|
Post by frozenfood on Aug 27, 2017 16:09:14 GMT
Guys relax, I asked a question and got my answer. Some other guys play it differently. No sweat. We must unite against the true enemy: justin bieber fans!
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 27, 2017 16:17:26 GMT
@ avatarofbugman: I have no problem with adding own ideas. 1 As I said a couple of times before, if people agree to play it differently, be my guest. But that is not the issue here. We can assume that questions about rules are first and foremost about the official rules - not house rules. That distinction sometimes gets blurred, and, because they always played according to house rules, some seem to assume that their house rules are official rules. I fail to see where any ambiguity regarding PF & SA could come from p.51. As you yourself say, you can do that, you do not have to. As the title of the side text itself indicates: it is just a way of "Fast Dicing Rolls in Close Combat," and can therefore have no effect on any rules. But that discussion is better held in a separate thread. Perhaps you could point out which parts of gregwarhamster's argument (relevant to the issue) you think I ignored, and I will address them. If refuting an argument is an attack, I guess, I am guilty as charged. That said, I will try to be less blunt about it. On a more general note, it might perhaps be useful, if I compile a "Rules Lawyers Rulebook," where the basic principles of my approach to rules interpretation are laid out. @ gregwarhamster: In all examples, shooting would not be resolved at 12", but simply at the position the charging unit is at. In the first example (charge 18"), therefore, all shooting is resolved with the longe range modifier. In all examples, you state "no other modifiers apply (dwarf crafted)", which is misleading. The S&S modifier does not apply for dwarf crafted ranged weapons, but other modifiers (cover) could apply (depending on the situation). Some might call this nitpicking, but it is precisely that kind of inaccurate wording (among other things) that has led to superfluous rules discussions in the past. The rest seems to be correct. 1. As an Attorney-at-RAW, I would like to point out that it says on p 3: "Your job isn't just to fellow the rules, it's also to add your aim ideas and sense of fun to the game." Your job is not just to follow the rules, but follow the rules you do...
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Aug 27, 2017 17:22:28 GMT
I feel that by calling his fanatic example irrelevant you in essence ignore his point. He was using it to point out that there are many instances where things are done out of sequence, not that it was the same situation as S&S. it is by using the term irrelevant, without showing why, that you appear to be ignoring portions of the argument. The fast dice rolling does not state anything about different ranks not being included, which one could point out as adding ambiguity. I see the main rule, but the sidebar clouds things, which is ironic because they mean for them to clear things up. The biggest issue I have with your argument is the generalized statement that the only reason people misread the rules is that they didn't like it. People have read those two paragraphs on S&S and came to the conclusion that it happened at the shortest range. There were so many posts about this when the rules first came out, and it was remarkably on this side of the debate. These rules were not written by lawyers, but by people not unlike us, who occasionally separate paragraphs when we didn't mean to and combine them when we shouldn't. In the end it is about your group. By the way, when I was writing about the two paragraphs in the S&S section my phone tried to convert the word "two" to "twerk"đ. FvonSigmaringen don't take anything I am saying with malice. Forums suck at showing tone of voice and disposition.
|
|
|
Post by gregwarhamsters on Aug 27, 2017 18:47:22 GMT
@ gregwarhamster: In all examples, you state "no other modifiers apply (dwarf crafted)", which is misleading. My example was not meant to mislead so if it did then my apologies, my intent was not to confuse the reader with additional rules such as multiple shots and cover but to make it as simple as possible to understand. I omitted to state the dwarves were facing the oncoming cavalry, I didnât think it necessary to say so as it was implied in the scenario. Did I need to list every detail and variant? I can do in future if it makes it easier, maybe picking Dwarves that didnât suffer the stand and shoot reaction wasnât the best choice â but itâs an army Iâve played and am familiar with so know the rules Iâve been using for the past umpteen years. I used Empire in the Poll as they will suffer stand and shoot reactions. Regards Greg
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 29, 2017 9:19:17 GMT
I feel that by calling his fanatic example irrelevant you in essence ignore his point. He was using it to point out that there are many instances where things are done out of sequence, not that it was the same situation as S&S. it is by using the term irrelevant, without showing why, that you appear to be ignoring portions of the argument. The example of the fanatics would obvioulsy have been relevant, if the discussion had been about things done out of sequence â but sequencing was neither disputed, nor is it in any way relevant for the issue under discussion: how to resolve shooting during S&S. Therefore, the example is irrelevant too for the issue under discussion. The same applies to: An optional method to facilitate actual dice rolling has no relevance whatsoever on PF (or any other rule, for that matter). If there would be a choice between equally valid interpretations, factors like practical expediency or fluff can help you to decide on a personal preference, but otherwise they have no value in a rules discussion. I never claimed dislike was the âonlyâ reason, nor did I claim it to be applicable on the issue of S&S. It's not â people just glossed over âagainst an enemy etc.â or failed to appreciate its consequences. However, in my experience, dislike is certainly one of the major reasons to look for ambiguity and/or conflict, where there is none. While this is true, it is still the case that the authors are trying to express their intent by what they wrote. The fact that they do indeed sometimes make mistakes, and/or write unclear rules does not provide a blank check to question a priori any written rule as not accurately reflecting the intent. There are indeed rules that are unclear. There are rules that are clear, but not playable ( e.g. Tiktaqâtoâs Mask of Heavens). In these cases, one has no other option than to resort to intent. But if the rule is clearly written and playable, there is no reason to contest it on the grounds of intent. In such discussions, many seem to mistake their own intent for the authorâs intent â which, usually, we have no way of knowing, other than through the written rule. And even if you are convinced that the rule-as-written does not accurately reflect the intent, the proper procedure in this case should still be to play it as written, unless and until there is an Update version that says otherwise. As I have said many times before: if you and your opponent agree to play it differently and use a house rule, that is perfectly fine - but it remains a house rule. Donât worry: I always apply Hanlonâs razor. Just joking, of course. I never assume either in someone who disagrees with me, nor can I myself see anything in this thread to suggest their presence. There is nothing wrong with saying that something or someone is wrong - as long as it is backed up with arguments.
|
|
|
Post by vintageof79 on Aug 29, 2017 15:05:34 GMT
I had meant to reply to this topic earlier but unfortunately suffered a terrible bout of procrastination. Now that I am over the worst of it (although I fear it is a lifelong condition), I thought I would give my own rule interpretation. First, however, for reference here is the whole paragraph - I realise that parts of it have been quoted previously but believe it would be beneficial to quote all of it for immediate reference (P17):
A Stand and Shoot reaction can be declared against an enemy unit that starts its charge outside the firing unit's maximum range - the shooting is resolved normally assuming the enemy is just within maximum range of the shooting unit's shortest-ranged weapon. If the charge fails, for whatever reason, we assume that the chargers closed to within the weapons' maximum range before being driven off.
The part in bold is where the bone of contention lies I believe. Gregwarhamster and FvonSigmaringen have both proposed differing interpretations of the rules. To summarise (and please correct me if I am wrong gentlemen), the former argued that if the Stand and Shoot reaction involved weapons with two different ranges, even within the charge range of one weapon, the reaction would take place at the maximum distance of the unit's shortest ranged weapon. FvonSigmaringen argued that because the unit was within charge range of one weapon, then the above rule would not apply.
I must admit first that I have always played the former, and it took me a moment to realise exactly what FvonSigmaringen was saying. So I reread the rules (then reread them again) and found I would agree with him but for one thing. Under the Fast Dice Rolling section (P41) When a unit of models fires, all of its weapons are fired together. The response is considered to be (P17) normal, although out of sequence, shooting attack against the charging unit. In my eyes, this means that the unit does not fire until everyone can fire, thus in the case of crossbows and pistol, and a charge range of between (typically, but not exclusively) >12" and <22", the point where everyone fires is 12" and therefore under half-range for the crossbows. If the crossbows fired immediately at 18", which is one potential interpretation of FvonSigmaringen's argument, then the pistols cannot fire as there would be two rounds of shooting - against the rules. Of course you could argue that the rule still does not apply but then it makes no logical sense. Either way I think unfortunately there is a little bit of RAW vs RAI here, despite claims to the contrary, as there is a valid argument for both sides.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 29, 2017 16:05:32 GMT
I would rather identify the bone of contention as the first part, not the part in bold. The question is whether "against an enemy unit that starts its charge outside the firing unit's maximum range" does or does not limit the part in bold. I have not seen yet an argument based in any written rule to support that it does not. Regarding the argument "all of its weapons are fired together," this is meant in game, not fluff terms. Side texts offer practical advice, in this case about how to roll the Hit dice. As you yourself indicate, it is the shooting pendant to the Fast Dice Rolling option in CC avatarofbugman referred to for Predatory Fighter. As I wrote in my previous post (apparently with great foresight ): "An optional method to facilitate actual dice rolling has no relevance whatsoever on PF (or any other rule, for that matter). If there would be a choice between equally valid interpretations, factors like practical expediency or fluff can help you to decide on a personal preference, but otherwise they have no value in a rules discussion." To add: If it had any rules significance regarding range & how to resolve shooting, the logical conclusion would mean that in the normal shooting phase, the maximum range of a unit would also be reduced to its shortest range weapon, because only then all of its weapons could shoot together. So, a Crossbowmen unit (30") with a character and pistol (12") would never be able to shoot at anything further than 12"!
|
|
|
Post by gregwarhamsters on Aug 29, 2017 20:15:14 GMT
So, a Crossbowmen unit (30") with a character and pistol (12") would never be able to shoot at anything further than 12"! In the same vein then you have a bow armed unit that only the front rank is in range of anything. As the other weapons are out of range does that stop the units front rank firing? Greg
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 29, 2017 20:52:20 GMT
Exactly. The sentence "all of its weapons are fired together" simply means that the Hit dice of a unit are (in principle) rolled at the same time, and the rest of the side text explains how it can be done. My last comment was a reductio ad absurdum of the idea that the line may be significant for range and resolving S&S. Side texts offer practical advice - they do not add anything to the rules. How to roll Hit dice is both optional and irrelevant for the interpretation of any rule.
|
|
|
Post by vintageof79 on Aug 29, 2017 21:18:01 GMT
Just to refer back to one of your first explanations of the Stand and Shoot reaction:
The difference with normal shooting attacks is that models can even shoot when the target is not in range â it is now assumed to be in range (BRB p.39). If the charger at that position is further away than half the weapon's maximum range, that weapon will suffer a -1 shooting modifier for long range (in addition to all other modifiers).
And your previous post:
The question is whether "against an enemy unit that starts its charge outside the firing unit's maximum range" does or does not limit the part in bold. I have not seen yet an argument based in any written rule to support that it does not.
You are assuming that the two clauses are connected. Unfortunately the use of a em dash allows for multiple interpretations of the sentence. If the writers intention was to place a restrictive modifier on the first part, you would then be correct as the sentences would be linked and one would follow from the other. But the use of an em dash (as a replacement for a semicolon) allows for ambiguity, it allows for two independent clauses to connect related ideas. This could then mean that the shooting for all stand and shoot reactions happens within the maximum range of the shooting unit's shortest-ranged weapon (irrespective of where the charge started): the second statement is not dependent on the first. Combined with the rules I have already stated, this is my interpretation, and others although perhaps for not quite the same reason. Hence, I also stand by my claim that there is a little RAI vs RAW, as the RAW CAN have several different meanings.
Regarding the argument "all of its weapons are fired together," this is meant in game, not fluff terms. Side texts offer practical advice, in this case about how to roll the Hit dice.
For the most part I would agree, but this section not only offers the rationale behind why the dice are rolled together (i.e. it is 'faster') it also makes a rules statement as you quoted, hence my argument given all the factors involved in a Stand and Shoot. This point was offered as a rule, not fluff, as it gave clear instruction and the reasoning for it. Edit: Part (v) To clarify rules along the way you will find both illustrative diagrams and helpful side notes with practical advice scattered throughout the book.
If it had any rules significance regarding range & how to resolve shooting, the logical conclusion would mean that in the normal shooting phase, the maximum range of a unit would also be reduced to its shortest range weapon, because only then all of its weapons could shoot together. So, a Crossbowmen unit (30") with a character and pistol (12") would never be able to shoot at anything further than 12"!
Fortunately they do not, as we are told that the Stand and Shoot reaction is an exception to the range rule. In normal circumstances hopefully it would be obvious the pistol could not fire as it was out of range!
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 29, 2017 22:52:57 GMT
1. I am not "assuming" the two clauses are connected: they are connected â both are in the very same sentence. See what I did there with the dash? Because to quote the Oxford English Dictionary: "a single dash is used to introduce an explanation or expansion of what comes before it." And just to top it off: in the French version, it is not a dash, but a colon.
2. In the final sentence, your reasoning is flawed. If the line "all of its weapons are fired together" were a rules statement, it is either patently incorrect, or it would also apply to normal shooting (and thus a Crossbowmen unit with a character and pistol would never be able to shoot at anything further than 12"). Indeed, in your own reasoning and by your own admission, S&S would be an exception to that rule (so they can shoot, while normally they could not). You cannot have your cake and eat it.
3. In any case, side texts clarify a rule - they do not introduce new rules. If the line were a rules statement, this statement would also be found somewhere in the actual rules. It should not come as a surprise that it is not.
|
|
|
Post by vintageof79 on Aug 30, 2017 10:57:52 GMT
Firstly, I had forgotten how nice it is to have a good technical discussion without rancour, vitriol or any other unpleasantness edging its way in . My thanks for that. You argue very well and I had forgotten how precise one has to be in these discussions, as I will show in a shortly. 1. I will refer to the online 'Oxford Living Dictionary' ( link), which states: There are two main occasions on which a dash can be used, usually in informal writing: [2nd occasion] to show other kinds of break in a sentence where a comma, semicolon, or colon would be traditionally used. I believe AvatarofBugman alluded to use of informal language in GW's rule books. It would have been better if the writers had used a colon: it would be definitive. In terms of the French version this is a more difficult argument to overcome and if I am honest, I do not know enough about the process of how GW translates its book or have a deep enough understanding of the French language and associated grammar/punctuation. If the book was translated via computer, then the dash is automatically translated into a colon; I believe the rule quoted above has no place in French grammar. It then becomes a question of intent and boils down to RAW vs RAI (which, I know will not sit well with you); did the editor notice it? I wonder if there were other issues between language editions of WFB and associated rule books? I digress however, but returning to the subject we are discussing the English language (original?) version and as such the argument I presented is equally valid as your response, which I had already noted could be the case. 2. Yes you are correct with my reasoning. I did not manage to accurately convey my thoughts and assumed (and assuming makes an ass out of you and me) that you would follow the line of reasoning that I had in my head, indeed, why should you (I put this down to lack of practice ). I will rephrase: all weapons that can be fired, are fired together (taking into account range, line of sight etc.). This rule is implicit because if a weapon cannot fire, then it does not and every time all the weapons in a unit that can be fired are fired at once. The only exception to this is the Stand and Shoot reaction when all the weapons (that can shoot in response to a charge) are fired irrespective of range. 3. Yes, you are right it does not introduce new laws, but it certainly clarifies point 2.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 30, 2017 14:47:38 GMT
There is no internationally authoritative version of the BRB. Rex in suo regno imperator. Each version is authoritative in its own language. On several occasions, the French BRB has shown itself more accurate than the English. For instance, as I pointed out in another thread, the French version did not need an Erratum for the free pivot of war machines, contrary to the English version. That said, this is a designer's intent we can all agree on: all versions are exactly the same game. There is no reason to assume that the French colon is not the correct translation of the English dash. Indeed, the burden of proof is on those who would deny it. From the website you linked: - Comma: A comma marks a slight break between different parts of a sentence. Used properly, commas make the meaning of sentences clear by grouping and separating words, phrases, and clauses.
- Semicolon: The main task of the semicolon is to mark a break that is stronger than a comma but not as final as a full stop. Itâs used between two main clauses that balance each other and are too closely linked to be made into separate sentences, as in these two examples
- Colon: between two main clauses in cases where the second clause explains or follows from the first
I note that you left out the example for the dash: "Tommy can't wait for Christmasâhe's very excited." What do you think the dash is expressing here? But whether comma, semicolon, colon or dash, it all boils to the same thing: the only time when shooting within the maximum range of the shooting unit's shortest-ranged is mentioned, it is connected to an enemy charging outside the firing unitâs maximum range. You may well say that you think it was intended to apply to the previous paragraphs, but you cannot point to anything in the rules. If that had been the intent, it could have been easily written somewhere in this or the previous paragraphs. Quod non. Now to the side text. You may rephrase what you want, but that is not what the line actually says. Here is the full text: - Fast Dice Rolling
When a unit of models fires, all of its weapons are fired together, so you should ideally roll all of its To Hit dice at the same time. Sometimes there will be different weapons firing, firers with a different BS or firers subject to different shooting modifiers. In this case, you'll find it easiest to use different coloured dice, so that those shots can be picked out. This most commonly crops up where some (but not all) of a shooting unit has the target at long range - I simply roll white dice for the short range shots, and red dice for those shots subject to the long range modifier. I always find red dice to be luckier (I'm not sure why) so I save them for trickier rolls if there's a choice.
This is a side text to the main text of page 41. The side text gives practical advice on how to roll dice. Now, what is the first part supposed to be clarifying in the main text on page 41? Nothing. Certainly not S&S (which is 24 pages earlier, on page 17). And if taken as a normative rule, which, to repeat, is nowhere found elsewhere in the main text (because it is superfluous), it is patently false as it stands. To make it work, it needs your extensive rephrasing, but if a clarification has to be clarified, it is hardly a clarification in the first place, is it? If one, as I do, interprets that "fire" refers to "make a shooting attack," or even "Roll to Hit," there is no problem. If one has to rely on an unclear line in a completely unrelated side text, it seems fair to conclude that this is clutching at straws. We have already commented on the substantive parallel between the Fast Dice Rolling side texts on p. 41 and p. 51. It seems we can add another, functional parallel: as straws to be clutched.
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Aug 30, 2017 14:54:58 GMT
I started to skim read this thread, got confused and now can no longer remember who is arguing for what side As far as I ever knew in the instance of XBows & Pistols... they would all roll their S&S reaction @ 12" wouldn't they. I.e the max range of the pistol.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 30, 2017 15:52:05 GMT
The rules only mention it against an enemy unit that starts its charge outside the firing unit's maximum range. Some argue that this is intended to apply to all S&S. However, if that had been the intent, then the designers could easily (& should) have written that. They did not, and there is no reason to suppose that that was not their intent.
|
|