8th Ed. Only one shot per model - uh oh.

[Sleboda]

I've just had a rather unfortunate rules discovery that was prompted by a discussion on another topic in another forum.

It seems that all our monsters with multiple skinks on them are allowed to only fire a single shot, no matter how many skinks are present or what other weapons may be there. The same thing applies to the two giant blowpipes on a Steg.

The rules allow for each "model" to fire one ranged weapon. Our monster rules even go so far as to specify that the beasts and the skinks riding them are to be treated as just one model.

Crap.

 

[sorrowquin]

That's just wrong bullshit interpretation of the rules...

No idea why people make up discussions out of this, must have too much spare time!
If it was intended like this, why give them weapons in the first place?

 

[godswearhats]

Under Stegadon in the Lizardmen book it says that the crew use their own BS when making shooting attacks. It also says "instead of shooting with another weapon, one of the crew may shoot the giant bow".

I think the point is that the Stegadon is treated a single model with special rules for hitting the crew, not that it's a single model that can only shoot once.
~gwh

 

[hdctambien]

I think the point is that the Stegadon is treated a single model with special rules for hitting the crew, not that it's a single model that can only shoot once.

I agree with this interpretation. The "treated as one model" rules (Howdah Crew, Monstrous Cav) are for "incoming attacks" but each piece of a Monster & Crew get their own outgoing attacks as if they were their own models (in both Shooting and Hand to Hand).

It's pretty clumsily written, but I think the RAW backs this up as godswearhats says.

 

[Sleboda]

The thing is, regardless of the additional specifications presented in the rules for the Steg and others, the _fact_ is that a Stegadon and its crew (and the others like it) are just one model. No matter how you slice it, no matter how you want to assign rules to its sections, it is one singular model. One base. One thing. One model.

The rules for shooting say a "model" can only shoot with one of its weapons.

Sure, the rules say that skinks firing the bow/pipes cannot shoot their javelins. Great. Thats' redundant, not permission to have the others fire.

 

[PlasmaDavid]

There is, of course, a certain point where rules-lawyering with poorly worded rules destroys the spirit and for-fun purpose of the game

 

[Arli]

I agree about the rules lawyering. Just because someone wants to pick apart the rule doesn't mean that it is the correct interpretation of the rule. By that same logic, only one model would be able to respond in a close combat attack.

At some point, you just have to give in to the ridiculousness of the argument.

This type of stuff really pushes people away from the game because there is no fun in an argument about this.

 

[Lizardmatt]

The thing is, regardless of the additional specifications presented in the rules for the Steg and others, the _fact_ is that a Stegadon and its crew (and the others like it) are just one model. No matter how you slice it, no matter how you want to assign rules to its sections, it is one singular model. One base. One thing. One model.

The rules for shooting say a "model" can only shoot with one of its weapons.

Sure, the rules say that skinks firing the bow/pipes cannot shoot their javelins. Great. Thats' redundant, not permission to have the others fire.

This is general vs specific. A character riding a dragon is one model, one thing, one base. But the more specific rules take precedent over the general shooting rules.

-Matt

 

[rychek]

I've just had a rather unfortunate rules discovery that was prompted by a discussion on another topic in another forum.

It seems that all our monsters with multiple skinks on them are allowed to only fire a single shot, no matter how many skinks are present or what other weapons may be there. The same thing applies to the two giant blowpipes on a Steg.

The rules allow for each "model" to fire one ranged weapon. Our monster rules even go so far as to specify that the beasts and the skinks riding them are to be treated as just one model.

Crap.

Out of general curiosity, what was the topic of the discussion and which forum was it in?

 

[Sleboda]

[This is general vs specific. A character riding a dragon is one model, one thing, one base. But the more specific rules take precedent over the general shooting rules.

=> I understand what you are saying, but that is not actually a rule in Warhammer.

The two instances where a rule beats another rule are when Advanced Rules in the BRB conflict with Basic Rules in the BRB and when Special Rules conflict.

It's important to understand what is and is not a conflict.

In order for there to be a conflict, the two rules have to state opposite things.

For instance:

"You may never eat a cookie before 5pm."
"With permission from your mother, you may eat a cookie, even if it is before 5pm."

That's a conflict. If your mother allowed it, you could eat a cookie before 5pm because of the direct conflict.

"You may never eat a cookie before 5pm."
"Your mother may give you permission to eat a cookie."

Well, if it's before 5pm, mom's permission means diddly.


These shooting instances are not creating conflicts.

There is, of course, a certain point where rules-lawyering with poorly worded rules destroys the spirit and for-fun purpose of the game

=> Perhaps, but I look at it from another angle. Does it not also destroy the game when my opponent has the rules on his side, can point to them in the book, and I decide to arbitrarily play it my own way anyway?

I always try to have a rational discussion over rules, but if I am in a game and my opponent wishes to disallow my actions based on the rules and can show me that the rules are in his favor, I'm going to concede the point to him.

In this case, if my opponent pointed to the shooting rule and told me I could only fire one Giant Blowpipe, I would have no choice but to acknowledge that he is correct and fire only one.

Would I impose this on a foe? Probably not, but that's not the point. The point is my opponent has the right to expect me to follow the rules, especially when he can support his view using them and I cannot support mine in the same manner. It's just good sportsmanship.

@rycheck -
It was over on The Warhammer Forum in a discussion about shooting two weapons on a Soulgrinder.


Incidentally, this is why GW's discontinuation of FAQs is so troubling. Even rules I am convinced are meant to be played one way must be played "incorrectly" at times if I am to maintain the level of fairness I prefer.

 

[Demelain]

From the Faq.

Q: Can a monster and its rider both shoot in the same shooting
phase? (p105)

A: Yes. Additionally, if there are multiple riders they can
each shoot

That should put this to rest.

Demelain

 

[Sleboda]

Indeed it does. Thanks. Missed that one when I looked. Doh!

 

[Didymus]

You would seriously play it like this and enforce it upon others if it wasn't in the faq?

 

[VampTeddy]

You would seriously play it like this and enforce it upon others if it wasn't in the faq?

He would follow the rules.

It's the rest of us that are "cheating" tbh.

I'd let them shoot to, isn't that - but there is a point in going by the book in many cases - this might not be a golden example, but you gotta be careful on where you cross the line that is the rules.

 

[Sleboda]

You would seriously play it like this and enforce it upon others if it wasn't in the faq?

=> I can see now, between this post and the one you made on the WYSIWYG topic, that you REALLY don't like to let what someone has posted get in the way of trying to poke/insult/attack them, do you?

Not that I expect you to actually read anything, but here's what I've already said, about that specific point, just a few posts above. Please do try to set down the shiny object, let go of the beverage, ignore your Facebook updates, and so on for just the few moments it will take to read this:

I always try to have a rational discussion over rules, but if I am in a game and my opponent wishes to disallow my actions based on the rules and can show me that the rules are in his favor, I'm going to concede the point to him.

In this case, if my opponent pointed to the shooting rule and told me I could only fire one Giant Blowpipe, I would have no choice but to acknowledge that he is correct and fire only one.

Would I impose this on a foe? Probably not, but that's not the point. The point is my opponent has the right to expect me to follow the rules, especially when he can support his view using them and I cannot support mine in the same manner. It's just good sportsmanship.

Note to others: Just like in the WYSIWYG post, I want to be clear that my derisive tone is specifically directed at this individual poster. I don't want anyone else here to expect that I would treat them with the same level of disdain. It's just that some people don't want to read nice things and acknowledge them, so I wanted to try to bypass the questionable reading skills our anonymous friend here and use a style of writing which he seems to be able to comprehend.

 

[Didymus]

Something like that shouldn't even be discussed tbh. Everyone knows that, for example, a stegadon could fire multiple weapons. IF someone started acting up about what's basicly a glitch in the rules, you slap him and tell him to behave.

 

[sorrowquin]

Something like that shouldn't even be discussed tbh. IF someone started acting up about what's basicly a glitch in the rules, you slap him and tell him to behave.

this ^^

 

[Ondjage]

Pfffft.. I think it is an interesting observation, and I am glad there was a FAQ to be found about it. Happy new years.

 

[serekth]

Note to others: Just like in the WYSIWYG post, I want to be clear that my derisive tone is specifically directed at this individual poster. I don't want anyone else here to expect that I would treat them with the same level of disdain. It's just that some people don't want to read nice things and acknowledge them, so I wanted to try to bypass the questionable reading skills our anonymous friend here and use a style of writing which he seems to be able to comprehend.

Just don't respond. Responding, even condescendingly, won't make things better. It actually makes things worse.