Gunslinger and Wall of Death

[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:

1. 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."
2. 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: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #Late_20th_century_commentary[/url]

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

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.