Argueing the point to a social group.

Is anyone else having problems explaining that Laser Lock weapons doesnt twin link other laser lock weapons?
I was arguing the other day with 5 people, all eldar players, and eventually I convinced one guy and he joined my side, another went neutral. Still how do you get it through to people?

I grabbed dice and rolled with the wording then set them aside noting they were the scatter las. Then I rolled with the wording again for the remaining weapons that benefit from it just to show the order of what its saying and how its saying it. These people are grown men not children.

Generally when I argue with people and im right there is already an established acceptance amongst players of certain rules that clearly say otherwise (not the vague stuff). Im not sure if they are resistant or just dont want to admit they were wrong.

Anyway, any tips on how to over come that?

Tell them to read the laser lock rules that are not in the summary (the ones in the summary are incomplete). The laser lock rules in the main section of the book are clearer (page 62).

Quote :

roll to hit with the weapon(s) with the laser lock special rule first. If the laser lock weapon(s) cause one or more hits, treat all weapons on the same model yet to fire this phase as being twinlinked for the rest of the phase.

Notice that GW added the (s) specifically to explain how the rule works for multiple weapons with the laser lock rule. Unfortunatly in the summary at the back of the book the (s) has been omitted. Your gaming group will not be able to refute this version of the rules, as they are perfectly clear that laserlock weapons do not affect other laser lock weapons as they are fired first at the same time, and only the weapons yet to fire are twinlinked.

Hope that helps.

I agree that the RAI is presumably to fire all laser lock weapons first and at the same time, then all other weapons, but I don't think the (s) in the rules clinches anything here. The (s) merely allows that you may have multiple laser lock weapons, but it doesn't say that they all fire at the same time.

Yes it does, because the sentence is intended to cover situations where you have either one or two such weapons. Separate it out and you'll see it's explicitly clear.

One weapon: roll to hit with the weapon with laser lock first. If the laser lock weapon causes one or more hits, treat all weapons on the model yet to fire as twin linked. Crystal clear yes?

Two weapons: roll to hit with the weapons with laser lock first. If the laser lock weapons cause one or more hits, treat all weapons on the model yet to fire as twin linked. There really is no wriggle room there, you roll all the weapons with laser lock first, at the same time, then any weapons still to fire (ie, those without the laser lock rule, since those with have all already fired) count as twin linked if the laser lock weapons scored at least one hit.

It really is as clear as it can be, and I can't fathom how anyone tries to argue otherwise, for once, the rule as it is written cannot be logically interpreted any way other than as intended (unless of course you think the background to this forum is white...)

It's not?

To add my voice to the crowd:

Quote :

If a model is firing with one or more weapons with [the laser lock] special rule  ...  roll to hit with the weapon(s) with the laser lock special rule first.

i.e. if a weapon has the laser lock rule, it rolls first, and if it doesn't it rolls second.

In terms of explaining it to a group, aside from pointing out the full rule on p62 as Mush said I can't see how it can still be being misunderstood. It doesn't say, roll for one weapon with the laser lock rule, and then the rest, it says that if a weapon has the laser lock rule it rolls. All of the scatter lasers have the rule, therefore they all roll.

Essentially you're splitting the roll to hit part of the shooting into two phases:

Phase 1 - Check to see if a weapon has the laser lock rule, if so, it rolls. Repeat with all weapons until all weapons have either rolled, or been found not to have the rule.

then, assuming hits:
Phase 2 - Remaining weapons (i.e. those that did not roll in phase 1 (and consequently do not have the laser lock special rule (and so by definition cannot be scatter lasers))) roll as twin linked.

Mushkilla wrote:

The laser lock rules in the main section of the book are clearer (page 62).

Notice that GW added the (s) specifically to explain how the rule works for multiple weapons with the laser lock rule. Unfortunatly in the summary at the back of the book the (s) has been omitted. Your gaming group will not be able to refute this version of the rules, as they are perfectly clear that laserlock weapons do not affect other laser lock weapons as they are fired first at the same time, and only the weapons yet to fire are twinlinked.

Hope that helps.

That was the page I was arguing to the point to it. They had no good come back and they were saying that it not using the word simultaneously and that there is only one Laser Lock weapon so the (s) could mean anything and so on and so forth which weren't good arguments in the first place.

The crazy thing is that they aren't even the ones that I heard that from first. That's from another gaming group that games at the same spot that are meta gamer's and half of them play Eldar. I don't want to go around and argue with everyone, I just want to keep it friendly so maybe ill just not say anything (don't think I can do that) till they figure it out for themselves.

Its funny how some people know all the rules but when it comes to their army or game they are playing suddenly they don't know anything. For example one of the players I played about 6 months ago is a meta gamer that played Guard. I told him that he cannot fire in turn one because of night fighting and that I was not within his range so he cannot use the lights. Then he had the nerve to say, "Okay, whatever, so then ill fire at the corner then to turn them on." I actually believed him because I was only playing for 3 months prior to that game and look to him for help on the rules and still do to this day. Hes the type of guy to twist rules in his favor (though he has never won a tournament) and many other players do that, that are competitive and hes from another gamer group. All these groups talk to each other. I got so fed up that I didn't know who to listen to anymore that's why I come to this site regularly.

In response to Ollelta, yeah I did that and pretty much spelled it out for them with the dice phase by phase.

Mushkilla wrote:

Hope that helps.

It helps in the way that I know im not crazy for being the only one arguing a point that everyone else is looking at me like im crazy. But the fact the argument went on so long, and we were not playing a game, they may have some understanding. I hope.

This basically comes down to some people willfully misinterpreting the rules to their own advantage. There really is no ambiguity whatsoever in the laser lock rules. For once, they are crystal clear.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Two weapons: roll to hit with the weapons with laser lock first. [...] There really is no wriggle room there, you roll all the weapons with laser lock first, at the same time [...] It really is as clear as it can be

I've italicised the bit that's not in the RAW but which you added to make it clearer. I think the fact that you needed to add that in explanation shows that the rule could indeed have been written more clearly, to allow absolutely no wriggle room.

As I said to begin with, I agree that what's written makes the intention clear enough; my claim was merely that what's written doesn't completely rule out wriggling - that you needed to supplement what's written shows how it could have been clearer.

Ben_S wrote:

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Two weapons: roll to hit with the weapons with laser lock first. [...] There really is no wriggle room there, you roll all the weapons with laser lock first, at the same time [...] It really is as clear as it can be

I've italicised the bit that's not in the RAW but which you added to make it clearer. I think the fact that you needed to add that in explanation shows that the rule could indeed have been written more clearly, to allow absolutely no wriggle room.

As I said to begin with, I agree that what's written makes the intention clear enough; my claim was merely that what's written doesn't completely rule out wriggling - that you needed to supplement what's written shows how it could have been clearer.

This is the rule precisely as written with the sole exception that I have removed the brackets around the s's.

Quote :

If a model is firing one or more weapons with this special rule and also one or more other weapons, roll To Hit with the weapons with the laser lock special rule first. If the laser lock weapons cause one or more hits, treat all weapons on the same model yet to fire this phase as being twin-linked.

There is no ambiguity there. Sorry to be blunt but anyone attempting to fire more than one laser lock weapon on the same model and claiming them to be twin-linked after the first weapon has fired either has such a poor grasp of the English language that they should not be playing a game that involves a 156 page rulebook (plus codexes) or they are attempting to cheat.

Ben_S wrote:

but it doesn't say that they all fire at the same time.

This is the rule written without the brackets around the s.

Quote :

roll to hit with the weapons with the laser lock special rule first. If the laser lock weapons cause one or more hits, treat all weapons on the same model yet to fire this phase as being twinlinked for the rest of the phase.

What is ambiguous about the bolded text?

EDIT: Ninjaed by the count!

Ben_S wrote:

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Two weapons: roll to hit with the weapons with laser lock first. [...] There really is no wriggle room there, you roll all the weapons with laser lock first, at the same time [...] It really is as clear as it can be

I've italicised the bit that's not in the RAW but which you added to make it clearer. I think the fact that you needed to add that in explanation shows that the rule could indeed have been written more clearly, to allow absolutely no wriggle room.

As I said to begin with, I agree that what's written makes the intention clear enough; my claim was merely that what's written doesn't completely rule out wriggling - that you needed to supplement what's written shows how it could have been clearer.

Here's a definition for you.
First: being before all others with respect to time, order, rank, importance, etc.

The text you highlighted in italics simply cuts down time by suggesting all the dice are rolled together, it doesn't affect the interpretation of the rule at all. Even if you roll the multiple laser lock weapons individually, the rule doesn't allow you to twin link anything until the laser lock weapons have fired, because by definition all the laser lock weapons fire first, and other weapons fire second.

I appreciate that you seem to suggest you'd play the rule as the rest of us are stating, but by arguing that there's room for misinterpretation you're actually just giving credence to the point of view you disagree with.

Yes, first means before all others; but it doesn't necessarily mean that the things done 'first' must be done simultaneously.

Suppose I describe my morning routine as follows: 'first I shave and shower, then I eat my breakfast'. It doesn't imply that I must shave and shower at the same time, only that I do both before eating (i.e. before all else). Similarly, so long as one fires all laser lock weapons before firing non-laser lock weapons, then one has indeed fired them first, i.e. before all others (which was your definition of 'first').

Now, I didn't simply suggest that I think this is the wrong interpretation - I explicitly said as much. We're agreed on that, just not on whether the rules as written are "perfectly clear" or "as clear as can be", given that they don't explicitly say that all laser lock weapons are to be fired simultaneously.

So, the point of disagreement isn't even whether other interpretations are somewhat plausible, but whether other wordings would be clearer, and that's so immaterial to the original question that I don't propose to carry on arguing the point. I don't see why it matters so much to you to insist that the rule couldn't have been made clearer though, given that the rule has apparently been misinterpreted.

If a model is firing one or more weapons with this special rule and also one or more other weapons, roll To Hit with the weapon(s) with the laser lock special rule first.

So this bit at the start only permits you to use the laser lock rule if you are firing at least one laser lock weapon and at least one other weapon. Without that condition being satisfied, they cannot use the rest of the rule - yes?

So in order to do what they want to do (i.e. twin-linking a scatter laser), they have to have a model capable of firing two separate scatter lasers and at least one other weapon. But looking through the codex, I see no model capable of doing that!

Wraithknights & wraithlords can have two scatter lasers, but if they fire both, they cannot fire their other weapons since MC can only fire two weapons.

So doesn't that provide a watertight argument? You don't even have to have the stupid 'it doesn't say you fire them at the same time' discussion.