are not given permission to make a Warp Jump more than once per turn AND we are explicitly limited to only rolling once per turn.
Using one distance for the entire turn isn’t the same thing as only making one Warp Jump per turn.
Flickerjump says that you can do it when you are chosen as the target of an attack and has no other limitations.
You cannot resolve more than one Flickerjump without breaking the game. You do not have permission to use the ‘one distance’ for additional jumps. If you cannot execute the move (the Warp Jump–because again, that is what a Flickerjump is) because you cannot perform the action necessary to complete it (rolling dice for distance), then you can’t do it.
I’d happily grant that you could declare a 0″ Flickerjump as many times as you are targeted by a shooting attack. I may start doing that (I don’t currently have a catch-phrase, having discarded yelling, ‘Jink!’ for everything).
Flickerjump does have other limitations; it has the limitations that Warp Jump has, because Flickerjump is Warpjump. Says so in the codex on page 124, where we are cross-referenced to page 154.
So where are you getting that you cannot make multiple Flickerjumps? Because Warp Jump says that you ROLL once per turn, but that still isn’t the same thing.
Where would the Warp Spiders go? We can only roll once per turn, and we do not have permission to use the result of one roll for ‘other’ jumps.
I like to know where does it say 40k is a permissive rules set? Dcannon i think you are putting your personal assumption into this rather then reading it at face value.
#4 is depend. Question comes down to: Does “each” over written the limitation on only 2 weapons from MC. if you read them as both are in effect and not contradicting then GC can fire each weapons but also targets are limit by MC rules. Since they both are in effect and not contradicting you are limit to 2 targets while you can fire each weapon a different target just that you only have 2 targets to choice from. Ofcause ITC did not rule it that way.
Alex: 40K is written as a permissive rules set. Since we’re guessing about whether or not people are putting their personal assumptions into this, I’m going to assume that you don’t understand how ridiculous it is for you to ask where it is written that 40K is a permissive rules set.
It doesn’t need to be written anywhere, it is a characteristic of the rules set. Compare, ‘You can do anything you want with your plastic toys except the following things’ (restrictive) and, ‘You may only do the following things with your plastic toys’ (permissive). Also consider: ‘What CAN I do?’ (permissive) compared to, ‘What CAN’T I do?’ (restrictive).
Cheers!
Then by your logic, 40k should be restrictive. i point to unbound and the rule #1. is up to players decide what kind of game that they want to play and change any rules anyway they like. that on page 5 or something. you can get the quote on the golden rule from BRB. the game is to have fun blab blab blab. If like you say if the rule set is permissive then golden rule should not exist and a lot of things we do during the game we don’t have permission to do so.
like making pew pew sound, or like looking at models. or the order i choice i move, shoot etc with units. if your logic is true then i have permission to choice a unit to move but i do not have permission to choice the order which unit move first. If we stick with permissive rule set then you got a break down on the rule right there.
Unlike x-wing (which is a permissive rule set) tells you which one goes first and what to do if there is a tie PS etc. 40k is a “you fix it type of rule set”. that why if you compare x-wing to 40k. x-wing feel a lot better. Also that why 40k there are so much debate on 40k rules because is not a permissive set. If it is a permissive rule set then it will say something like GC may target X and make Y shoot with Z weapons.
So to your answer. i am not ridiculous but you might be.
pp. 70 “Gargantuan Creatures are Monstrous Creatures (pg 67) that have the additional rules and exceptions below… Shooting: When a Gargantuan Creature of Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire ‘every one of two or more’ of its weapons at a different target if desired…”
The rulebook states that this is an exception to the normal rules for MCs. When you use the definition of “each” it is pretty explicit that GMCs get to fire all of their weapons at different targets (if desired).
Ah Warhammer.. 50% game 50% debate 🙂 I love it for that.
I feel my degree in English helps a lot when I’m debating a rule incorrectly so I can win at all costs.
Only a philosophy degree has a higher win rate to lack of value ratio.
I can attest to that.
Good ol’ Wargrammer 40k.
One more rules mistakes I see a lot of people do (I have also been guilty of doing before as well):
After passengers embark onto or disembark from a fast skimmer transport, the skimmer cannot go flat-out.
If the passengers embark/disembark BEFORE the transport has moved, it most certainly can go flat out.
Ok, let me rephrase that:
After passengers embark onto or disembark from a fast skimmer transport that has just moved, the skimmer cannot go flat-out.
That is 100% correct. 🙂
How about this one: Is a skimmer allowed to change its facing when going Flat Out?
Yes, it can- Flat Out otherwise follows all of the rules for moving vehicles, and moving vehicles can change their facings (except for Flyers, of course.) Walkers that Run and walkers/chariots that consolidate following a combat can likewise do so.
You wouldn’t happen to have that page would you? I took a look for something decisive but must not have looked hard enough (or in the right place). There is a bit of a legacy of ‘straight-line flat-out’ where I play. It would be nice to put it to bed.
It never explicitly says so, but the Flat Out rules say nothing about moving in a straight line or otherwise being limited in any particular way. In the absence of anything else we have to assume they follow the standard vehicle movement rules, which allow you to make any number of pivots during your movement.
To contrast, the rules for Flyers specifically note that you must move in a straight line forward when going Flat Out, which would be redundant if ALL vehicles had to do that.
pp. 73 “Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model.”
pp. 75 “A vehicle can elect to MOVE Flat Out instead of firing in the Shooting phase, immediately moving up to 6″…”
Flat Out is a Move and vehicles can turn any number of times as they move.
Thanks Kartr! 🙂
No problem DCannon!
What happens if an artillery unit gains Slow and Purposeful? Can it move and shoot then?
Yes, but then cannot Overwatch due to Slow and Purposeful (and/or Blast, whichever).
I wasn’t thinking about overwatch, just if you could put a Big Mek in MegaArmor into a unit of Mekguns and let them move and shoot.
Yeah, that’s legit- they count as stationary, which allows them to shoot.
We actually don’t rule some of these rules interpretations this way for the ITC, buddy =)
Good. I still want to fire all of the guns on my GMC’s (and Imperial Knights). The multiple flickerjumps makes the spiders stupid-good and I know the ITC ruled that re-rolls for failed attempts by Farseers must re-roll all the dice, not just the ones that failed.
No offense, Reece, but you guys really seem to like changing the rules to fit what you think “should” be, and that’s not a good thing.
And none of these, as far as I’m aware, are covered under the current ITC FAQ. If you want to change them, you might wanna put that stuff in the FAQ so that people know, because when I specifically asked about many of them I was told the opposite of what you said above.
Well buddy, you are free to view things as you choose, of course, but please remember that there are more than one way of reading many of these rules (which is why we debate them) and just because you read it one way does not make it absolutely so. The GC issue, for example, to me is clearly permissive of being able to shoot all of their weapons. That is the RAW, IMO, and doesn’t even need to be FAQ’d. However, we will address it in the next meeting.
They have a permission to fire each weapon at a different target and a limitation to only fire two weapons. The sum of that is that they can fire each of two weapons at different targets. The RAW there is pretty clear.
Even all of these aside, though, you have to admit that LOTS of stuff in the ITC FAQ is straight-up rules changes to fit the way you (meaning the council as a whole) thinks the game should be. That’s something I’m not really kosher with, and it’s my biggest peeve with the ITC system as a whole- there’s no call to be changing rules when it isn’t needed, and I feel like far too often that is what is done based on “well I think it _should_ work this way even though that’s not what the rule says.”
I will not say RAW is clear on this one. is depend on the reading “each”. Does “each” over written the limitation by MC? I can see both side having a lot of credit on this one.
Considering gw has given up on the faq and rules clarification of 40k. I am quite happy following the itc council (not just Reece) itc official rules as intended definition. Since that is a great way of just ignoring the a-hole who just shows up to a game store and try’s to argue every single thing in favor of his army, until the game is just not fun and you just concede from his constant bickering. I’ve see. This crap to many times and simply saying let’s use itc rules ends 90% of these issues. I sincerely hope the itc clarifies and takes up the mantle gw has thrown away in answering these types of questions so as to make 40k as a whole better. When gw made their own faqs I would scratch my head and say wtf were you thinking (360 torrent hell turkey for example) then they go about changing it back to what people thought it should of been anyway. I’m not saying itc should change the game to their liking but answering these faqs is something that is needed and gw clearly has no intention of ever doing again.
I will say the GC ruling is surprising to me, but without the rulebook in front of me I don’t have a clear RAW interpretation. the fact that it doesn’t impact a single unit I’ve used may help explain why I didn’t know the rule 😉
So, abusepuppy, your argument is that the GC rule gives you permission to fire at a different target with every weapon, but the MC rule limits it to two weapons?
Assuming you agree that the GC rules overrule the MC rules where there’s any conflict, then how do you reconcile the fact that you can’t fire each weapon on the unit at a different target, if you can’t fire each weapon on the unit?
It seems to me, that it’s in conflict, and therefore the rule i superseded by the GC rule on shooting?
>Assuming you agree that the GC rules overrule the MC rules where there’s any conflict
Not exactly- the GC rules let you fire each weapon at a different target, but they don’t otherwise allow you to break the rules for firing weapons. They don’t let you fire blast weapons at flyers; they don’t let you fire a weapon outside of its maximum range; they don’t let you shoot while locked in assault; etc.
The MC “only fire two weapons” is one such limitation. While the GC rules let you fire as many weapons _as you are able_ at different targets, you are still only able to fire two weapons. There is nothing inherently contradictory about saying “fire each (of two) weapons at a different target,” hence there is no conflict between the two rules.
Der why do you think it is called Reecehammer 40K…..in the grim darkness of the 41st millennium, only Reece will be permitted to rule forth on the way thine plebians will doth be permitted to play with their plastic toys that they have doth spent thousandsth of dollars on.
In the Grim darkness of the 41st millenium, the hive planet Xurbanooth IV has been safe for 200 years while an Eldar and Tyranid host each circle the planet.
It turns out that the Eldar want to run a 2000 point battle with strictly one CAD and Maelstorm cards while the Hive Tyrant is looking for an Unbound mission at 1800 points.
Nearby a force of Squats are trying to enforce a paint and comp score on the battle, and the ITC mothership is deciding on the Harridan and ranged D.
Lo, I have seen the future and it is terrible!
That’s in the eye of the beholder. A lot of people like what they do, because it allows diversity in armies and makes it so the game doesn’t get stagnant. Also, weren’t you on here belittling people complaining or taking issue about the rule changes at the LVO?
In defense of AP, there is a difference between laying our rules and rulings for your event and trying to layout a general framework for North American competition!
And I absolutely HATE it, but I think Reece is fight to make some sort of changes, even if I’m not always on board with each one…
*grumbles about ‘Nids and ‘Nights….*
I’d much rather use the ITC FAQ than have to argue with a different rules lawyer for each and every game of 40K (John – calling it Reecehammer 40k is just being a troll).
We can all agree RAW vs RAI is a HUGE problem with GW’s ruleset they care not to address (GW still has last editions Necron FAQ up on their page….).
You don’t have to agree with every single one of the rules because it impacts your special snowflake unit adversely, however using the ITC FAQ will allow everyone to play with the same rules expectations in every game against a new player.
The ITC council is doing the 40K community a favor by publishing FAQs we can all use.
I agree, but I would also argue that if they continue to push niche interpretations and/or outright rules changes onto people in the guise of a FAQ (as opposed to admitting what was being done, as they have with the 2+ reroll and Invis changes) they will alienate a lot of folks.
INAT tried to create a similar “FAQ for the masses” a number of years ago, but ran into similar problems with arbitrarily changing the rules to suit their own view of what the game should have been, and it eventually killed them. I wouldn’t like to see ITC make the same mistake.
The 2+ reroll and invis were not itc changes, afaik. They were lvo/bao tournament rules. Most itc tournaments do not change 2+ or invis.
However the itc does go beyond just rules clarification and faqs. For instance a limit to 3 detachments and unbound being illegal those are not a rules clarification but a set gaming standard. Are those types of rules clarifications needed? I would say yes because of how open to abuse the current army building of 40k has become.
if you really want to run an event right our of BRB then TO match up everyone. every pair decide on points, type of list, set up terrain, mission, and then you play the game.
Clarifying a gaming standard such as 3 detachments and no unbound using the rules in the BRB is very different then changing rules in the book. I hear them use this counter argument all the time and it is the stupidest argument I’ve heard
Honestly, I can see clear FAQ’s and clear rules changes with the ITC (As well as clear “baselines” allowed by an expansive ruleset.) I don’t see any rules changes disguised as FAQ’s; even the GC point identified above (4.) seems to be confusing enough to warrant a ruling.
Lemme throw out a couple of examples:
-Characters on Thunderwolf mounts being S10 with Hammers/Fists is an outright change.
-Blast weapons not being able to hit FMCs is an outright change.
-Necrons being able to re-embark on Night Scythes is an outright change.
-Psykers being limited to their Mastery Level in powers each turn is an outright change.
-Blasts/templates only being able to hit one level of a ruin is an outright change.
-Fateweaver being able to use his Staff from off the table is an outright change.
-Tyrannocytes being the only nonvehicle model in the game with firing arcs is an outright change.
Whether you agree with these decisions or not, they are inarguably changes to the rules of the game and have no meaningful precedent within the context of the rules as they are printed. Moreover, with the possible exception of blasts in ruins, they have no real reason to have been made (in terms of rules balance) other than the ITC committee wanting things to be different than they are.
I don’t like changing rules for no reason. I don’t like it when GW does it, but as the producer of the IP they at least have a stronger hand in the matter. But when ITC does it- and it doesn’t serve any game balance purpose- it grates on me.
I have had the pleasure (and displeasure) of interacting with all of these rules! Out of curiosity, how many of those rule changes are prefaced with, ‘for ease of tournament play’ (or something like that)?
none of those are outright change. you just don’t agree with their interpretation. +2 reroll that is an outright change, Range D that is an outright change. none of those on the list are. please stick with the facts.
I agree with some of those AP.
They are just pushing the nerfs and bans to a different arbitrary line in the sand to where the tyranid OP list will be winning instead of the Eldar OP list, because that is “fun” and will somehow get all these people to tournaments. However, they don’t seem to care about the fun of suckers like me who own and paid to have five knights painted up. When you just arbitrarily alter rules and make broad sweeping bans, you are just alienating players…I gave up on this mess after 7th so whatever, but every time I read the posts on here about the ITC I am just more steadfast in my resolution not to come back to 40K. Also if I play locally an want to use ITC and no one else does, we just argue endlessy about it…you just become that guy in your local meta who constantly spits out well that is not how it is done in the ITC as he strokes his neck beard.
John, you can use your 5 Knight army in the ITC, you know that, right? I understand you are frustrated, which is fine, but please get your facts accurate before slinging mud.
Awesome how you literally grab on to one minor point probably alluding to the faq to the knight dex after 7th edition dropped. Sorry but I also agree that after following changes to the game on 11th company and this website why you wouldn’t want to play again with the itc format driving a wedge in the community. Even though you guys somehow seem to know more about the game than the company that puts publishes it they must have overlooked your application for CEO. Lolz All comments aside you have to understand people are going to be massively butt hurt when you are nerfing dexes etc because the fear is always it will trickle down to local meta in some form.
I don’t think Reece’s point is minor at all. With Knights becoming LoW and the ITC limiting armies to one LoW (G or SH), Knights would be out of luck. However, Reece is clarifying that this is not how it is ruled.
no matter what other points are in play, literally not being able to put your models on the table is the most restrictive nerf possible, and therefore the worst case scenario.
“I gave up on this mess after 7th”
than you have no opinion on this game anymore outside of hearsay and what you read by a vocal minority on websites such as this. And as reecius mentioned, feel free to read the actual rules on what is allowed before you come in here crying about it.
yawn….troll harder. Sorry I can read articles and as the other people pointed out listen to podcasts about the sad state of the game…I don’t need someone to hit me in the head with a hammer to know its going to hurt. Can I used the three wraithknights I own at the next ITC event…don’t think so…stay classy Ryan.
How about flyers and the rule that states they fire 4 weapons at full BS. What if they have 6 weapons? Under the general vehicle rules they can fire those other two as snaps. But I keep hearing arguments that they only get 4 shots, and no more. No where does it state they do not get those shots, only they have a increased number of shots they take at full BS.
I think it’s a bit of a grey area, but I would default to allowing them to fire the “extras” as snap shots, as that is the generic vehicle rule. It’s not something that comes up very often (or is terribly relevant when it does come up), though.
came from a mind set that 40k is permissive rule set which every actions requires permission to do so. you are given permission to fire 4 therefore you don’t have permission to fire 6. which i don’t agree with.
the rule itself did not say anything on that issue. so if you run into someone with that mindset and claim the rule support it then you will have that debate.
While the idea could have been good, had you chosen to address other rules and mechanics where there ACTUALLY is a 100% correct, settled interpretation, making a “How Stuff Works” list with 1-2 openly questionable interpretations of rules (one of them, about GC, seemingly in many players’s interpretation being blatantly wrong, even RAW-wise), this seems more like an attempt to push your own interpretation on the rules onto the crowd, rather than an actual attempt at being informative.
While I do not say this was your intention, it certainly could look that way.
P.S: And in regards to GC-rule, I don’t even see how your argument could be made: “Gargantuan creatures are MC that have the additional rules and exceptions below.”
Key word: “Exceptions”.
You cannot find ANY rule that SOMEONE won’t dispute. Believe me, I’ve written this sort of thing before and someone will always argue about any kind of rules issue you bring up. If I posted “Infantry units on open terrain can move up to six inches,” someone would find a niche interpretation of a poorly-worded diagram that implied that in certain situations it might be otherwise.
The GC rule does not contradict the MC rule- “each” is still applicable in the sense of “each of two.”
First of all, thanks to AP for the article, clearly not everyone agrees with every point of it it but I for found it very interesting.
I especially found the point about gargantuan creatures useful since the issue hasn’t really been relevant to me until the craftworld eldar codex came out. I hadn’t considered what impact the unit type change of the wraithknight would have besides the obvious Feel No Pain and Stomp change.
After reading the rules as well as the many comments here I lean towards AB’s interpretation, but I can see the argument for going the other way.
I don’t see gargantuan creatures shooting rule directly overruling the monstrous creature shooting rule, other than saying that however many shooting attacks a particular gargantuan might be able to make, it may divide these amongst several targets, leaving an opening should a gargantuan creature at some point come with a special rule allowing it to fire more than two weapons. At least that’s my takeaway from reading rules.
Once again, thanks for the article and also thanks to all the people who have contributed in the comments.
Yeah. A lot of complaining all over the place about rule changes and modifications. Funny thing is, AP was absolutely hounding anyone that questioned changes regarding the most recent LVO. A little of the ole pot calling the kettle black, sprinkled with a little hypocrisy. Where’d you guys find this wanker-troll anyways…
So… this is probably a stupid question because no one else asked… but can someone explain #3? Longtime Eldar player that just got the Codex… the wording here is confusing to me.
I’m sorry… just read Fortune in the new book. Re-rolling Deny The Witch is a new trick! Neat!
I read the GC and MC rules last night a few times. I have to agree with AP here as far as what is firm RAW;but honestly either interpretation can reasonably come out of reading the rules.
On what basis?
Clearly you can’t fire each of the model’s weapons at different targets, if you can’t fire each of the models weapons. Ergo the GC rule overrides the MC rule. If they wanted to restrict it to two, you would expect a reasonable rules writer to refer to that fact. Perhaps by instead saying “each of the weapons the model can fire this round, may be assigned a different target” or similar.
Do you think that the GC rule allows you to override the limitation of not firing while locked in combat? Do you think it allows you to override the limitation of not firing blasts/templates when snap shooting? Do you think it allows you to ignore the limitation of not firing at a target out of range?
It is not a blanket permission to ignore all other limitations on the unit, it is a permission to ignore a single limitation (“all weapons must fire at the same target”) that the unit would otherwise have. It still has to abide by the usual shooting rules for its type, including the rule that prevents it from firing more than one weapon.
My thought process went:
a. Blanket 40k rule- units not allowed to fire at multiple targets
b. MC specific rule- unit is allowed to fire up to two ranged weapons.
The GC ruling states that “[GC] may fire “each” of its weapons at a different target if desired…” The rule explicitly overcomes a., but does not explicitly overcome b.
Each can be interpreted as “each of the weapons it has” or “each of the weapons it is allowed to fire.” Since the writer has gone out of his way to be explicit about a, but has not been explicit about b., My strict interpretation is that this isn’t allowed.
It’s a real grey area for me, but that is how I would ultimately decide what the RAW are.
The text should have been written “[GC] can fire all of it’s weapons, and may target a different unit with each weapon it files,” OR “[GC] is allowed to fire his second weapon at a different target from his first weapon, if he has multiple weapons to fire.”
As a brit reading these rules, as with most of the rules issues that arise, I really don’t ‘get’ your interpretations.
I feel therefore that this must be an American thing…
The use of ‘each’ in no way imply a numerical value, it just means however many there are, inclusively.
“each of us”.
“each and everyone of us”
“each day”
“each and every day”
The rule states you can only fire 2 weapons.
The exception states each of those of weapons can fire at different targets. So in this case, 2.
It does not say, ‘each of those’ at all. It says: ‘each and every weapon’, to carry on with your examples.
The RULE says, ‘fire two weapons’ (note that it doesn’t say, ‘only’ two weapons, as firing two weapons is a privilege, not a restriction). The EXCEPTION says, again, in accordance with your example, ‘fire each and every weapon’.
Firing two weapons is both an allowance AND a restriction. It allows you to fire up to two, but not more than two.