Gunslinger and Wall of Death

[doom-kitten]

I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but here goes, if I have a model wielding two hand-flamers, they would benefit from Gunslingers as they are pistols. However would the model roll on a single d3 in Overwatch or 2d3 due to having two flame templates? I'm not sure if this has been FAQed by GW and would appreciate some helpa

[Nabterayl]

Gunslinger would not apply to Overwatch, as it specifies that models with two pistols can fire both "in the Shooting phase." Overwatch does not occur in the Shooting phase, clearly - though if there were any doubt, page 21 points out that "An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase)," which I think we have to read as meaning that Overwatch is resolved as a normal shooting attack except that it occurs in the enemy's Assault phase. However, if you did have a single model able to fire two flamers, that model would roll 2d3, as Wall of Death says to inflict d3 hits if "a Template weapon fires Overwatch" - as opposed to, for instance, any Template weapons firing Overwatch.

[evilamericorp]

"An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase)," which I think we have to read as meaning that Overwatch is resolved as a normal shooting attack except that it occurs in the enemy's Assault phase.

If overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attack, why wouldn't you be able to fire two pistols? Of course the gunslinger rule says you can fire them both in the shooting phase, that's when you normally shoot weapons. It's not going to say you can fire them both in the movement phase. The rule doesn't say you can only fire two pistols in the shooting phase. Overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attack, and models armed with two pistols can normally fire them both.

[Nabterayl]

Applying Gunslinger to Overwatch has two consequences that I disagree with:

It reads "All models with two pistols can fire both in the Shooting phase" as having the same meaning as "All models with two pistols can fire both."
It reads "An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase)" as having the same meaning as "An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack."
What, then, are we to make of the phrases "in the Shooting phase" and "albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase?" According to your reading, those phrases don't add anything to the rules in which they appear.

As we lawyers like to say, when interpreting a written rule, we must give meaning to each word if possible and avoid a construction that would render a term surplusage. I know there are people on this board (and presumably elsewhere in the 40K community) who don't hold to that, but ... well, for a variety of reasons, I do.

[Sainhann]

Applying Gunslinger to Overwatch has two consequences that I disagree with:

It reads "All models with two pistols can fire both in the Shooting phase" as having the same meaning as "All models with two pistols can fire both."
It reads "An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase)" as having the same meaning as "An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack."
What, then, are we to make of the phrases "in the Shooting phase" and "albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase?" According to your reading, those phrases don't add anything to the rules in which they appear.

As we lawyers like to say, when interpreting a written rule, we must give meaning to each word if possible and avoid a construction that would render a term surplusage. I know there are people on this board (and presumably elsewhere in the 40K community) who don't hold to that, but ... well, for a variety of reasons, I do.

Quite simple GW is not very good at writing rules.

So we will now have the RAW individuals who will be stating that they can only do that during the shooting phase and that Overwatch is not during the shooting phase so in that case they can only shoot with one pistol.

But I am a RAI Rules as Intended and would allow those models which have two pistol shoot during Overwatch.

Come on not many armies can field models with two pistols and while Gunslingers might sound cool all and all you would be far better off having something that can reach out and touch someone.

[SacredChao]

Quite simple GW is not very good at writing rules.

So we will now have the RAW individuals who will be stating that they can only do that during the shooting phase and that Overwatch is not during the shooting phase so in that case they can only shoot with one pistol.

But I am a RAI Rules as Intended and would allow those models which have two pistol shoot during Overwatch.

Come on not many armies can field models with two pistols and while Gunslingers might sound cool all and all you would be far better off having something that can reach out and touch someone.

The only problem with "Rules as Intended" in some cases is that sometimes the Rules that GW Intended are different than the Rules you Want. :) It is very clear that it says shooting phase, in the same way a Monstrous Creature can only shoot 2 weapons in the shooting phase.

"An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack" Firing 1 Flamer Pistol when you have 2 is still a normal shooting attack. Seems to me utilizing the Gunfighter rule is actually more an exception to being a normal shooting attack than being normal. Most models can only fire one weapon per turn, thus this would be the normal. Just because it's "normal" for a monstrous creature or guy with 2 pistols to fire both weapons, does not mean that is what they mean by "normal shooting attack".

Now this is all very subjective, since GW does not define the word "normal" or "normal shooting attack". So when rules questions hit my gaming group, unless it's unanimous, I play with the most detrimental ruling to me, that way when it's FAQ'd in my favor, it gets better for me :)

[Nabterayl]

But I am a RAI Rules as Intended and would allow those models which have two pistol shoot during Overwatch.
Well ... sure, but is that how you actually read the rule? doom-kitten didn't ask what I would allow :p The question was what the rules say. Like you, and presumably like doom-kitten as well, the way I play isn't governed solely by what the rules say.

So ... I'm curious, what's behind your intuition that GW added "in the Shooting phase" and "albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase" without intending them to affect the sentences in which they appear? Is it the intuition that, if a man or woman can fire two pistols at an enemy who isn't charging him or her, he or she would also be able to fire two pistols at an enemy who is charging? Or do you disagree with me that those phrases mean anything at all?

[OrksOrksOrks]

So, in affect, Gunslinger should say "allows you to make a normal shooting attack with 2 pistols in a single shooting phase", that would clear that up, no?

[Sainhann]

So, in affect, Gunslinger should say "allows you to make a normal shooting attack with 2 pistols in a single shooting phase", that would clear that up, no?

Depends, because there will still be individuals who will question it.

If you want it cleared up it should have stated "Gunslinger if a model has two pistols it can shoot with both of them" no other conditions other than that the model needs to have two pistols. Which for me would mean that it needs to have a pistol in each hand because I am also a WYSIWYG individual as well.

Very few armies can field large units of gunslingers any way.

But because GW is kinda vague when it comes to rules writing you will run into individuals who will see the RAW far differently.

[OrksOrksOrks]

either way, I don't think one extra pistol shot is going to be that important anyway! certainly not enough to get in an in-game argument over! But then, maybe I credit some competitive players with too much spirit. I think as we're supposed to be playing a nice cool cinematic game now, a guy blazing away with his pistols as the horde of slavering monsters closes in to slice him up works nicely and I'd allow anyone to fire both pistols, RAW be dammed.

[Tynskel]

It isn't enough to 'grant meaning' to all phrases. One needs to show precedent of such meaning.

Nabterayl, can you name an examples that are relevant to this case? Possibly both sides of the arguments? It isn't enough to just defend one side, both sides must be explored.

[Nabterayl]

I'd love to, Tynskel, but I'm honestly not sure what you mean. Actual legal precedents showing that is a canon of construction? Or other cases of GW rules where I believe that canon is properly applied?

EDIT: My confusion is how an example can be relevant to the canon. Outside of actual legal practice, where the highest court of your jurisdiction is like 99% likely to have formally adopted the rule against surplusage, whether you believe in the rule or not is just a matter of intuition. Judges have canons of construction because a core part of their job is to interpret rules that were written by committee over a lengthy editing process in cases where the text is unclear - a situation that I think is very similar to interpreting GW rules, which is why I find them applicable. In the case of the rule against surplusage, there are two intuitions it embodies. The first is that rule-makers do not deliberately add words to their rules without intending those rules to have some effect. The second is that even when rule-makers accidentally add extra words to their rules, it is (i) most consistent and (ii) most fair to hold the rule-makers to what they actually wrote. We all know, in law and in gaming, that extra words creep in sometimes. The question is how to fairly and reliably identify those instances. How can you ever prove that something wasn't added deliberately, especially when a rule is the product of more than one person? The rule against surplusage sidesteps that thorny question by saying, "Look, isn't it the fairest and most reliable thing to just hold the rule-writers to what they actually wrote? After all, the only people stopping the rule-writers from just rewriting the rule are the rule-writers themselves."

These are all intuitions I share about both law and 40K. But if somebody else doesn't share those intuitions, unless I can say, "Yeah, but your Supreme Court has said that's the rule," there really isn't any more to the discussion.

And lest we derail the thread, none of this is to say that I necessarily play 100% "by the book;" I don't think anybody here does. But doom-kitten didn't ask for general opinions about how he and his opponents should agree to play. The question was just what the rule actually says; what doom-kitten will do with the answer, who knows?

Or ... Tynskel, did you mean something else?

[Chris*ta]

Applying Gunslinger to Overwatch has two consequences that I disagree with:

It reads "All models with two pistols can fire both in the Shooting phase" as having the same meaning as "All models with two pistols can fire both."
It reads "An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase)" as having the same meaning as "An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack."
What, then, are we to make of the phrases "in the Shooting phase" and "albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase?" According to your reading, those phrases don't add anything to the rules in which they appear.

As we lawyers like to say, when interpreting a written rule, we must give meaning to each word if possible and avoid a construction that would render a term surplusage. I know there are people on this board (and presumably elsewhere in the 40K community) who don't hold to that, but ... well, for a variety of reasons, I do.

I don't want to get all contentious-y and off-topic-y but lawyers should not be trusted in interpreting rules, any more that you should trust GW to write them:
Modern interpretation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #Late_20th_century_commentary

What really happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsMaN7mdSWs

EDIT: Weeell ... y'all were talking about shooting, so I'm going to say on-topic.

[doom-kitten]

Suppose I should have given more info, the unit in question are Seraphim, which are all armed with a pair of pistols and can have two sisters upgraded to carry either a pair of hand-flamers or Melta pistols. So really my question is two fold, if I take a pair of hand-flamers do i receive 2d3 for Wall of Death or 1d3. Also can the regular Seraphim use both pistols in Overwatch potentially gaining 4 melta shots due to a two pairs of Melta pistols? I appreciate whats been said so far but not quite sure how I should take the opinions above and appears I inadvertently started an interesting discussion.

[Tynskel]

that's fine, but you still haven't cited any examples from the rulebooks.

The question is: is this interpretation new, or has there been an established trend from GW in this regard.

[Nabterayl]

I'm still not sure what you mean by "this interpretation." If you mean the rule against surplusage itself, I'm not sure that can be cited since GW has certainly never formally adopted it. I'm sure I can find other topics on which I've clashed with Bean on this issue in the past, though, if looking at the outcome of those questions would be interesting to you. Don't have time to do the search now.

If by "this interpretation" you mean the notion that shooting in the assault phase is different from shooting in the shooting phase, we might find the following observations interesting:

Bikes, which can Overwatch, are permitted to "fire with one weapon for each rider on the Bike" (page 45).
Non-walker vehicles, which cannot Overwatch, are permitted to "fire all of [their] weapons" or "fire a single weapon" depending on whether or not they've moved (page 71).
Walkers, which can Overwatch, are permitted to "fire all of [their] weapons in the subsequent Shooting phase" and "pivot[] in the Shooting phase" when doing so (page 84).
Monstrous Creatures, which can Overwatch, are permitted to "fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase."
As for what this means, though, I think it's possible to argue it both ways. To me (and I think to most judges), the fact that "in the Shooting phase" is not used every time the rules describe an advanced circumstance in which a model can shoot indicates that we are ... if not unjustified, less justified in saying, "Oh, but GW did that by accident" when they do say, "in the Shooting phase." In other words, GW has demonstrated that it is at least capable of referring to shooting without tacking on "in the Shooting phase." If we don't dismiss that phrase, then we can conclude that bikes and stationary walkers are permitted to fire all their weapons in Overwatch but monstrous creatures and gunslingers are not.

On the other hand, one can always say, "Oh, but GW did that by accident," and there's no way to disprove it (especially to people who believe that GW is just bad at writing rules). You can even point to consequences like I just did, where giving meaning to the phrase changes our understanding of the rules, and say, "Well that just proves that GW did it by accident! Why would a walker or bike be able to fire two weapons in Overwatch but a monstrous creature or gunslinger not be able to?" And then we start arguing about fluff, and the argument comes down to whose explanation of "what's really happening" people find most convincing. All of which is fun, but does not answer the question of what the rule actually says.

We might ask ourselves about two of evilamericorp's points:


The rule doesn't say you can only fire two pistols in the shooting phase.
Every so often we come back to this point. While what evilamericorp says is true, it's asking the wrong question. When asking if we can do something in-game, the question needs to be, "What in the rules says I can do this?" If the question we ask instead is, "What in the rules says I can't do this," then we're playing Calvinball. It's the true that the rule doesn't say you can only fire two pistols in the shooting phase. But the relevant question is, "Do the rules say you can fire two pistols other than in the shooting phase?" To that question, evilamericorp suggests:


Overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attack, and models armed with two pistols can normally fire them both.
It is certainly true that "An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on." Plainly, however, an Overwatch attack is not resolved exactly like a normal shooting attack. The very next sentence says, "Unlike a normal shooting attack, Overwatch cannot cause Morale checks or Pinning tests." If somebody said, "Of course I can pin your charging unit with Overwatch; it's resolved like a normal shooting attack," they would plainly be wrong.

Having admitted that the rules write in one exception to Overwatch's status as a "normal" shooting attack, we need to ask ourselves if the rules have written in any others. I've already asked why GW felt the need to add "albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase." In a paragraph that is already contemplating exceptions to Overwatch's "normal" shooting resolution, I think that question is more pointed. In a paragraph that contains exceptions to Overwatch's status as a "normal" shooting attack, is it more reasonable to assume that they wrote "albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase" to indicate another way in which Overwatch is not a normal shooting attack, or is it more reasonable to assume that they wrote that phrase with no rules effect at all? Answer: depends on how strongly you believe that GW is just bad at writing rules.

We might also observe that not all of the cases where GW has said models can fire "in the Shooting phase" are copied and pasted. Consider page 84 of the 6th edition BRB, which states "A walker that moved can still fire all of its weapons in the subsequent Shooting phase" with page 72 of the 5th edition BRB, which states "Walkers can move and fire all of their weapons, just like a stationary vehicle" (emphasis mine). Why the change? If Overwatch is to be resolved as if it takes place in the shooting phase, then the 5th edition wording would have been just fine. It is only if Overwatch is to be resolved as if it takes place in the assault phase that the 6th edition wording is functionally different. So why didn't GW just copy and paste? Is it because they intended the new wording to have a different effect than the old wording would have? Or is it more reasonable to assume that GW changed the wording because, well, they're just bad at writing rules? Personally, I find it hard to hold that belief in a case where GW declined to copy and paste - and where the only consequence of not using the old wording comes if you believe that Overwatch, while a normal shooting attack in most respects, does not take place as if it occurs in the shooting phase.

[Chris*ta]

I still suspect that this is one of those things that needs to be resolved by D6, until it's FAQ'd.

Or has it just been FAQ'd? I haven't searched for this question yet.

[doom-kitten]

I still suspect that this is one of those things that needs to be resolved by D6, until it's FAQ'd.

Or has it just been FAQ'd? I haven't searched for this question yet.

I'm pretty much leaning this way as well, this all seems overly complicated and I'm a bit sorry I asked in the first place.

[Tynskel]

This is what I am talking about. Using the precedents from the rules for interpreting rules.
The page long briefs are wayyyy too long for 3 words.

Here's an example that supports gunslingers not shooting during overwatch.

Q: Can psychic shooting attacks be fired as Snap Shots (assuming that the Psyker has enough Warp Charge available and requires a roll to hit)? (p13) A: Yes, but only in your own Shooting phase. This means that psychic shooting attacks cannot be made when firing Overwatch.

[Chris*ta]

This is what I am talking about. Using the precedents from the rules for interpreting rules.
The page long briefs are wayyyy too long for 3 words.

Here's an example that supports gunslingers not shooting during overwatch.

Q: Can psychic shooting attacks be fired as Snap Shots (assuming that the Psyker has enough Warp Charge available and requires a roll to hit)? (p13) A: Yes, but only in your own Shooting phase. This means that psychic shooting attacks cannot be made when firing Overwatch.

I still don't think this example is close enough to try to draw an analogy. I think the psyker is not allowed to use witchfire powers as overwatch as it would mean psykers can use the powers significantly more often in a player turn than previously -- i.e. it's a fluff-based limitation, meant to limit how psyker's can use their powers.

In the case of gunslingers, we've already given them a whole extra chance to shoot because of their extra pistol and the Gunslingers rule, and Overwatch has given (nearly) everyone an extra chance to shoot, so ...

TL;DR Wait til it's FAQ'd, 'til then, dice off.

[Nabterayl]

Chris*ta, I don't think that makes sense. Witchfire attacks used as Overwatch would still be limited by the fact that warp charge is generated on the psyker's turn only, so the overall rate of use of powers would not increase. Rather, remember that "Witchfire powers are manifested during the Psyker's shooting phaseinstead of firing a weapon" (emphasis mine). The fact that you can't Overwatch with a witchfire power that is manifested during the Shooting phase, even if you have enough warp charge left over to do so, seems to me like further evidence that when the BRB says that something happens in the Shooting phase, it means in the Shooting phase.

If I can make a request, so far the only arguments I've seen in favor of disregarding the wording of Gunslinger is that we should do so because it "makes sense" that Gunslinger should apply to the Assault phase, and we should disregard the plain language of the rule in favor of our intuition because "everybody knows" that "GW is bad at writing rules," and thus could not possibly have meant what it said. In contrast to this we have at least one case where the BRB said something happens in the Shooting phase and GW them FAQed that rule to confirm that no, being able to do it in the Shooting phase does not mean you can do it when shooting in the Assault phase.

Does anybody have an argument in favor of Gunslinging Overwatch that doesn't rely on the RAW not matching their personal view of what Overwatch is supposed to represent?

[Nabterayl]

By the way, I acknowledge that what GW wrote is silly. But it's no sillier than Overwatch in general. Bear in mind that a machine gun manned by an elite commando is four times less likely to hit a mob of orks charging directly at it than it is to hit that same mob of orks when they are a hundred meters distant. For better or worse (and for obvious game balance reasons), GW has decided that Overwatch represents hasty, semi-panicked shots rather than disciplined fire into a foe when he is most vulnerable. Under that rubric, it does not seem to me any MORE ridiculous that psykers don't have the presence of mind to manifest witchfire, or that gunslingers don't have the presence of mind to fire both pistols accurately (or alternatively that they fire only one pistol to keep the other ready for the ensuing melee; after all, reloading in the middle of a melee is not a fun place to be).

[Tynskel]

Yes, this is exactly how I view the rules.
As much as I was originally thought that Gunslinger could be used in Overwatch, the rulebook is entirely consistent that essentially 'special abilities' cannot be used in Overwatch, due to 'panic'.

The real idea I see here is that the 'disciplined' shooting is during your shooting phase-- those orks are already charging towards you, it is just when you can feel the yelling of waaagh in your gut, that you 'lose your nerve', hence Overwatch.

[Xarplo]

And now to throw another kink in the question: What about Frag Cannons? Do the get 1d6 Wall of Death hits, or 2d6? It's an Assault 2 template weapon (the only one that I know of), but WoD says you get 1d6 if it's a template weapon, with no assumption of number of shots.

My two cents on the gunslinger issue: 2d6.

[Nabterayl]

1d3. Wall of Death doesn't say 1d3 hits per template shot, it says 1d3 per template weapon. Surmising that they meant to say 1d3 hits per shot is, as Picard might admonish Riker, speculation.

[Chris*ta]

1d3. Wall of Death doesn't say 1d3 hits per template shot, it says 1d3 per template weapon. Surmising that they meant to say 1d3 hits per shot is, as Picard might admonish Riker, speculation.

I feel like it should be 2d3, but, yeah, suspecting that RAW, pretty much all of this has to go with the more conservative estimates. Which to me really just shows that Overwatch needs some serious FAQing.

On a semi-related note, if psykers only get warp charge in their own turn, what about powers that are meant to be used in the opponent's turn? Isn't there one of those in C:BA?

[Nabterayl]

Warp charge is lost at the end of "the turn," which we're told means game turn unless otherwise specified. That's why the FAQ can ask whether witchfire (a shooting attack that the rules say can be used "during the Psyker's Shooting phase") can be used as Overwatch - it's entirely possible a psyker could have leftover warp charge in his opponent's turn, which he could use to cast spells. But he can't use it to cast witchfire as Overwatch, because you can only manifest witchfire "during the Psyker's Shooting phase."

You can see why Tynskel and I see that as relevant when asking about Gunslinger and Overwatch, which allows you to shoot both pistols "in the Shooting phase." We may disagree with that design decision, but the witchfire ruling is highly probative that when GW says in the Shooting phase, it really means in the Shooting phase.

[evilamericorp]

Warp charge is lost at the end of "the turn," which we're told means game turn unless otherwise specified. That's why the FAQ can ask whether witchfire (a shooting attack that the rules say can be used "during the Psyker's Shooting phase") can be used as Overwatch - it's entirely possible a psyker could have leftover warp charge in his opponent's turn, which he could use to cast spells. But he can't use it to cast witchfire as Overwatch, because you can only manifest witchfire "during the Psyker's Shooting phase."

You can see why Tynskel and I see that as relevant when asking about Gunslinger and Overwatch, which allows you to shoot both pistols "in the Shooting phase." We may disagree with that design decision, but the witchfire ruling is highly probative that when GW says in the Shooting phase, it really means in the Shooting phase.

You've got it backwards. Turn refers to player turn unless otherwise noted (BRB, Pg. 9), and Warp charge is generated every turn (Pg. 66). That's how you are able to activate force weapons and powers like hammerhand on your opponent's turn.

[Nabterayl]

Whoops, thanks for the correction.

[Chris*ta]

You've got it backwards. Turn refers to player turn unless otherwise noted (BRB, Pg. 9), and Warp charge is generated every turn (Pg. 66). That's how you are able to activate force weapons and powers like hammerhand on your opponent's turn.

Meaning your average psyker is more deadly in the opponent's turn than their own, assuming they use a shooty power in your turn, and their force weapon in the opponent's turn. Weird.

More deadly in hand to hand, I meant.

[doom-kitten]

Well, I pretty much feel like a noob right now, I can't really believe I missed the whole 'shooting phase', kind of embarrassing but oh well a bit late to worry about. I appreciate the answers thou and some of the speculations but in the end stone cold black and white rules do state in the shooting phase and Overwatch is in the opponents assault phase. Ah well, would be amusing if it was not so.

[Tynskel]

Personally, I don't like the phrasing of 'in the shooting phase', this means that monsterous creatures cannot fire multiple weapons. That's a shame, because I am pretty sure a Tyrannofex would like to fire 3 guns during overwatch.

It would be great:
Combos of stinger salvo and swarm with either 20 shots, another template, or high strength shots.

Same with shooty Tyrants.
And Wraithlords.



I do have a conundrum.
Almost every case where the rules have stated 'acts as', 'as if', etc., the FAQ has ruled in favor of the 'act as'/'as if' = the actual rule. ie. in the case of in the shooting phase = shooting the gun. If this is the case, then Gunslingers get to fire both weapons in Overwatch, and Monsterous Creatures are allowed to fire all their weapons normally in Overwatch.