'Bring it Down!' Tactic? RAW/RAI question

[tuffdart]

This is a RAW/RAI, codex vs. da’ rules conundrum I’ve been bouncing around with.
The culprit is one of the orders in the new guard codex, specifically the ‘Bring it Down!’
There are no caveats to the rule (as written).
To familiarize:
“If the order is successfully issued, choose one enemy vehicle (or squadron of vehicles) or monstrous creature (or unit of monstrous creatures) visible to the officer. The ordered unit immediately shoots at the nominated target , counting their weapons as twin-linked.”
Imperial Guard Codex page 30
So thinking through strategies to use with this my thoughts wandered to Heavy Weapons Teams. OK, not so weird but what about HWTs that move into a better position, crest a hill or disembark. If the order is successful I see nothing that says I can’t blaze away with them.
Now I’ve heard a couple of people say. You can’t move aand fire HWT (or heavy weapons) as it is a basic rule. Well orders seem to be designed to break or suspend basic rules, re: Rapid Fire has been set in stone for a while now and First Rank Fire etc, kicks that one to the curb.
Another thought I had is that this is not a loophole issue at all but a tactical gift to the guard along with all the other orders.

Give it look and see if you see something I don’t.
Again, not a loophole, a tactic and I think it’s a RAI.

[Valdore]

Personally I would assume the they mean the target immediately shoots if possible, it's not what it says, but when you look at first rank second rank, it is adding extra shots, if you can only fire one normally, you get to fire two. It's not the exact same circumstances, and I'm sure it's worded differently, but I don't think this rule is designed to supercede the rules of moving and firing heavy weapons. Even in the face of a gargantuan monstrosity!

[imperialsavant]

Personally I would assume the they mean the target immediately shoots if possible, it's not what it says, but when you look at first rank second rank, it is adding extra shots, if you can only fire one normally, you get to fire two. It's not the exact same circumstances, and I'm sure it's worded differently, but I don't think this rule is designed to supercede the rules of moving and firing heavy weapons. Even in the face of a gargantuan monstrosity!

:) Yes, I go along with valdore's thoughts on this.
Its designed to give the Heavy Weapon/s the opportunity to shoot twice (etc) at the Target not move into a new position to shoot & the usual moving/ shooting rules apply.

[crazyredpraetorian]

I think you are really reaching here, tuffdart. I mean, reaching in the worst possible way. If HWT were meant to fire while under orders, the codex would say they gain the Relentless USR when accepting "Bring It Down" orders. The codex does not mention anything even remotely like that. It would be nice if it did but, it doesn't. It is not a RAI/RAW issue. It is simply wishful thinking on your part.

[GrandReaper]

I think that the intention is pretty clear (getting TL on you BS3 heavy weapons is a gift in and of itself, I don't think they are promising more into the bargain).

But your interpretation is very interesting, so points for you! If you want to take it to extremes, one could even make the argument that the HW unit doesn't need line of sight. As far as I recall, not having LOS does not translate to an auto miss like being out of range does, it just disallows targetting. The order could overrule that....

Although seriously, you know what it means.

I love GW!

[Rapture]

You could definitely get away with it. He gives the order, they "immediately" shoot. There are all kind of loose and unexplained things like this, but I wouldn't want to play with you if you tried it.

[L192837465]

This is a RAW/RAI, codex vs. da’ rules conundrum I’ve been bouncing around with.
The culprit is one of the orders in the new guard codex, specifically the ‘Bring it Down!’
There are no caveats to the rule (as written).
To familiarize:
“If the order is successfully issued, choose one enemy vehicle (or squadron of vehicles) or monstrous creature (or unit of monstrous creatures) visible to the officer. The ordered unit immediately shoots at the nominated target , counting their weapons as twin-linked.”
Imperial Guard Codex page 30
So thinking through strategies to use with this my thoughts wandered to Heavy Weapons Teams. OK, not so weird but what about HWTs that move into a better position, crest a hill or disembark. If the order is successful I see nothing that says I can’t blaze away with them.
Now I’ve heard a couple of people say. You can’t move aand fire HWT (or heavy weapons) as it is a basic rule. Well orders seem to be designed to break or suspend basic rules, re: Rapid Fire has been set in stone for a while now and First Rank Fire etc, kicks that one to the curb.
Another thought I had is that this is not a loophole issue at all but a tactical gift to the guard along with all the other orders.

Give it look and see if you see something I don’t.
Again, not a loophole, a tactic and I think it’s a RAI.


HAHA you can fire lasguns 48". it states no-where the unit fires normally, but that they "immediately shoot the nominated target, counting their weapons as twin-linked" haha

[BuFFo]

If a heavy weapon model moves, it cannot fire.

Nothing in "Bring it down' changes this in any stretch of the imagination.

[keithsilva]

I agree unless the order gives them the relentless special rule, you can not fire a heavy weapon if you moved. There is no loop holes around this one. I wouldnt let a LG player move his heavy weapons team issue the order and fire.

[Madjob]

You're skipping a step.

"Immediately shoots" merely means that they initialize a shooting attack, not that they immediately roll. This means they go through the steps of shooting (including determining whether or not the unit can fire to begin with).

[Exlorn]

As the others have stated, they cannot shoot their heavy weapons.

The squad is a valid target for orders and would be able to carry out the order. The "immediately" simply means that you resolve the shooting before carrying on with your turn, the only change from a regular shooting attack mentioned is twin linked. The order does not instruct you to ignore any rules in any book, so moving and firing heavy weapons stands. The models would only be able to shoot thier lasguns, which probably wouldn't do anything even when twin linked.

By your interpritation since only the officer needs to have line of sight to the target vehicle/MC the ordered squad could ignore line of sight and even range to shoot at it. That would be more powerfull than moving and firing or twin-linked.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that First rank FIRE, Second rank FIRE isn't modifying rapid fire but giving a new profile for the gun. Even if it did that rule specifically states what is happening and when you can use it (lasgun), you can't give the srg a bolter and fire with the order. Fire on my Target doesn't say it changes other rules therefore it doesn't.

[Aldramelech]

I think the rule is perfectly clear! As stated you get your weapons twin linked, no more, no less.

What we have here is a classic example of people ignoring the 'Spirit' of the rules to gain unfair advantage.

This is what rules lawyers do and it pisses me off!

[GrandReaper]

People of the rules forum, lend me your ears - or just compost those sticks you have crammed in unmentionable places.

Questions like these are not, repeat NOT, looking for justification for using these things in a game. They are curiosities where people know darn well what was intended, but are curious if the rules back it up.

People saying that a step is being skipped and rules not being followed are once again stating opinions - we are aware of them. Can you show something that once and for all squelches the argument, ie: proof. If not then you are just playing along so enjoy the show.

The rule, as written, says "Immediately shoots", not "may immediately shoot if able". This is a glaring hole that should have been worded better. Although, for arguments sake I think that if you shoot at something out of range, those shots automatically miss, so extra range can't be gained. You only gain Relentless and don't require LoS (as written, don't play it this way or a mob of unwashed 40Kers will track you down and Dreadsock you).

Great thread TS!

I love GW!

[BuFFo]

Nothing in the rule overrides the fact you cannot fire a heavy weapon once it moves.

[Nabterayl]

Well said, GrandReaper.

To reinforce what people have said about "shooting if able to," I note that according to page 15, checking line of sight, checking range, and picking a target are part of the act of shooting. They do not happen before the act of shooting.

In other words, from a rules perspective, you do not nominate a unit to shoot, pick a target for that unit, check the line of sight for that unit to the target, check the range from that unit to the target, and then shoot.

Instead, you nominate a unit to shoot, and the unit "shoots." "Shoots" in this case means picking a target for that unit, checking the line of sight for the unit, checking the range for the unit, checking the weapons type for the unit's models, and then "firing." Only weapons that are eligible to "fire" may roll to hit.

Most of the time no harm is done by using "shooting" to mean "firing." This is one of the cases where the distinction is relevant.

[Exlorn]

Grandreaper's post is actually contradictary with yours Nabterayl.

Let me state what I thought each of you was saying.

Grandreaper, a bunch of junk about opinions. Then he says you do NOT follow shooting rules. He states that you can't shoot past a guns range as per rules, but for some reason you can move and shoot (relentless) and you can shoot through things (ignore line of sight).

Nabterayl, is saying that the rules in the BRB for shooting are all collectively "shooting" and that if a unit shoots it must follow all the rules in sequence to shoot.

In my previous post I was trying to say what I think Nabterayl was saying in his post. I disagree with Grandreaper, but I am going to wait till I get off work to check the rulebook and really think about it before I try to post a rebutle.

[Nabterayl]

Sorry, I should have made it clear what I was agreeing with in GrandReaper's post. I think that it's always a good reminder not to assume that people who post questions on a rules forum are looking for an advantage in the game, or don't make reasonable allowances for their opponent when they actually play.

As for the conclusion to the rules question, yes, I disagree with GrandReaper. The textual basis for that disagreement is the distinction on page 15 between "shooting" and "firing." A unit with one or more heavy weapons that has moved may indeed shoot. It simply may not fire the heavy weapon. If the only weapons in the unit are heavy weapons, then the unit is still allowed to shoot; it simply has no weapons that it can fire.

[keithsilva]

I agree you would still follow the rules for shooting, unless the order says other wise, which as far as i know it does say anything about give the squad retlentless. They can shoot but if they moved they can only shoot with weapons they are able to if they moved, and another thingm the squad would still reguire line of sight, as i read it the office needs line of site to pick the target, but the squad also needs it, you have to follow the line of sight rules as well. If you played it as not need line of sight for the squad then the vehicle would get a 3+ save at least, whcih states on the rulebook for vehicles. Sorry but there are times that the codex will overwrite when is states it but in this chase it does not.;)

[tuffdart]

First things first:
Let me say thanks. To a great degree the people who responded to this question weren't snarky #ss-hats about their opinions and judgements. THAT WAS REFRESHING!!
Although I'm not entirely sure about the validity of some of the processes of deduction leading to the conclusion that that my interpretation is invalid, I bend to the general feeling that it smacks of a very prejudiced reading of that order.
I can't help that, I'm a guard player! I know we have things pretty good now with the new codex.
What inspired this was looking for a way to do a completely foot guard list.
I just don't think they have the power to pull that off in the current codex but maybe I'll start that discussion over in the tactics forum.

Grandreaper - you make me laugh! I love GW, too!

BuFFo - a little too unilateral, chill a bit. I can imagine a lot! I can also read.

Madjob - succinct and valid, I just wish it were worded that way.

Aldra... this is why I asked initially for a RAW vs. RAI interpretations. What you are is a classic example of a reactionary. Settle down. If I were lawyering, well... I'd be richer.

Nadterayal - SPOT ON, Thanks.

Thanks to all who pointed out Relentless, good thinking.

[Jwolf]

Okay, this is what I want to see on the BoLS Forums. An OP with no previous posts comes in an asks a potentially inflammatory question that misses some issues involved in the question. He gets a couple of pages of answers and clarifications, comes back, reads all the responses, and now has the rule right. And then he thanks the posters. Stay Classy!

[nojinx]

Agreed, nicely presented and concluded by the OP.

I just want to make a clarification here.
This particular thread was one where a poster presented a rule that, technically speaking, functions as written. He tried to support an argument that it worked in another way by presenting not rules, but a perspective of the storyline, the fluff. This would be, in my opinion, a case where someone is using the "spirit" of the rules to argue against a RaW argument.

[BuFFo]

BuFFo - a little too unilateral, chill a bit.

You need to teach me how you can possibly read intention from non emotional lines of text on a computer screen. How can you possibly believe I am heated over this issue?

I didn't know typing in simple, straight to the point English was a sign of emotional instability... :rolleyes:

[Aldramelech]

Ok, If you know that the rule is exactly what it says on the tin and your not trying to "bend" the rules to gain an advantage and this thread is not about gaging opinion to see if you can get away with it, Why ask the bloody question in the first place?

Perhaps I should start a thread "Can my Imperial Guard tunnel under the enemy and plant demo charges under them?"
Why not? It doesn't say they Cant in the rules.

[Jwolf]

Ok, If you know that the rule is exactly what it says on the tin and your not trying to "bend" the rules to gain an advantage and this thread is not about gaging opinion to see if you can get away with it, Why ask the bloody question in the first place?

Perhaps I should start a thread "Can my Imperial Guard tunnel under the enemy and plant demo charges under them?"
Why not? It doesn't say they Cant in the rules.

This is an example of the sort of comments I would like to avoid having on this forum - it adds nothing to the discussion, encourages bad behavior, makes accusations of malicious intent, and then segues into the absurd example.

[Aldramelech]

it adds nothing to the discussion In your opinion. My valid point in this discussion is that the rule is quite clear and needs no further interpretation.

encourages bad behavior How exactly? What particular behavior is being encouraged here? You don't agree with what I'm saying so your going to call me a bad dog? naughty schoolboy? send me to bed without any supper? Please.........

makes accusations of malicious intent If you regard any of the above as "Malicious" then you my friend have led a very sheltered life.

and then segues into the absurd example About as absurd as advocating ordering an out of range Hvy Wp team that has just moved to fire at a target it has no LOS to?

[tuffdart]

ASCII is notorious. Inflammatory is in the eye of the beholder or deep in the psyche.

Thanks Nojinx you're close. I really thought the rule might be written that way (loosely) for the purpose I described. It would be a great match to the fluff too!
I've humped an M1919, .30 cal before. True, it's a squad support weapon, technically, but even when I was 112 pounds I could heave it over a ridge line and start hammering away. (I know, game NOT simulation!)

You're welcome jwolf. But of course you know what a classy guy I am.
I didn't cry in front of you when I rolled a 3 for night fighting in the first round of gladiator.
The Adepts are still finding pieces of my Warhound and my neural interface still feels like molten glass.
I doubt if I'll ever pilot a Titan again.
But I do hold a grudge.:)

As to recent comments, oh well, water off a duck's back.
Thanks again to all the others. Sometimes I'm uncertain and it's nice to have a place to pose the question.

[Sam]

Of course the heavy weapons teams can fire if they have moved. They just have to fire their lasguns instead of their heavy weapons. :D

[Lerra]

Why ask the bloody question in the first place?

Personally, I like seeing threads like this where the rules are stretched to their limit, and people try to figure out where the line is between legal and illegal. I don't play guard, and earlier today, if someone were to attempt to use Bring it Down to fire heavy weapons teams that moved, I probably would have let them do it (I tend to give opponents the benefit of the doubt if they insist it's legal). Now I know for sure that it isn't legal, and I have some justifications I can use to argue my point.

I see no problem in searching for rules loopholes, both for your own army and as defense against other armies.

[Aldramelech]

Now I know for sure that it isn't legal, and I have some justifications I can use to argue my point.

A good point well made. I concede to that point.....

[Angrod]

here's a curveball
i remember reading that orders are done before movement...

just here to ruin your day. :p

[AirHorse]

Its before shooting im afraid :P well its "at the start of the shooting phase" so its during shooting, but has to happen first.

[Angrod]

oh... never mind. :p

definetly needs re-worded though. i could be a right b**ch to my mates with that one... :D
i nearly got away with a tank squad 1st rank, 2nd rank-ing 10 termies. :p

[L192837465]

here's a curveball
i remember reading that orders are done before movement...

just here to ruin your day. :p


Oh snap! A heavy weapons team fires before movement with twin linked guns to an out of range target with no LOS then they get to shoot again in the shooting phase?

That is delicious!

[Javin]

Oh snap! A heavy weapons team fires before movement with twin linked guns to an out of range target with no LOS then they get to shoot again in the shooting phase?

That is delicious!


Actually pg 29 Guards codex says " Orders must be issued at the start of the Shooting phase and in a strict order".

[L192837465]

Actually pg 29 Guards codex says " Orders must be issued at the start of the Shooting phase and in a strict order".

Aw. I'm legitimately saddened by this news.

[Lord Azaghul]

Aw. I'm legitimately saddened by this news.

I can't tell you how many times I would have loved the option to fire at something else THEN you my orders!