Shooting with a Tyrannocyte

[remcoow]

Something I tought of:

Isn't firing the 5 guns on a Tyrannocyte time consuming? The way I read it:

The Tyrannocyte has five guns.
Each gun shoots at the closest target.
Since only vehicles measure ranges from guns, the range should be measured from the base (MC rules)

So far so good right?

But now for the obnoxious part:
Shouldn't you need to fire every gun one by one? (roll to hit, roll to wound, save).
Because if, lets say, the third gun kills the unit, another unit becomes closest, and the 4th and 5th gun need to target this new unit.

This also means that with the blast weapons, models might be removed from the first blast. And subsequent blasts have less models to hit.  

Now imagine having 2 or 3 Tyrannocytes in your list.... mega time consuming.

[N.I.B.]

As it works now, all shots from a particular weapon type goes into a pool. If all shots are from the same weapon type (like Deathspitters) and the same unit, they are resolved at the same time.

[remcoow]

Normally, you would be right, but the rules read:

Instinctive Fire:
Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range and line of sight.
The shots are resolved at the end of the Shooting phase before Morale checks are taken.
Each weapon can fire at a different target unit, but they cannot be fired in any other way or at any other time.

So how can you fire at different targets using your method? You can't.
And you can't pick another target as long as another (the initial target) is closer.

So I read as this as:
Shoot guns one by one until closest target is destroyed (or all 5 guns have been fired)
Target destroyed before the last weapon is fired? Pick new closest target.

[Threeshades]

it makes a little more sense than the "measure from every weapon individually" approach but still. The rules don't state that you have to shoot them one by one.

[roughjnick]

Unfortunately despite a couple of long threads previously there is no concensus on how this should work. As with a lot of things there are different ways to interpret the rules. Best bet for the moment is to agree with your opponent how you think it should work and then stick to that.

[dcoy]

RAI you draw line of sight from each weapon. RAW you fire all 5 at the closest target.

[gigasnail]

i'd have to argue RAI, you fire all 5 at the closest target, with the ability to fire at multiple targets if you have two or more equidistant, because that's what the rules tell you to do.

[hiveminded]

Dec 18, 2014 2:03:37 GMT dcoy said:

RAI you draw line of sight from each weapon. RAW you fire all 5 at the closest target.

So if using these RAI rules, can the line of site from each gun travel through the Tyrannocyte model? There aren't any rules for MCs having arcs of fire. 

It gets pretty confusing pretty quick. Think I'm just going to keep playing it that they all fire at the unit closest to the model's base. 

[N.I.B.]

Yes, LOS can be drawn straight through the model, exactly like infantry/MC's has done it since forever. No change here.

RAI - you measure range from each gun. In ~95% of the times, the same enemy unit will be closest to all five weapons. In rare situations, some weapons will have a different enemy unit closer than the other weapons. This is something you will be able to decide in all cases (because you can move the egg before shooting) except the turn you deepstrike.
All weapons with the same target share the same pool and fire simultaneously, so there can never be a case when casualties suddenly gives the egg a new target.

This is how it'll be ruled in most Swedish tournaments, so I don't need to bother with RAW.

[Davor]

Prove rai please. I would love to see the email, PDF, video or audio recording from the authors that this is what they intended.

[coredump]

Dude, we can't even get them to put out decent RAW, what makes you think they will ever put out RAI info...

I can make a pretty good case showing what the RAI must have been, (or at least what it likely wasn't) Unfortunately, that still doesn't change the way the rules are actually written.

[N.I.B.]

Dec 19, 2014 3:16:44 GMT Davor said:

Prove rai please

lol

If RAI would be abled to be proved, it would be RAW.

[Davor]

Finally access to a computer. Was on an iPad, so hard to type out what you really want. I shouldn't have commented in the first place since I couldn't get my point across in the first place. Sorry, I was tired wanted to say something at the time but didn't get my point across.

I find it funny people bring up RAI. To me, when anyone brings up RAI, to me, they have failed to be able to prove something so now have to use some other explanation to justify their opinion without accepting to be wrong. Once proven wrong by what is written in the rules, then another excuse is made hence RAI is the way to go.

So I go on further. Anyone wants to bring in RAI, prove it. Funny again it can't be proven, so not only is a person trying to say they are correct without actual proof or when proven wrong they still keep on going by making up facts that can't be proven as well.

As N.I.B has said, if it can be proven it would be RAW and then RAI would never have to be brought up.

As Coredump said, he can mention RAI as well but it still doesn't mean anything because as he said, it will not change anything as the way it was written.

So why would anyone bring up RAI in the first place then? If you can't prove your point without RAI, you can't prove your point with RAI either. All it does in my opinion is detract on the actual rules, and instead the person is now not trying to say he opinion is correct but now that that person is not wrong.

[tarrasque]

RAI is important when rules are poorly written, but the spirit of the rule is clear, for example; the pyrovore. The intent is fairly clear, but as written, it does something very different.

[gigasnail]

The pyrovore is one of the few hard RAI/RAW conflicts you'll find, along with template weapons in general. Most of the rest of the time it's people being derp.