|
Post by jemminids on Nov 22, 2014 22:37:02 GMT
go read the rules on the unit as printed in the BL download. there is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever how they work. You're just saying 'no you're wrong' though, aren't you? You're not giving any reasons. I quoted the wording of the rule, and explained how it's ambiguous. The rule refers to the weapon firing automatically, but, unlike its cousin, Automated Fire, it fails to clarify whether it's the range and LOS of the gun or the model that you use. I fail to see the point in pretending an unclear rule is clear. Or the point in pretending it's clear that one ought to fall back on the MC firing rules, when the new rule seems to supersede them, and the MC is not described as firing at all.
|
|
|
Post by daboarder on Nov 22, 2014 22:39:21 GMT
oh god, dude just NO. its actualy really clear, because weapons dont fire on non-vehicle units. But go away dude Obviously you're wrong about that, because automated fire describes how weapons fire automatically, on buildings (not vehicles), and instinctive Fire is clearly modeled on it, using almost identical wording. have you read the building rules mate? because they are basically immobile vehicles. albiet with a few quircks. and no, the tyrrannocyte isn't a building incase you didn't notice
|
|
|
Post by nameless on Nov 22, 2014 22:41:06 GMT
That's not the one he's referring too. He's talking about an editor's note in the White Dwarf. By the printed rules, all guns fire on the same target and at the closest unit in base-to-base until which time they make an FAQ to add firing arcs for MCs. We've had this conversation elsewhere, of course, but no, sorry. Just no. By the printed rules, it's currently unclear how the guns fire, and how the range and LOS work, until it's FAQed. To assume that you resolve the issue the way you're saying is no more and no less making it up as you go along than any other resolution. And this is not dependent (contrary to what daboarder says) on whether you accept the WD editor's note as a rule - it's just a matter of the unclear wording of the instinctive Fire rule itself. Compare: Instinctive fire rule wording: "Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight." Automated fire rule wording, BRB: "...each emplaced weapon... automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight of the weapon." The difference between these rules is just that the second is clear whose range and LOS is being used. In instinctive fire, it's not specified. Maybe they'll resolve it the way you describe. Until then, though, it's pointless pretending you're not just making it up as you go along doing it the way you claim is RAW. There's no way of resolving it without an FAQ that isn't just filling in the blanks. And it's no use trying to say that, because the tyrannocyte is an MC, the MC firing rules apply. Instinctive Fire seems to replace the normal MC rules altogether, because it talks about the weapons firing automatically, in contrast to the model firing normally. RAW, your assumption about the rule has no more or less support than anyone else's (though it is obviously far less plausible RAI). Lacing in the MC firing rules to fill in the blank in IF is not RAW - it's just choosing a rule you like off the shelf. It doesn't matter how similar it's worded to something else. Tyrannocytes are MCs, full stop. Not buildings or vehicles. I'm not making anything up here. It really pisses me off when someone continuously tries to claim I'm cheating or making things up. I'm reading the rules, putting them together as logic dictates and then resolving the rule. I'm an engineer. That's how I think. There is no bias added in. If something by RAW isn't unfavorable, that's the way I'll do that too. And if the BAO FAQ is updated to go by your interpretation, then I'll follow that as well.
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Nov 22, 2014 23:01:52 GMT
go read the rules on the unit as printed in the BL download. there is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever how they work. You're just saying 'no you're wrong' though, aren't you? You're not giving any reasons. I quoted the wording of the rule, and explained how it's ambiguous. The rule refers to the weapon firing automatically, but, unlike its cousin, Automated Fire, it fails to clarify whether it's the range and LOS of the gun or the model that you use. I fail to see the point in pretending an unclear rule is clear. Or the point in pretending it's clear that one ought to fall back on the MC firing rules, when the new rule seems to supersede them, and the MC is not described as firing at all. i'm telling you you're wrong because i've read the rules. the automated fire rules have zero to do with how you run an MC, regardless of how they may or may not be similar.
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Nov 22, 2014 23:36:52 GMT
Here is the problem... the writing of the rules makes no sense. Meaning, because of how the rules work, it makes no sense to write the IF rules the way they did.
Yes, following the written rules, it works just like Daboarder and Giga et al say it does. But the point is, if that was the designers intent... then it makes no sense to write the rules the way they did.... Why not just say it has 5 guns and be done with it?
So there *is* a valid case to be made that the designers wrote the rules that way for a *reason*..... It isn't a big leap to discern that the reason could be for the guns on the Cyte to work the same as the guns on a bastion or Vengeance Battery.
In a way, it is the same issue I have with the Witchfire discussion. Why would the designers say you have to roll To Hit, if there is no game reason for it? Why would the designers say each weapon fires at the nearest enemy, if there is no game reason for it?
I just find it interesting that the same people pick the opposite sides of the two situations....
|
|
|
Post by jemminids on Nov 22, 2014 23:39:30 GMT
look, it's irrelevant that the tyrannocytes isn't a vehicle or a building unit type. The point is that it comes with a rule that purports to describe how the weapons (not model) fire automatically. Unfortunately the rule doesn't describe it fully. But how you run an MC normally is not clearly relevant, given that the wording refers to the weapons, not the MC, firing, and ends by saying that the weapons cannot fire in any other way, which arguably means 'don't use any other rule but this one when firing'. Just I gnoring these words won't do if you're going to claim to be following RAW. You have to give some other explanation of what they mean.
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Nov 22, 2014 23:39:57 GMT
the only thing the rules for IF let you do is shoot at two (or more) things if there are two (or more) units exactly equidistant from the spore. if they meant it to work another way, it would have been real nice for them to have included that in the rules.
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Nov 22, 2014 23:50:52 GMT
the only thing the rules for IF let you do is shoot at two (or more) things if there are two (or more) units exactly equidistant from the spore. if they meant it to work another way, it would have been real nice for them to have included that in the rules. C'mon.... you can't be serious here. Yes, I agree that the rules, as written, work out that way. But you must see the problem. If that was the designers *intent* for how the rules worked... there is no way they write the IF rules the way they did. Why write the IF rules at all? Just say it can fire all 5 guns... done.
|
|
|
Post by jemminids on Nov 23, 2014 0:01:31 GMT
the only thing the rules for IF let you do is shoot at two (or more) things if there are two (or more) units exactly equidistant from the spore. if they meant it to work another way, it would have been real nice for them to have included that in the rules. C'mon.... you can't be serious here. Yes, I agree that the rules, as written, work out that way. But you must see the problem. If that was the designers *intent* for how the rules worked... there is no way they write the IF rules the way they did. Why write the IF rules at all? Just say it can fire all 5 guns... done. IMHO the RAW do not work out that way, because they refer to the gun firing, not the model, so seem to render the normal MC rules inapplicable. It seems irrelevant to me what the MC rules would tell you to do when you have a rule here that seems to tell you not to use them (weapons fire automatically, not model, and weapons can't fire any other way). So I think it's a mistake to represent this as a RAW vs RAI issue. But meh.
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Nov 23, 2014 0:05:33 GMT
no no, i understand it's stupid. it's hardly the only stupid rule. try to use a template weapon the way it's written in the rules. now try to actually use it on something in a ruin. not possible, like, physically. which is why no one does this: it breaks the game.
in this case, yes it's dumb and sure i can see how maybe they meant it to shoot w/e sometime during the development process. however, that's not what they actually wrote and it doesn't break the game.
|
|
|
Post by daboarder on Nov 23, 2014 0:07:00 GMT
C'mon.... you can't be serious here. Yes, I agree that the rules, as written, work out that way. But you must see the problem. If that was the designers *intent* for how the rules worked... there is no way they write the IF rules the way they did. Why write the IF rules at all? Just say it can fire all 5 guns... done. IMHO the RAW do not work out that way, because they refer to the gun firing, not the model, and you do this how? Guns dont have a BS, stop making up rules
|
|
|
Post by nameless on Nov 23, 2014 0:08:38 GMT
the only thing the rules for IF let you do is shoot at two (or more) things if there are two (or more) units exactly equidistant from the spore. if they meant it to work another way, it would have been real nice for them to have included that in the rules. C'mon.... you can't be serious here. Yes, I agree that the rules, as written, work out that way. But you must see the problem. If that was the designers *intent* for how the rules worked... there is no way they write the IF rules the way they did. Why write the IF rules at all? Just say it can fire all 5 guns... done. It's a slippery slope to go down that route. First tyrannocyte, then next thing you'll know, you'll have people saying there are 225° fire arcs for wave serpents. Just kidding. Something came up today on the local page, where someone asked about DS skimmers. The rules for skimmer says that they move out of the way if they end their move on top of models. So someone said that it means that the skimmer wouldn't mishap. I told them that, yes, because DS only counts as moving, it doesn't actually move. Now, following your train of thought from above, I could say 'Why did they put that rule in the skimmer section?, they must have intended it to work with DS because otherwise it doesn't really need to be there.'
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Nov 23, 2014 0:09:02 GMT
^this is a gigantic can of worms. do not go there lol
|
|
|
Post by jemminids on Nov 23, 2014 0:19:03 GMT
IMHO the RAW do not work out that way, because they refer to the gun firing, not the model, and you do this how? Guns dont have a BS, stop making up rules That would be a problem for me if I was saying the rule is totally clear. But that's your implausible position, not mine. I say the rule is incomplete/unclear. Im not making up anything - I'm pointing to the exact wording. You seem determined to ignore it. Ok, but don't claim to be some kind of RAW diehard then. Again: the rule is unclear, and there's no point pretending otherwise. And since your reading is not unquestionably RAW, but is certainly not RAI, it seems the worst of both worlds to me.
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Nov 23, 2014 0:22:16 GMT
wut
|
|