How Many weapon can you fire from a razorwing?

Psylynt wrote:

Your justification is that the rule referenced under Fast specifically states that it can snap fire the rest of the shots. That rule was already there. The ONLY important rule was that it fires 2 at full BS. We already have the rule that the rest fire at snap shots. The flyer rule is 1 paragraph long and only states that you get to fire 4 weapons at full BS, that is the only part of a moving vehicle rule that is changed from the base rule. The snap shot rule still is there.

Not true at all - every type of vehicle is very specific in how it affects the vehicle. Why repeat the snap shots section of the rule for every other type but omit it from flyers if it was the norm? We have a specific rule over riding a general rule - you don't get to pick and choose parts of the rules because you want to.

Psylynt wrote:

Play how you like, you are just wrong.

This I object to - not because I can play how I like but because you are trying to pick a fight. Saying I am "Just Wrong" because you don't agree is petulant and childish.

Psylynt wrote:

Permissive rule was found and explained. Find the restriction. no where does it state that flyers cannot fire snapshots. Flyers are vehicles, they use vehicle rules. This is how the game works from GW standpoint.

Wrong - permission to fire snap shots is no where to be seen in the flyer rules - show me where that is and I will concede. Specific rules (flyer) over ride general rules (core vehicles)

Psylynt wrote:

Base rules always are in affect thin of them rule A
Flyers rules are always in affect in addition to rule A. So think of them as A.1

When referring to rules you always use the base rule first, then look at the addendum for the unit type.
Vehicles are relentless and to further depict this the rules are wrote to reflect this and then some.

Page number for that at all? Specific always over rides general. Flyer is more specific than the core rules and thus you use them rather than the core rules.

Psylynt wrote:

I stated this before the rule has no restrictive language in it. It only enhances the rule that is already in place for vehicles.

Huh? Now we are enhancing things? I don't get that at all. The rules don't need restrictive language - you need permission to do things in any game (not just 40k) rather than what you can't do and you have none for snap shots under the specific flyer rules.

This will go round in circles I think...

If you can show me (with page numbers and actual references) where it says under flyers you can snap shot I will agree. Otherwise you can play it how ever you like

Absolutely no where in the rule book does it state that unit type rules, like flyers, totally ignore the core rules, like for all vehicles, unless specific language is given that has restrictive language that would in some cases state that some part of that core rule is invalid for that unit.

Again, the permission IS given. There is RESTRICTIVE language through out the entire rule book, but none in the flyer section regarding snapshots.

I can list literally hundreds of rules with restrictive language where you cannot do a certain action.

This is how the rule book works. Core rules are the rule. Advanced rules can either add to , or take away from those rules, by the language given. If there is only additive language, then you keep all the core rule plus the advanced rule. If there is restrictive language, you follow the restrictions. If there are both, you do both, in reference to the core rule.

Additive rules are like , Rending or Rage, they add to the core rules, they do not replace. Restrictive rules are like Slow and Purposeful, which has both restrictive and additive language.

I do not care if you think i am being rude or childish. You are wrong, but play how ya like. Like the first rule in the book, if you disagree with the player across the table, roll the dice, and keep playing.

Not to get off topic; when you fire the missles at a target of let's say 15 gaunts, can you change which guy you are targeting in that same group with each missles? Also, can you change targets altogether if the first few missiles destroy that target altogether?

Nariaklizhar wrote:

Not to get off topic; when you fire the missles at a target of let's say 15 gaunts, can you change which guy you are targeting in that same group with each missles? Also, can you change targets altogether if the first few missiles destroy that target altogether?

In essence, yes and no - you are required to place the template so that it covers the maximum number of models (I think, it's definitely like that for templates, I've not checked for blasts) but if more than one model results in the same number of hits then there's no reason you can't place over a different model.

You can't however then target a different unit with other missiles or weapons if you've completely destroyed the first target (unless you're a super heavy flyer of course, but then you're a dirty cheesemonger with more money than sense )

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Nariaklizhar wrote:

Not to get off topic; when you fire the missles at a target of let's say 15 gaunts, can you change which guy you are targeting in that same group with each missles? Also, can you change targets altogether if the first few missiles destroy that target altogether?

In essence, yes and no - you are required to place the template so that it covers the maximum number of models (I think, it's definitely like that for templates, I've not checked for blasts) but if more than one model results in the same number of hits then there's no reason you can't place over a different model.

You can't however then target a different unit with other missiles or weapons if you've completely destroyed the first target (unless you're a super heavy flyer of course, but then you're a dirty cheesemonger with more money than sense )

?

Those missiles shoot simultaneously so you do not remove models between fireing same kaind of missiles. After missiles have been resolved, you remove killed models and may shoot other weapons.

And no there is no rule that requires blast to cover as many models as possible. Its perfectly legal to shoot a single model that happens to be beside Invisible unit next to it while other of the target unit are bunched togetter some inches distant.

Vasara wrote:

?

Those missiles shoot simultaneously so you do not remove models between fireing same kaind of missiles. After missiles have been resolved, you remove killed models and may shoot other weapons.

dont think i suggested you could remove models between firing missiles? my point was that you cant target a separate unit without a special rule that allows you to, such as that granted by super heavies.

Vasara wrote:

And no there is no rule that requires blast to cover as many models as possible. Its perfectly legal to shoot a single model that happens to be beside Invisible unit next to it while other of the target unit are bunched togetter some inches distant.

My bad - that'll teach me to think that GW would have a consistent approach to something!

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Vasara wrote:

?

Those missiles shoot simultaneously so you do not remove models between fireing same kaind of missiles. After missiles have been resolved, you remove killed models and may shoot other weapons.

dont think i suggested you could remove models between firing missiles? my point was that you cant target a separate unit without a special rule that allows you to, such as that granted by super heavies.

Sorry, I read the post you quoted and answered to it. (and not even right to that one )

Count Adhemar wrote:

Psylynt wrote:

I do not care if you think i am being rude or childish.

I however do care if you are rude or childish. Be civil or be elsewhere - Count Adhemar

I was being neither. How is telling someone that they are wrong immature or rude? Seems absurdly adult like to do such a thing as informing a person that he is wrong. It is childish to have your feelings hurt by such a innocuous statement tho.

And what about the person who after being informed of how the rules work and given examples of why his "logic" is wrong continued to act childish by refusing to accept the explanation given. Considering he was about the only person with a dissenting opinion about the rule in the thread, i was trying to educate him on how this game actually works and how to utilize not only that rule but almost every rule in the game.

Count Adhemar wrote:

@Psylynt - Your posting style is rather abrasive and telling a fellow denizen that they are simply wrong when you disagree with their opinion is in breach of rule 4, as is the statement that I quoted where you indicate that you don't give a damn what people think of you. At the moment, this is an informal warning to keep it civil. Let's not escalate it further - Count Adhemar

Funny how i was not the only one who told him he was wrong, but i was the only get the volunteer moderators warning. Sorry If you do not like my posting style, but i was much less abrasive than others on this thread.

I was singled out by you because i am a "unknown", one who has not posted but a few times. True those posts were just the very simplest of questions, to get a feel for the community, so it may look like i would not truly know how this game system operates. Even making posts to seem ignorant of the rules. I assure you, i am qualified to answer any of these questions. And who am i to question the wisdom of such a person who is co-host of podcast after all and a long standing member of this community.

I feel this is truly not a forum or community i want to be apart of due to the fact even my continued reply to you is probably considered a infraction of some sort, or somehow makes you feel disrespected, therefor breaking rule 4, again, somehow.

So therefore i will only lurk in shadows and tisk tisk at the overly polite debates on rules interpretations, which by is what i was doing before this situation came up and i felt compelled to respond and educate our poor man and anyone else reading my post on how to use the rules. My tag is Psylynt after all.

And just to be clear, as a final note, please read your rule 4, you cannot interpret your own rules correctly either.

I reconsider, i will not stay in the shadows, i feel it is best that i part ways with your version of Commorragh, and find other, less vinegarish forums to peruse. Good day.

Psylynt wrote:

And who am i to question the wisdom of such a person who is co-host of podcast after all and a long standing member of this community.  

I have no problem being questioned at all regardless of my own position within the dark city community nor in regards to my podcasting status - both are not relevant to a rules question at all.

I enjoy discussing these sorts of rules questions when the clear cut answer is nowhere to be seen and trying to hash it out to a conclusion.

This question in particular (and your reasoning) is not uncommon in Australia - so much so that our national FAQ document had it added - and at first, was answered exactly like your reply.

After I pointed out the difference in flyer vs fast, they reviewed it and its now changed to reflect the points I have presented. This means nothing for anyone not using this FAQ, in a friendly environment or at a tourney, but I hope at least goes to show that the conclusion you have come to is not necessarily the be all and final answer.

Its a really nice community here and I would hate to see a new member turn away from it off the back of a heated debate.

Water under the bridge and all. We are all here to talk man dollies/toy soldiers... lets keep perspective here.

I have shared my points and wont comment any more - hope to see you again around the forum