Targeter use.

[Melissia]

No they don't, but the point those people would make is that because they are labeled "guess weapons", they are effected by the rules directed towards guess weapons, even if they use the Barrage rules.

[Alanter]

What about this:

 

All weapons that have "G" in their rules have to be fired before the use of targeters.

Because all g weapons are barrage but NOT the same way round, you are allowed to use any barrage even after measuring with a targeter.

[jeffersonian000]

Per the BRB, the Guess range rule from older rule sets has been replaced with the Barrage rule in the current addition, which specifically means that the DH Targeter will prevent the firing of any Barrage weapons that have not already been used before a unit with a Targeter fires. The biggest impact is for those using inducted guard or allied marines and fielding Inquisitors with "fire base" retinues, as all combat servitors and veterans with range weapons are equipped with targeters and will need to be fired after any barrage attacks are made, or the army will lose the option to fire any remaining barrage weapons.

 

Not a big deal, pretty clear as to the meaning and intended effect written directly into the rule itself. Which is rare for GW. In this case, the BRB clarifies the Codex with a built in errata.

 

SJ

[Nicoca]

Edit: I reconsidered and removed my statement, not wisihing to persue in what seems to be a discussion which, because of the lack of a FAQ regarding the matter, would come down to house rules and/or individual interpretations and would therefore be unresovable.

[revnow]

@jerfersonian000: "Ice cream cone" def: A cylindrical object tapering upwards, composed of frozen water and the fat of milk

[JCarter]

The problem is not commas, it is a misplaced adverbial clause and some missing words:,"You can choose in the shooting phase to premeasure the range to potential targets before deciding to designate one as the target for a unit." would remove ambiguity.

[jeffersonian000]

@jerfersonian000: "Ice cream cone" def: A cylindrical object tapering upwards, composed of frozen water and the fat of milk

 

Kind of; ice cream is a colloid of fat, sugar, and ice, while the cone portion is a conical confection based wafer used to contain the aforementioned colloid.

 

Btw, not sure why you brought that.

 

SJ

[revnow]

Exactly, the definition for ice cream cone is a product of a combination of its words, and certain widely held assumptions as to the nature of the object with regard to its context and use. When you define words, and therefore rules devoid of their context, the meaning is absurd.

 

The context and purpose of the targeter ruling was to prevent the use of a targeter as a mechanism for pre-establishing ranges to take the "guess" out of guess range weapons. Since the act of guessing ranges for certain weapons no longer exists, the rule is devoid of its context, hence GWs making Guess range weapons simply Barrage weapons. Devoid of its context the rule means nothing.

[jeffersonian000]

Except that in the case of Barrage weapons, you still have to check range. If the center of the blast template falls outside of the minimum or maximun range, the shot misses. If you use a targeter first, you now know the range to target, and therefore hit everytime. However, if you are unable to use a Targeter first, then you have to estimate the range and risk missing if the template falls short or goes long. Which means that Targeters still work the way they were intended with Guess Range weapons; fire all barrages first or lose the ability to fire them when you use a Targeter. Page 32 of the BRB, second bullet point.

 

SJ

 

Edit was for spelling.

[Nicoca]

I'm going to wade back into the discussion here.

 

@jeffersonian000

 

While indeed that is what the obvious inention of the rule is, it is let down in two places.

 

Firstly in terms of fluff, why couldn't a commander use the abilities of his troops to make his weapons more accurate, every military force in knwon history has done this as have many in science fiction and fantasy. The use of rangefinders/forward observers/computers/calculus has been commonplace in almost all my tabletop and historical expierience.

 

Secondly in terms of rules and thier definition. Granted your description is what was intended but not what is written. As with many things, the difference between these two, intention and definition, will cause problems, but what is written is what must be obeyed. The rule for targeters is unaffected by GW changes to the weapon profiles of "guess" weapons as it is not a weapon profile, simply a rule dictating restrictions on the use of a weapon with a paticular profile. As this profile no longer exists, having been replaced with the profile of "barrage" weapons, RAW dictates that this part of the rule can be ignored.

 

I completely agree with you on your points regarding the intention of the rule, make no mistake. Where i disagree is where common sense and the written rules would conflict with this "intention". Nevertheless, this seems to be an unresovable debate, as is the case with almost all rules debates. There is no clear answer and any ruling would be based on your preference/a dice roll/tournament organiser/opponent. Simplest solution is to make a house rule based on your own opinions and stick with it.

[revnow]

That mechanism of barrage weapons as compared to targeters is no different than how a targeter would operate with a lascannon or heavy bolter. As with the barrage weapon it would allow you to know whether the shot is within the targets maximum range, and in some cases minimum range. There is no differential advantage. The advantage that targeters give to barrage weapons now is miniscule compared to the advantage they would have afforded to an actual guess range weapon in 3rd Edition. Void of its intended context the rule is meaningless. GW has made its intent clear on the issue of outdated rules that lack meaning in 5th Edition. They are scrapped. This is one of those rules.