Puppetmaster

[Jolemai]

If Puppetmaster is succesfully cast on, say, a Wraithknight, how many weapons can be fired?

 

There is concern amongst my group that you can only fire one weapon.

 

Also, is it correct that if the Wraithknight succumbs to Puppetmaster again, it doesn't fire as it already has that turn?

[Dam13n]

It's a monstrous creature, so it can fire 2 weapons as part of a shooting attack.

 

In the case of multiple puppet masters in the same turn, I would think that a model could be affected any number of times (up to the number of Psykers with the power) and would fire each time.

[infornography]

I have seen significant debate over the wording on puppet master.  It is vague as to whether it means one weapon attack, or one volley of attacks that the given model would normally be capable of.  I am inclined to believe the latter, but there is insufficient evidence to convince some people with just the rules and FAQs provided, unless a new FAQ addressed it that I missed.

 

In the case of multiple psykers, the power says that the unit fires an attack, it does not couch this in any sort of limitation, so I am inclined to agree with Dam13n on that as well.  I don't think this is ambiguous enough to say it wouldn't work.

[Seahawk]

"makes a shooting attack as if it was one of your models"

What's a shooting attack?

"Once you have completed steps 1 to 5 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack..."

So then go through the steps, which will, along with the additional rules in various sections, tell you that a Monstrous Creature can shoot two weapons, or a vehicle can shoot all its weapons. There's no better target for Puppet Master than an enemy vehicle, especially a Wave Serpent.

There is really no debate on this unless one is trying to obfuscate rules to protect themselves from being shot more.

Now, the second part of your question is somewhat debatable, but in the end I'd agree that multiple castings will allow you to shoot multiple times. Nothing says that it's subject to the normal restrictions of the shooting phase.

[hallodx]

"makes a shooting attack as if it was one of your models"

What's a shooting attack?

"Once you have completed steps 1 to 5 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack..."

So then go through the steps, which will, along with the additional rules in various sections, tell you that a Monstrous Creature can shoot two weapons, or a vehicle can shoot all its weapons. There's no better target for Puppet Master than an enemy vehicle, especially a Wave Serpent.

There is really no debate on this unless one is trying to obfuscate rules to protect themselves from being shot more.

Now, the second part of your question is somewhat debatable, but in the end I'd agree that multiple castings will allow you to shoot multiple times. Nothing says that it's subject to the normal restrictions of the shooting phase.

So we can Puppet Master a Wave Serpent, use it's shield shooting, then pen it lol

Oh if we can make a vehicle shoot multiple times, we can exhaust hydra missiles on IG themselves!

[Dam13n]

I think you mean Manticore, not Hydra.

 

And, yes it would seem so.

[hallodx]

I think you mean Manticore, not Hydra.

 

And, yes it would seem so.

Oh my shame

[Grey Mage]

A couple weeks ago I had someone puppet master my phantom titan and wipe out about 2000pts of expensive eldar formations. No bueno. I agree with seahawk, as much as it can be incredibly powerful at times, I cant think of a valid argument that doesnt result in it being all the shots the model is entitled to.

[Seahawk]

I thought Super-heavies weren't affected by non-strength psychic powers? I don't have the new Apoc book yet.

 

 

So we can Puppet Master a Wave Serpent, use it's shield shooting, then pen it lol
Oh if we can make a vehicle shoot multiple times, we can exhaust hydra manticore missiles on IG themselves!

Correct. Use their scatter laser to twin-link the rest, then obliterate one of his units, then pen the serpent with your own shooting. It's super fun when it works...

[infornography]

Well, I just checked, apparently GW in their infinitesimal wisdom decided that super heavies and gargantuan creatures needed no such protection in the current ruleset.  Only things that would destroy, permanently reduce armor of, or remove them from play are negated from working normally.  Also poisoned and sniper are specifically called out as rules that only wound on 6+ regardless of the normal rules for those abilities.  The wording of this however leaves gargantuan creatures perfectly susceptible to grav weaponry which will make them a complete joke to fight against.... thanks GW.

[[TA]Typher]

If you can fire multiple weapons because of this power shouldn't the wording be plural? "Makes a shooting attack" is singular to me.

 

If you can shoot multiple weapons it should read "immediately makes shooting attacks as if it was one of your models".

 

I'm far from a English major but that pretty clear to me.

[Jolemai]

It's not plural because it's referring to a singular model, hence the singular use. It makes one shooting attack and then you look at what shooting attack it can make. If it was to be plural, it would shoot twice (so a Space Marine would fire his Bolter twice at 24" or four times at 12").

 

Also from page 12:

 

During the Shooting Phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks.

Plural on models, plural on shooting attacks.

[Morollan]

If you can fire multiple weapons because of this power shouldn't the wording be plural? "Makes a shooting attack" is singular to me.

 

If you can shoot multiple weapons it should read "immediately makes shooting attacks as if it was one of your models".

 

I'm far from a English major but that pretty clear to me.

 

If you look at Seahawk's earlier post though he refers you to where the rules tell us what a 'shooting attack' consists of. If it was truly meant to be singular then it should say "fires one weapon".

[[TA]Typher]

Seahawk's example is talking about how you shoot. Some models only have 1 shooting attack, hence the singular use.

 

If we look on page 2 under ballistic skill we see,

 

"The higher this characteristic is, the easier a creature finds it is to hit targets with shooting attacks."

 

We can see that the plural is used. If the term "shooting attack" was the default for multiple shots then both entries would be stated as such.

 

Also in the shooting section we see.

 

"NOMINATE UNIT TO SHOOT

During the Shooting phase a unit containing models armed with

ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks."

 

Again the plural is used. If "shooting attack" was the default for shooting all of your weapons then the wording would state that models can make a shooting attack, not attacks as we see in the rules.

 

Since they are not I would argue that the wording on puppet master refers to a single shot, as wording used in singular. The RAW is clearly singular.

[Jolemai]

Seahawk's example is talking about how you shoot. Some models only have 1 shooting attack, hence the singular use.

 

Correct; this is a basic rule for a model type. Monstrous Creatures, Vehicles, etc, are a subset of models types and hence an advanced rule and as a subset, these are applied after. We also know that advanced rules trump basic rules.

 

If we look on page 2 under ballistic skill we see,

 

"The higher this characteristic is, the easier a creature finds it is to hit targets with shooting attacks."

 

We can see that the plural is used. If the term "shooting attack" was the default for multiple shots then both entries would be stated as such.

 

This is referring to a creature's shooting attacks as the concept here is on one model. The plural is used as it is attacks in general, not attacks per turn or anything so restrictive. If you will, it is talking about every attack that model will ever make, to describe Ballistic Skill.

 

Also in the shooting section we see.

 

"NOMINATE UNIT TO SHOOT

During the Shooting phase a unit containing models armed with

ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks."

 

Again the plural is used. If "shooting attack" was the default for shooting all of your weapons then the wording would state that models can make a shooting attack, not attacks.

 

As I said in the quotation above, here we see the plural form: shooting attacks because it is referring to the models' attacks and not a model's attacks

 

Since they are not I would argue that the wording on puppet master refers to a single shot, as wording used in singular. The RAW is clearly singular.

.

[[TA]Typher]

While I appreciate your feedback Jolemai, I still haven't seen a definition that the term "shooting attack" is meant to be used in the plural form anywhere in the rules. I re-read the walker and monstrous creatures shooting rules just now and there is no singular term used to describe multiple shots. If you think that it is suppose to be the RAI, I would argue against it and we all know that RAW trumps RAI.

 

 

"The target immediately makes a shooting attack as if it was one of your models"

 

Shooting attack = singular

 

Shooting attacks = plural

 

If it said "The target immediately makes a shooting attacks as if it was one of your models" or "The target immediately shoots as if it was one of your models", then I would agree with you.

 

Trying to define the term "A shooting attack" to multiple shots is over-reading the power IMO and stretching it you your advantage. We all know that GW doesn't write the best rules, and things can slip through on in even well written games. The problem is that people try to abuse these issues instead of using good sportsmanship and common sense.

[Raeven]

Depends on what you are talking about. A unit makes a shooting attack. Depending on the gun, this could mean a single attack per model, or two shots per model from a single weapon (rapid fire), or two weapons per model (devestator protocols).

 

The rules do not define a single weapon fired as a shooting attack. A shooting attack is the event describing the ability of the whole unit.

 

Over watch is a shooting attack.

[Fibonacci]

If you can fire multiple weapons because of this power shouldn't the wording be plural? "Makes a shooting attack" is singular to me.

One shooting phase, one shooting attack.  The attack is singular.  The number of shots depends on the model, weapons it has and the number of those weapons it may fire in one attack.

[[TA]Typher]

 

Depends on what you are talking about. A unit makes a shooting attack. Depending on the gun, this could mean a single attack per model, or two shots per model from a single weapon (rapid fire), or two weapons per model (devestator protocols).

 

The rules do not define a single weapon fired as a shooting attack. A shooting attack is the event describing the ability of the whole unit.

 

Over watch is a shooting attack.

I agree with the first part of your comment. The second part not so much. Unless you are talking in broad terms like, overwatch is a type of shooting attack, which would be true. Saying that my land raider will now perform a shooting attack would mean that you are shooting one weapon, no matter how many shots that one weapon had. The correct way to say that you are shooting all your weapons is to do just that. I am shooting all my weapons at that thing!

 

Using the term "A shooting attack" to cover all the shooting a model, regardless of the amount of shots is IMO incorrect. Besides the examples I've shown, the clearest example I've found is Armourbane. It states, "Similarly, if a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has this special rule, it rolls 2D6 for armour penetration." Now this indicates that a singular event that happened, a shooting attack, would roll 2d6 to pen. So if the model shot 2 times.. how would it roll 2d6? It says nothing about rolling for EACH shot, just that you roll 2d6. This would clearly mean that the shooting attack in question was a single shot. If the term "A shooting attack" was the term used for all shooting, the wording here should have reflected that.

 

If you believe that the term "A shooting attack" is GW's way of say that all shooting from a model, then the term should always fit in the context of how it's written. If not it seems like someones RAI version.

 

I would like to say that since GW is a English speaking company that the text is quite clear, but after the C:DA release and the myriad of problems the wording caused, I will admit that English isn't always their strong suit.

 

I do miss the days that they has their own forums on their website and Whitedwarf has a Q and A section and clarifications like this were answered once in a while.

 

 

 

I play Deathwing almost exclusively, so this power really doesn't effect me much as I'll have a 2+ save vs almost everything I shoot. My intent here isn't to insult anyone, I know text is a horrible way to show the tone of a idea. So I apologize in advance if I have.

[Fibonacci]

 Saying that my land raider will now perform a shooting attack would mean that you are shooting one weapon, no matter how many shots that one weapon had. The correct way to say that you are shooting all your weapons is to do just that. I am shooting all my weapons at that thing!

Exactly!   Shooting all of its weapons at that one thing is how a Land Raider makes a shooting attack.

[[TA]Typher]

 

 

 

 Saying that my land raider will now perform a shooting attack would mean that you are shooting one weapon, no matter how many shots that one weapon had. The correct way to say that you are shooting all your weapons is to do just that. I am shooting all my weapons at that thing!

Exactly!   Shooting all of its weapons at that one thing is how a Land Raider makes a shooting attack.

Lol I think you are stretching.

[Fibonacci]

I'm stretching?

 

 

The model makes a shooting attack.  What a shooting attack is and how they are preformed is laid out in the rule book.  It seems we are almost in complete agreement as to what that means.  Yet one person disagrees. 

 

So if the model being controlled is armed with a stormbolter, how many shots does it make? 

[[TA]Typher]

The context you are using it doesn't fit. As in my example. It does however fit in the context of how I read it as do all the references to the term.

 

Stating that such a common phrase has a broad meaning, even though it doesn't fit into the wording other rules shows problematic.

 

The phrase "Once you have completed steps 1 to 5 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the assault phase", says nothing about a model only having one shooting attack. As we know a model can have several depending on it's rules.

 

The phrase that you are missing here is above the one you are using.

"Once you've completed this shooting sequence with one of your units, select another and repeat the sequence.". This would indicate to me that the 1-5 steps are repeatable for not only each unit but for each weapon.

 

If you couple it with the out of context statements that this causes with other rules I think it's clear. Stating that "a shooting attack" covers all weapons fired is your version of RAI, despite it running contrary to the flow of the English language in other examples of the rules.

[Fibonacci]

OK.

 

So.

 

How many shots does a model armed with a storm bolter get if it make a shooting attack?

[[TA]Typher]

How do you use 2d6 on the pen roll if you are shooting two shots, without implying additional wording? You need the phrase "for each shot" attached to it because the term you are using "A shooting attack" is written into the rule, which would mean, if we followed your logic that multiple shots could be in play for each use of the phrase. Without the additional words "for each shot" you have to imply that they exist.

 

Using steps 1-5 works for shooting multiple weapons works if you follow the steps for each weapon. It also flows better and makes sense.

 

Implying that the phrase "a shooting attack" it covers multiple weapons ignores the English language and makes other rules fall out of context.

 

Armourbane states

"If a model has this special rule, it rolls 2d6 for armour penetration in close combat. Similarly, if a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has this special rule, it rolls 2D6 for armour penetration.

 

Compare that to the fleshbane rule

"Similarly, if a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has this special rule, they always wound on a 2+."

 

Again, "A shooting attack" is used. if we follow your version shooting multiple shots for each use of the term would work this can work, as the term "they" can be used for each hit. It is however a generic term, so it could just be talking about a single hit. Using it singular works for both special rules... not just one. Using the multiple version of the phrase does not work with armourbane without implying addition wording that just isn't there.

 

Edit: looking at the wording of Armourbane. If we used the phrase "a shooting attack" to mean all shooting from a model, then any model with a armourbane weapon could, according to the wording of armourbane AND the implied plural of "a shooting attack" let ALL of it's weapons roll 2d6 to pen. IE: a landraider with a multi-melta making it's "a shooting attack" would roll 2d6 to pen a vehicle with its assault cannon and it's lascannon. Of course this only works if you are also implying the term "for each hit" into armourbane, which you would have to do to make the "a shooting attack" a plural event.