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

[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!