|
|
Post by baaderthegreat on Aug 23, 2022 10:31:50 GMT
Hi guys,
there's and enchanted item in the Storm of Magic book, "Fozzrik's Floating Fortress". It's a watchtower that can make a Hover move.
Now... it says there: "[...] the garrisoning player can have it make a Hover move at the end of his Remaining Moves sub-phase - this does not prevent the garrison from shooting Move or Fire weapons."
My question... does the garrison's shooting suffer from -1 because it has moved?
I can think of two answers...
1) No. The Floating Fortress made the move, not the garrison, so there is no -1 penalty for shooting.
2) Yes. If the designers didn't want the garrison to get the -1 modifier, the would have written: "This does not prevent the garrison from shooting Move and Fire weapons, and the garrison is not subject of the -1 modifier for having been moved."
I'd say it's probably 2)... |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 23, 2022 14:15:34 GMT
This was discussed here (second half). On the one hand, there is no specific exemption for the penalty. On the other, there is the Move or Fire special rule (BRB p. 73) specifying: "A weapon with the Move or Fire special rule cannot be fired in the Shooting phase if the model moved earlier in the turn. This even applies if the model in question was forced to move as the result of a spell or other such compulsory action." So, a model with a MoF weapon can never have the penalty for moving and shooting, because if it has moved, it cannot fire; and if it can fire, it has not moved. And if these models are not considered to have moved, neither are other shooting units. |
|
|
|
Post by baaderthegreat on Aug 25, 2022 14:40:02 GMT
Thanks. But that means it still isn't quite clear, right...?
|
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Aug 25, 2022 14:47:42 GMT
Thanks. But that means it still isn't quite clear, right...?
I doubt you will find a definitive answer. Just discuss it with your opponent before the the game. |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 25, 2022 15:45:10 GMT
The logic of the argument is stringent. If it is still not quite clear, it is only because GW does not always adhere to logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by baaderthegreat on Aug 25, 2022 16:01:53 GMT
Of which argument? "There is no specific exemption for the penalty?" Or the other one?
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 25, 2022 16:03:01 GMT
The other one. The first one is not a logical, but an axiomatic argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by baaderthegreat on Aug 25, 2022 16:41:08 GMT
I'm not sure if I can follow that logic. I mean... - "So, a model with a MoF weapon can never have the penalty for moving and shooting, because if it has moved, it cannot fire" I agree. - "and if it can fire, it has not moved" I don't agree in this case, because the Floating Fortress rules formulates an exception: "this does not prevent the garrison from shooting Move or Fire weapons." So, for the Fortress garrison, this rule is lifted. This makes no statement at all about the -1 penalty rule being lifted, which means that it is still in effect (RAW).
Or am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Aug 25, 2022 19:25:00 GMT
I'm not sure if I can follow that logic. I mean... - "So, a model with a MoF weapon can never have the penalty for moving and shooting, because if it has moved, it cannot fire" I agree. - "and if it can fire, it has not moved" I don't agree in this case, because the Floating Fortress rules formulates an exception: "this does not prevent the garrison from shooting Move or Fire weapons." So, for the Fortress garrison, this rule is lifted. This makes no statement at all about the -1 penalty rule being lifted, which means that it is still in effect (RAW).
Or am I missing something?
The problem is the statement, "this does not prevent the garrison from shooting Move or Fire weapons." is not clear enough. It could be either of these... - "this does not prevent the garrison from shooting Move or Fire weapons, as the magic of the Floating Fortress makes the unit count as having not moved when calculating the to hit roll." - "this does not prevent the garrison from shooting Move or Fire weapons, but the unit still counts as having moved when calculating the to hit roll." Without an official FAQ, both are equally valid expansions to the written rule. |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 25, 2022 20:27:12 GMT
I'm not sure if I can follow that logic. I mean... - "So, a model with a MoF weapon can never have the penalty for moving and shooting, because if it has moved, it cannot fire" I agree. - "and if it can fire, it has not moved" I don't agree in this case, because the Floating Fortress rules formulates an exception: "this does not prevent the garrison from shooting Move or Fire weapons." So, for the Fortress garrison, this rule is lifted. This makes no statement at all about the -1 penalty rule being lifted, which means that it is still in effect (RAW).
Or am I missing something?
What thegoat says, although the alternatives are only equally valid, because GW does not always adhere to logic. The MoF rule, as such, is not lifted. "Unless specifically stated otherwise, normal rules apply" works both ways. Mof never can have a penalty for shooting, unless specifically stated otherwise - which is not the case here. Normal BS shooting will have the penalty, unless specifically stated otherwise - which is not the case here either. The most logical explanation is precisely that the Hover move in this case does not count as movement for the purposes of shooting - for all kinds of shooting. That said: GW works in mysterious ways, and if there ever had been an FAQ, they might have decided differently. But since there was not and never will not be an FAQ, I would suggest to follow logic. |
|
:strip_icc()/pic5338276.jpg)
