Yannari on Warhammer tv now

Lawrence is playing on Warhammer tv right now using Gathering storm 2 right now.

So Nick was there, and he is writing the FAQ for GS2 and they were playing it as if soulburst in the Psychic and shoot, then shoot again in the shooting phase. makes those REVENANT powers much better.

I would imagine that's how it works provided you are in the right 7-14''. Why would it not?

the not is because the rule says you may shoot even if you had already shot this turn. So you could shoot in the psychic phase no problem, but when the shooting phase comes around the rules for shooting say you cannot have already shot this turn. So by RAW you would not be able to shoot in the shooting phase if you shot in any phase before hand.

@Dalamar Mind sharing a page citation for that? As far as I can tell that's a misunderstanding on your part. It may be implied by the Shooting Sequence chart on page 30 but it is not substantitated by any of the actual surrounding rules text, specifically not the Nominate a Unit to Shoot subsection which merely states that the only limitations are units locked in combat, units running, and other game rules or special rules... that is thoroughly explained when it occurs. The table says Choose a unit to shoot that has yet to do so this turn as you're supposed to chug through it for each unit in your army and it's making that differentiation it isn't placing a restriction on who can shoot.

By RAW nothing of the sort. ESPECIALLY not with a distinction for phases because prior to this the only shooting that could happen in a phase prior to the shooting phase is Witchfire and a psyker using a witchfire is explicitly allowed to shoot in the shooting phase, not because that later shooting attack is otherwise against the rules, but because people who don't fully read through the causal chain would suggest it is.

amorrowlyday wrote:

The table says Choose a unit to shoot that has yet to do so this turn

I'm not saying you're wrong in your interpretation, but couldn't someone argue that this quoted section can be interpreted differently, as a limit? I mean, unless I'm missing something(and I could be), the argument that it ISN'T a limit is based on speculating about intent. And any time we have to speculate about intent, there is room for debate, yes?

And if there is room for debate, it needs clarification, particularly in tournament formats.

No because I left out the header section content where it tells you to follow steps 1 through 7 on the chart as a summary that will be explained in detail in later sections. I then cited the only place it came close to suggesting what the they say it does (which is on the table), and then cited were it is explained in detail in the rest of the...chapter?

It's a lot of content so I didn't want to risk citing too much for GW legals opinion. Everything about who can shoot is in it's entirety on page 30. If upon reading the whole page you come to the same conclusion then sure, call for a clarification, but what I care about is their claim about phases which has no basis in reality.

I have the digital version, so page numbers aren't helpful to me, but I've found this in the shooting section:

Rulebook - Shooting Section wrote:

1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.

"Typically, a model can only fire a single shooting weapon in the same phase,
although some models, such as vehicles or monstrous creatures, can shoot two or more.
Once a model has fired its maximum number of weapons, it cannot fire again
that phase."

To me, it actually sounds like it is telling you that you can't nominate a unit to shoot if it has already shot "this turn", for which shooting in the psychic phase due to soulburst would qualify. I'd like to see this clarified just so I don't have to argue against the position that I'm currently playing devil's advocate for. I hope it gets clarified to be the way you're saying.

Does that quote appear there in the digital version? That's TOTALLY different contextually from the print version. Either way if there is any condensing in the digital version then I agree with you about the FAQ.

Until then my argument is going to be short and sweet:

"The table is explicitly a short hand summary and should instead be referred to the expanded sections for actual rules questions per the header

There is no restriction on the number of times a model may shoot in a given turn in the expanded section. The only restrictions on shooting that actually exist in an enforcable rules section only care about phase.

Ergo were it possible to take a soul burst in the shooting phase before shooting that might be illegal but isn't the scenario we are discussing"

I won't be soulburst shooting with units who haven't fired yet in the shooting phase tho.

Yes, everything in the quote is in the digital version. The first part is in the 7 steps, and the second part is further down the page.

I meant in direct linear relationship. Anyway if that's anyones take away from what's actually written on that page an FAQ is probably a good idea.

amorrowlyday wrote:

I meant in direct linear relationship. Anyway if that's anyones take away from what's actually written on that page an FAQ is probably a good idea.

Yeah, it should be FAQed. I mean, the 7 steps are enforceable rules. It's telling you the steps to follow in the phase. No where else does it clearly define this sequence, so if you can ignore that part, you can ignore the entire sequence, doing things in whatever order you like, and we know that you cannot.

Watching parts of that game made me very excited. Reavers did quite a bit if work.

Any other tidbits for those of us who couldn't watch it?

hey I agree, and that is how it was played on warhammer tv. I was just stating the argument that Betray quoted that has been the general consensus on lots of other places. Also to let you know that GW is working on an FAQ right now.

As an aside watching yesterday they had one of the co-creators on for an interview and were talking about the units in the book when some of these questions came in and he said he wouldn't answer because he didn't want to make a wrong judgement and that Nick was working on the FAQ. It seems that GW guys who worked on the book didn't think of all the possible rules interactions. At least that is my interpretation of his reaction to the questions asked.

@Dalamar hopefully we will get an FAQ shortly then to answer some of these questions! Does anyone know if you can watch these videos back anywhere online or are they live one time thing only?

You have to subscribe to twitch to re-watch, but many end up on YouTube regardless.

@Draco many thanks, I'll go check it out

I'm curious as to whether they performed any other actions in-game that would answer other FAQ questions.

I wouldn't necessarily rely on what is, essentially, a 21st century White Dwarf batrep, for accurate rules interpretations.

Count Adhemar wrote:

I wouldn't necessarily rely on what is, essentially, a 21st century White Dwarf batrep, for accurate rules interpretations.

True... but until they release a FAQ, this is all that we have to go on. Plus, if one of the people in the video is actually writing the FAQ, it seems plausible that their rules interpretations might line up better than some of GW's batreps in the past.

Count Adhemar wrote:

I wouldn't necessarily rely on what is, essentially, a 21st century White Dwarf batrep, for accurate rules interpretations.

I think for discerning the way certain rules are intended to function, these are invaluable.

I've not seen the twitch battle but did it actually involve the guy who wrote the rules? If it did, then we have a useful guide to intent. If not, we've possibly got some guys reading the same rules that we've had access to and about which I've just sent off a set of Frequently Asked Questions that was condensed down to a mere 14 questions! Even if we do have the rules guy himself, what he intends the rule to do and what the rule actually says are not necessarily the same thing!

I must have a watch though, just out of curiosity.

If it helps, Lawrence was the one playing Yannari.

The Spider Lawrence who placed at LVO? If so it does the opposite.