Blasts and Razorwing Jetfighter

I believe it is pretty self evident that it is per dice, not per weapon.
Lets take a Wyvern.
4d6 shots. If a unit was 6-10 models, this rule would not even effect it, but add 1 more person, just ONE more and WHAM! 24 Shots!
Why? because it states

Quote :

Always make maximum number of attacks against units of 11+ models.

So one person would mean the difference of 20 potential shots, or 9 blast reaver shots, or even 9 battle cannon shots from a Leeman Russ.
No one I have seen or heard yet plays it as per weapon.
Why is this rule in the game? It is to prevent the Horde of orks camping on an objective, impossible to move off since turn 1, guaranteeing the orks a victory. We all know that this edition it is all about jumping on objectives early and holding them. It will be impossible to win otherwise! This rule is the antidote to horde armies winning every game, hands down.

Just my opinion, and I am sticking to it until GW tells me otherwise.

Again, I believe that the RAW and RAI was to be "per weapon", but the community has largely decided that it is "per dice".

At this point, its all but assured to be "per dice", if GW ever decides to respond to this issue

PS: Funny how quickly we start to expect fast responses from GW these days. It really wasnt long ago that we would go entire editions without a Codex/FAQ/etc. First world problems, eh

Skulnbonz wrote:

No one I have seen or heard yet plays it as per weapon.
.

Except of course most of the people who have replied to this thread...

That said.  Your wyvrn example is a good one of how skewed this is in terms of how it could play out in the extreme example of number of shots.

But it is also true even if you were right.    Take the same wyvrn and you're firing at a squad of 5 guys.   Your number of shots is fully random,  then you add just 1 guy and all of a sudden wham, that jumps up to a minimum of 12 shots.

fisheyes wrote:

Again, I believe that the RAW and RAI was to be "per weapon", but the community has largely decided that it is "per dice".

Their intention is a moot point until they FAQ it, but out of curiosity, how do you conclude the RAI is per weapon? They conjugate the verb as you would if referring exclusively to a singular die, and only give a single die weapon example.

Assuming that they meant to use "dice" in the plural sense, but accidentally conjugated the verb in a singular sense is a bit of a leap, no?

I don't presume to know what they meant, but there's nothing to indicate they realized that multiple dice weapons exist.

sekac wrote:

fisheyes wrote:

Again, I believe that the RAW and RAI was to be "per weapon", but the community has largely decided that it is "per dice".

Their intention is a moot point until they FAQ it, but out of curiosity, how do you conclude the RAI is per weapon? They conjugate the verb as you would if referring exclusively to a singular die, and only give a single die weapon example.

Assuming that they meant to use "dice" in the plural sense, but accidentally conjugated the verb in a singular sense is a bit of a leap, no?

I don't presume to know what they meant, but there's nothing to indicate they realized that multiple dice weapons exist.

GW always use DICE even if they are talking about 1 die

dumpeal wrote:

sekac wrote:

fisheyes wrote:

Again, I believe that the RAW and RAI was to be "per weapon", but the community has largely decided that it is "per dice".

Their intention is a moot point until they FAQ it, but out of curiosity, how do you conclude the RAI is per weapon? They conjugate the verb as you would if referring exclusively to a singular die, and only give a single die weapon example.

Assuming that they meant to use "dice" in the plural sense, but accidentally conjugated the verb in a singular sense is a bit of a leap, no?

I don't presume to know what they meant, but there's nothing to indicate they realized that multiple dice weapons exist.

GW always use DICE even if they are talking about 1 die

I'm aware. The word "dice" tells us nothing. How it's used in the sentence is the indicator. They conjugated the verb "resultS. The S on the end indicates they are using "dice" in a singular sense. Meaning they wrote the sentence only thinking of attacks that roll a single D6.

Did they consider weapons that roll more than one die? If so, there is absolutely no indication of that.

The thing is, the bit that define how the rule works is the first sentence (If a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, it always makes a minimum of 3 attacks). The "So, if" part is an explanation of the rule with a random attacks weapons (the funny thing is that, RAW, Blast is not limited to random attacks weapons...), not the rule, and it's followed by an example.

Remove the "So, if" part: how does blast works?

Garion wrote:

The thing is, the bit that define how the rule works is the first sentence (If a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, it always makes a minimum of 3 attacks). The "So, if" part is an explanation of the rule with a random attacks weapons (the funny thing is that, RAW, Blast is not limited to random attacks weapons...), not the rule, and it's followed by an example.

Remove the "So, if" part: how does blast works?

Yeah, the more I think about this the more it seems very obvious to me that the rule is on a per weapon basis. Maybe it wasn't their intention, maybe it was, but the rule as written is actually very clear about this.

Garion wrote:

The thing is, the bit that define how the rule works is the first sentence (If a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, it always makes a minimum of 3 attacks). The "So, if" part is an explanation of the rule with a random attacks weapons (the funny thing is that, RAW, Blast is not limited to random attacks weapons...), not the rule, and it's followed by an example.

Remove the "So, if" part: how does blast works?

Nobody is seriously disputing the rules as written. You can keep making the point that the RAW interpretation is clear, but no matter how many times you do, we will continue to be in the exact same same spot.

Many of us just have doubts that the way it's written is also the way they intended it to work.

We won't get an answer to that until GW weighs in. There is no amount of explaining how clearly written the rule is that gets us any closer to understanding their intention.

THAT is the debate.

Toward the "yes, they considered multi-dice weapons" camp, I could tell you that on the live stream about blast weapons, Stuart Black used a 3D3 weapon as an example (in this particular case he was talking abount the 11+ side of Blast)

As a question, have we decided that wording of the bullet points isn't relevant then? As that seemed to be the clearest indication of meaning to me at least.

PartridgeKing wrote:

As a question, have we decided that wording of the bullet points isn't relevant then? As that seemed to be the clearest indication of meaning to me at least.

Well, yes. Again. RAW=per weapon. The bullet points also point to that being the correct way to play it until GW clarifies.

RAW would be to do minimum 3 per weapon whether or not the bullets existed, so in that sense, they're irrelevant. The RAI question comes up because of their lack of specificity with the word "dice". Since they stick to the plural form, the ONLY grammatical indication of which one they mean (their intent), is the conjugation of the verb and that indicates singular.

While I would love to use the bullet points to clarify, "Minimum three attacks against units with 6+ models" isn't even a complete sentence. We can't use a fragment that doesn't adhere to basic sentence structure to divine grammatical intent.

To me, it's only a further indication that they forgot weapons such as these exist.

sekac wrote:

To me, it's only a further indication that they forgot weapons such as these exist.

Now this is a statement I can get behind.

I also feel that this is why a FAQ has not been released. They are still unsure themselves what to do.
Per weapon is too weak. Per dice may be too strong (as the wyvern example shows)
I think they may be plugging their ears and closing their eyes, hoping that the gaming community answers it for them, then they will swoop in and say "of course that is what we meant all along!"

Not a bad policy, but a frustrating one.

Hell, almost all of 9th is just the ITC missions and rules changes. they had the community fix their problems.

So... they just put out an errata.
Anyone want to guess which rule they did not make clear?
Anyone? Bueller?

They added an example for a 2D3 weapon...

It's min 3 PER WEAPON.

Case closed

Skulnbonz wrote:

So... they just put out an errata.
Anyone want to guess which rule they did not make clear?
Anyone? Bueller?

They clarified it in the designer's commentary.

missed that.
Glad they addressed it.

Yes, kinda the nail in the coffin for the RWJF, IMHO.

But a good buff to units that like to be in the 6-10 model range like Grots. Seems like they tried to give some buffs to those poor primaris space marines, and we just got some of the splash-over XD

fisheyes wrote:

Yes, kinda the nail in the coffin for the RWJF, IMHO.

But a good buff to units that like to be in the 6-10 model range like Grots. Seems like they tried to give some buffs to those poor primaris space marines, and we just got some of the splash-over XD

Already playing 8 of them. Yes, they're pretty good.