Puppetmaster

[Fibonacci]

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

[Seahawk]

A unit cannot make more than one shooting attack in its turn. 

 

You're telling us that a 10 man squad makes 10 shooting attacks. That is illegal, so clearly it's not what the rules say.

 

As I said in my first post, this is intentional misinterpretation of the rules to gain an advantage.

[[TA]Typher]

 

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

Your point is moot. I've covered it, but you have not covered mine. Repeating the same thing over and over, despite it being addressed brings nothing to the table.

I enjoy a health debate, but trolling is another thing entirely.

 

A unit cannot make more than one shooting attack in its turn. 
 
You're telling us that a 10 man squad makes 10 shooting attacks. That is illegal, so clearly it's not what the rules say.
 
As I said in my first post, this is intentional misinterpretation of the rules to gain an advantage.

How is it illegal. I see nothing about that. I don't see where it says you can only use the steps once for each unit. Am I missing it?


Barring me missing something, I think I've brought up some valid points (that seemed to have been ignored) and could same same about your misinterpretation. I'm not so stubborn or arrogant to think myself always correct.

I will however meet you in the middle, which I've tried to do already. GW's rules are often contradictory or vague. The fact that people can easily view a set of rules like this in different ways is a prime example. I can see how you get to the train of thought that you are following and hopefully you understand mine.

[Raeven]

Quite simply, you are wrong.  You are imposing words that are not in the rules.

 

Pg 12.  "The shooting process can be summarized in five steps...Once you have complete steps 1 to 5 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on..."

 

A Shooting attack encompasses as many shots as a unit can make.  There are other rules that indicate a single model can only attack with one weapon unless there is an exceptional rule that allows otherwise.  Still a single unit making one shooting attack, regardless of the number of shots made.

[[TA]Typher]

Quite simply, you are wrong.  You are imposing words that are not in the rules.

 

Pg 12.  "The shooting process can be summarized in five steps...Once you have complete steps 1 to 5 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on..."

 

 

When have you completed those steps? Where does it say you can only use these steps once per unit? It's a summary.

 

A Shooting attack encompasses as many shots as a unit can make.  There are other rules that indicate a single model can only attack with one weapon unless there is an exceptional rule that allows otherwise.  Still a single unit making one shooting attack, regardless of the number of shots made.

The weapons themselves obviously dictate how many shots a model can shoot. I'm still not seeing where you are getting that "a shooting attack" must include all weapons a unit. Do you see it worded that specific way or are you implying that it is? It would make sense to include similar weapons as they don't have contrary rules as it would streamline events. But as we see with the Armourbane rule, this creates complications.

 

An Achillies LR, space wolf scout unit, Chaos marine units.. ect..etc using a armourbane weapon breaks this train of thought.

 

Armourbane:

"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."

 

It doesn't say per weapon, or per shot. So with your train of thought we have to imply those words.

 

Remember your definition of "a shooting attack" includes ALL WEAPONS that the unit was using. The wording of armourbane says NOTHING about only meltas getting armourbane, it just says a shooting attack, which you've said counts as ALL WEAPONS a model or unit has. Using the same overliteral method, the term "a shooting attack" (all weapons fired) that included at least one armourbane weapon, such as the Space wolves scouts melta gun, would also allow the bolters in the same unit would roll 2d6 to pen, or the mulit-melta on a land raider allowing the assault cannon to roll 2d6.

 

It's simple math if we follow that train of thought.

 

As you can see implying that the term "A shooting attack" is a special phrase like Rending or Fleshbane you create new problems. You can't use this as a special term when wanting to use it in a power like puppet master, but discount it when it runs contrary to a ability like armourbane.

 

Using a more direct common sense reading of the paragraph would be that they are just telling you how to shoot a weapon, NOT creating a special phrase. Without the implied special phrase this problem goes away.

 

I'm far from a power gamer. I really think it ruins the game as it leads to rules zealots and fun and common sense gets curb stomped. Of course I would NEVER use armourbane in this way, but using the same method of reading the rules as the puppet master debate could easily lead to this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.S. I'm not trying to be difficult but reading the text to a draconianly literal degree (and implying wording) creates problems that basic reading would not have. I also like to debate things, so if I'm offending you or getting you angry I'm sorry. That is the furthest thing in my mind.

[Raeven]

Not upset.  Just pointing out where it tells you exactly what a Shooting Attack is.

 

 

Pg 12.  "The shooting process can be summarized in five steps...Once you have complete steps 1 to 5 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on..."

 

This is where Shooting Attack is defined. 

 

Unless you can show the rule otherwise, that attack involves every shot possible from that unit or model. 

[[TA]Typher]

Where does it say that the steps only happen once per unit? "Once you have completed steps 1-5 for each unit". You are implying wording that isn't there.

 

My units are done when they have each completed their shooting attack. Some units like vehicles or monsterous creatures have more than one shooting attack, as they have the ability to shoot more than once.

 

The term "Once" isn't used as a singluar quantitative measure, but a random event that is dictated by events or need. There is an option here for the player.

 

It you use your wording and label the term "a shooting attack" as a all shooting from a model or vehicle then you have to adress the armoirbane issue.

 

Or.... The term "a shooting attack" could just be just what the words mean... Then (like i've said before) the problem goes away.

 

It the term was supposed to be a special

Phrase you would think that it would be stated as such, much like "death or glory" or "swooping". Making it one is stretching.

 

Without taking this leap then the wording of puppet master is clear. (In fact it's clear on it's face value).

[infornography]

I think the rules are more in favor of a shooting attack being a complete volley that a given model would normally be capable of, but I recognize that the rules have enough vagary here to support either argument.  Hence my initial post in this thread.  This argument though is starting to become circular and not going anywhere.  Unless you can find somewhere new that defines or uses the term shooting attack, there isn't much purpose in continuing this debate. 

[[TA]Typher]

I agree, but only because the issues I've brought up have been ignored.

 

Using the term "a shooting attack" as a measure of all shooting from a unit or model, no matter how different the weapon, might help the arguement to be able to shoot multiple weapons with puppet master, but in doing so breaks armourbane. Of course if you pretend the wording is different this isn't a issue.

 

If you take the wording of the power as it's written, without looking for a deeper meaning that you have to imply means the same thing, then none of this is a issue, as "a shooting attack" doesn't need to be a special term.

[Fibonacci]

 

 

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

 

Your point is moot. I've covered it, but you have not covered mine. Repeating the same thing over and over, despite it being addressed brings nothing to the table.

 

I enjoy a health debate, but trolling is another thing entirely.

So far all you have done is dodge what you think I am asking and brought up other points on topics not asked.  It is an easy question with a one word answer.

 

How many shots does a model armed with a storm bolter fire when making a shooting attack?

[Gentlemanloser]

Typher, in addition to the Storm Bolter question, going back to Armourbane;

 

 

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.

 

Do I get to roll 2d6 for Armour Penetration if I miss?

 

If not, why?

[Calnus]

I think you're missing where Armourbane is applied.  Its typically on the weapon itself, rather than the model. 

 

If I make a shooting attack with an Armourbane weapon, it gets 2D6 to pen with all of its shots (# listed on the weapon).

 

if I make a shooting attack with an Armourbane MODEL, it gets 2D6 to pen with all of its shots (# = sum of all shots listed on allowed weapons).

 

In both contexts, shooting attack is singular and maintains consistency.  What it boils down to is that a "shooting attack" is a loose term that can be equally applied to units, models, and weapons.  If I fire 1 unit, I make 1 shooting attack, which just happens to consist of as many shooting attacks as there are models in the unit (barring a rule allowing more or less), and each of those are defined to consist of as many shooting attacks as weapons each model is allowed to fire (in the case of infantry, 1, but others for other types).

 

So with Puppetmaster, I'm performing a MODEL's shooting attack.  Because of the way shots are defined on each weapon, I start at the weapons, look at the model type to define how many and which weapons (thinking of ordinance and one-shot guns here) fire, and then add up all the shots listed under each to determine how many dice to roll.

 

If Puppetmaster were on a unit instead of a model, then I would add up the allowable weapons, shots per weapon, and weapons per model to get my total dice.

[[TA]Typher]

Ok, lets start from the top. The topic is about a psyker power.

 

Puppet Master

 

Does this power allow you to shoot multiple weapons? Lets see.

 

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

 

On face value this is fairly clear. One weapon from the model gets to fire. The term "A" is singular. If it was worded as "immediately makes it's shooting attacks as if it was one of your models" then you could clearly state that ALL weapons get to fire, as the plural was used. 

 

 

So how are we coming up with different answers? Over reading and implying new rules is my view.

 

 

 

Pg 12 of the BRB states

"Once you have completed steps I to 5 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the Assault phase."

 

Now the wording here is vague. When am I completed? It doesn't state that using the shooting "summary" steps 1-5 one time means that you are. That's why individual weapons do that. It just states that once you are done move to the next phase. The wording leaves it up to YOU.. not a quantitative measure of one cycle.

 

It's like saying that once you have completed breathing you die. When have to completed it? One cycle of in and out? Well technical that is completing breathing. Or would that mean that once I have finished to it, when other factors limit your ability? IE: the number of shots each weapon is given.

 

You can only use the quantitative measure of one cycle IF you imply that is the meaning of the phrase. The wording doesn't clarify.

 

So, lets say that we do pick one meaning over the other and roll with it. As has been stated here the term "A shooting attack" then encompasses all shooting from that one cycle that a model used (steps 1-5 in the shooting "summary"). The term, although extremely common, is now a special term, like Death or Glory, Jink or evade. The rest of the rule book uses big boldfaced wording and makes sure to clarify these events, but somehow this one isn't. It's seemingly hidden in normal type.

 

 

So... we've implied that the basic text of a shooting attack isn't what it means on face value, implied that the text regarding the shooting summary on Pg 12 implies that you only do it one time for each model or unit AND implied that "a shooting attack" is a special term to house all those weapons and attacks.

 

Great.. lets see how we did.

 

 

 

 

The first use of the term comes in the special rule Armourbane.

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

 

So, we've established that the term used here means all pooled weapons.

 

Lets use for an example a Land Raider with a Multi-Melta upgrade. It has a assault cannon, two hurricane bolters and of course the multi-melta. Using the same overly literal interpretation of the text that created our new special term we can see that armourbane does not state anything about ONLY those weapons with this rule getting to use it. The sentence is talking about the pool of weapons. So without implying addition wording or intent a valid argument can be made easily that ALL weapons that encompass "a shooting attack" gets this ability.

 

Armourbane hurricane bolters anyone?

 

 

 

http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z389/typher/Misc%2040k/LROdoom2_zps36044a36.jpg

 

 

 

You can't change the meaning of the phrase when it suits you. Either it means ALL weapons.. or it's not a special term.

 

 

 

 

 

Fleshbane is the next use of the term we see.

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

 

 

Again the term means ALL weapons. So like Armourbane a model with this rule would allow other weapons in it's same pool wound on 2+. It's even clearer as the wording implies multiples. Of course it could be just referring to consecutive rounds of shooting a fleshbane weapon, but since our all encompassing special term is embedded in the sentence you would have to imply that there are additional rules that would discount those other attacks, because fleshbane does not.

 

I'm not sure what model can shoot different weapons with at least one of them being fleshbane, but it sounds amazing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rending is the third special rule to use the term "a shooting attack"

"Similarly, if a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has the Rending special rule, a To Wound roll of 6 wounds automatically, regardless of Toughness, and is resolved at AP 2."

 

Using our land Raider crusader again we find that the weapon pool he has does include a rending weapon. Like the rules before this one it says NOTHING about only the rending weapon getting this ability, only that if you have one you gain added benefit. Since the conversation is squarely on "a shooting attack" we know we are talking about ALL weapons involved.

 

 

Remember we are reading the text verbatim with the new implied special meaning of the term. 

 

Hence.. all attacks from the land raider are now rending.

 

 

 

http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z389/typher/LROdoom3_zpsd3028760.jpg

 

 

 

If you discount the wording of these rules and build yourself a little fort of implied subtext where do you stop? Remember we got here because we have over analyzed a simple sentence and had to make leaps of faith based off perceived intent to bridge the gaps between vague general rules and solid implacable ones.

 

To what avail?

 

 

 

http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z389/typher/LRCodooom4jpg_zpsfa5e8c09.jpg

 

 

 

This?

 

 

 

You can't use wording or a rule one way and then change it or imply that it means something different other times. If we take the wording "a shooting attack" just as what it means, without implying more then in all likelihood one weapon from that model gets to fire.

 

 

Like I've said before while I am being contrary my intent is not to be insulting or abusive. Text is a horrible method to convey tone, so I'll flat out tell you. I respect everyone here, even if I don't agree with you. I think I've laid out some pretty clear thoughts here and hopefuly someone can follow my train of throught.

 

 

I originally jumped in this topic, because of the vagueness of the rule being quoted. But, after looking deeper into the wording I've come to accept that a shooting attack means just that. a (singular) shooting attack, whether that means all shots allowed from a weapon of just one shot isn't really the issue, as I would have no problem if my opponent made my CML or heavy bolter shoot it's full allotted amount. While I can understand how someone could try to bridge the gaps to allow more weapons to shoot it's clearly not in the rules without some creative license and interpretation of GW's intent.

 

At the end of the day the reason we are here and play this game is because it's fun. If having fun means that I have to suffer through a few broken rules that's fine. But people shouldn't abuse them to the point of making new issues for themselves and others.

 

Now I won't say that Gw's intent was the opposite of how I think this power works, because it might have been. But what is clearly written doesn't show that intent. As much as I love GW and 40k things like this are aggravating without meaningful recourse, like they used to have on their forums or in whitedwarf. Once in a while things like this were answered without waiting for a FAQ or errata to fix something months or years down the road.

 

Anyway guys thanks for reading (if you actually did.. lol) before smashing the reply button.

[Gentlemanloser]

I read it.

 

Yet again you've ignored the questions asked of you, and the wall of text is, well quite bad.  Ignoring the statements of opinion,

 

 

Now the wording here is vague. When am I completed? It doesn't state
that using the shooting "summary" steps 1-5 one time means that you are.
That's why individual weapons do that. It just states that once you are
done move to the next phase. The wording leaves it up to YOU.. not a
quantitative measure of one cycle.

 

For each unit in your army...

 

 

So, we've established that the term used here means all pooled weapons.

 

You've done no such thing (when applied to special rules like Armourbane)

 

"with a weapon that has this special rule"

 

 

Armourbane hurricane bolters anyone?

 

No.

 

Edit: Now answer if all your shooting weapons can roll 2d6 armour penetration on a shooting attack that misses.

[[TA]Typher]

I read it.

 

Yet again you've ignored the questions asked of you, and the wall of text is, well quite bad.  Ignoring the statements of opinion,

 

A wall of text implies no breaks or punctuation. If your intent is to be negative, it's working.

 

 

Now the wording here is vague. When am I completed? It doesn't state

that using the shooting "summary" steps 1-5 one time means that you are.

That's why individual weapons do that. It just states that once you are

done move to the next phase. The wording leaves it up to YOU.. not a

quantitative measure of one cycle.

 

For each unit in your army...

 

You are implying that. The statement is vague and doesn't have a quantitative measure to it. Where does it say to this ONE time? It doesn't.

 

 

 

So, we've established that the term used here means all pooled weapons.

 

You've done no such thing (when applied to special rules like Armourbane)

 

"with a weapon that has this special rule"

 

You are excluding the term "a shooting attack". Again you can't selectively pick what statements you wish to follow and discount others parts.

 

 

Armourbane hurricane bolters anyone?

 

No.

 

Edit: Now answer if all your shooting weapons can roll 2d6 armour penetration on a shooting attack that misses.

 

Why would a miss roll 2d6? to pen. The rules establish how a hit works. Statement like this are just obtuse.

[Raeven]

Where does it say that the steps only happen once per unit? "Once you have completed steps 1-5 for each unit". You are implying wording that isn't there.

 

My units are done when they have each completed their shooting attack. Some units like vehicles or monsterous creatures have more than one shooting attack, as they have the ability to shoot more than once.

 

The term "Once" isn't used as a singluar quantitative measure, but a random event that is dictated by events or need. There is an option here for the player.

 

 

So, what is your argument? 

 

Cause it sounds like you agree that a shooting attack encompasses the models entire ability to shoot.

[Fibonacci]

 So how are we coming up with different answers? Over reading and implying new rules is my view.

Boy, you can say that again ...

 

 

On face value this is fairly clear. One weapon from the model gets to fire.

See right here is the begining of over reading and infering new rules.  The model is what makes the shooting attack.   The target model is what is affected by Puppet Master. 

 

The model makes a shooting attack.  Can we agree on this?  I know you think I am just trying to be beligerent but I really want to make a logical case built on common ground.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

A wall of text implies no breaks or punctuation. If your intent is to be negative, it's working.

 

Apologies, I think it was the pictures.  Overly large and added nothing.

 

 

You are implying that. The statement is vague and doesn't have a
quantitative measure to it. Where does it say to this ONE time? It
doesn't.

 

No, that's what the rule states.  You even quoted it above your passage.

 

The rule;

 

 

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

 

Completing steps 1-5 isn't vague.  They have defined outcomes. 

 

 

You are excluding the term "a shooting attack". Again you can't
selectively pick what statements you wish to follow and discount others
parts.

 

 

Why would a miss roll 2d6? to pen. The rules establish how a hit works. Statement like this are just obtuse.

 

You are failing to follow the *shooting attack* procedures to reach your outcome.

 

If you just look at armourbane, without following the rules for shooting attacks it reads;

 

 

if a model makes a shooting attack with a weapon that has this special rule, it rolls 2D6 for armour penetration.

 

So if you make your attack you must get to roll 2d6 armour penetration, right?

 

Now, if you follow the shooting rules, you find out if you miss, you don't get to use armourbane.

 

Following these rules also informs you of how many weapons you shoot, the Strength and AP you shoot with, and any other Special rules that apply.

[Lysere]

 

 So how are we coming up with different answers? Over reading and implying new rules is my view.

Boy, you can say that again ...

 

 

>On face value this is fairly clear. One weapon from the model gets to fire.

See right here is the begining of over reading and infering new rules.  The model is what makes the shooting attack.   The target model is what is affected by Puppet Master. 

 

The model makes a shooting attack.  Can we agree on this?  I know you think I am just trying to be beligerent but I really want to make a logical case built on common ground.

 

 

I vote we start from scratch with all this. I skipped past most of this page and part of the first but I doubt I've missed anything. Puppet master makes a Single Model make a shooting attack. Everyone should be in agreement at this point right? This model would then carry out it's shooting attack as if it was one of your own models. (IE targets units other than it's own that do not belong to you) Again, we are all in agreement?

 

The only thing not agreed upon is what exactly is a "shooting attack" and how does that affect how many weapons it fires. Anything posted to answer this should have page numbers and exact quotations (within limits) otherwise it might as well be dismissed as something we've already seen posted.

 

Also side note, a model with the armour bane rule does not grant it to all of his weapons, only with his melee attacks. Ranged weapons have to have the rule as part of their own statline or it doesn't do anything.

[Gentlemanloser]

Page 12;

 

Step 1: Nominate a Unit to Shoot

 

I think we can all agree this is the puppet-ed unit.

 

Step 2:  Choose a Target

 

N/A

 

Step 3: Roll to hit.

 

This is where it gets interesting;

 

 

Roll a d6 for each shot that is in range. Most models only get to fire one shot, however some weapons are capable of firing more than once

 

Step 4: Roll to Wound

 

Part of note here is you need to use the Weapons statistics

 

Step 5: Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties

 

 

When the wound pool has been emptied, the shooting attack has been completely resolved

 

So once steps 1 to 5 have been resolved, the shooting attack ends.  No vagueness here.

 

Now, on to Monstrous Creature Special Rules; (Page 48)

 

 

Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each shooting phase

 

Lastly, Page 51;

 

 

MORE THAN ONE WEAPON

Unless otherwise stated , if a model has more than one Shooting weapon, he must choose which one to shoot - he cannot fire both in the same Shooting phase

 

So, a 'Shooting Attack' comprises of steps 1-5, of which you *have* to choose which weapon (or Weapons if have an applicable rule) you want to attack with.  MCs can choose up to two to attack with.  When step 5 is complete the Shooting attack ends.

 

Hopefully this will now answer any questions left.

 

Edit, as quoted by Step 5, the 'Shooting Attack' contains all the wounds caused in Step 4.  Which would be generated form all the shots and all the weapons the attacking unit is able to use.

[[TA]Typher]

I wrote responses, but I think everyone is dug in to far to sway. The best way to solve this to objectively look at the term " a shooting attack" What does this mean to you. This easiest answer is usually the most basic one. If it's basic English to you then this problem is already solved. But, if you need a definition (no matter how you may need to perceive it) then look for it where you may.

 

I'm pretty easy going when I play and stay away from hardcore people or most tourneys as they usually suck the fun out of the game for me, because of poorly written rules that often can be interpreted in different ways and some peoples desire to win no matter what they had to add or omit. So, even if I think you are abusing the rules, I might let you but if you do it I might not play with you again. Or I we might have a roll off. If I was a hardcore person myself and I was forced to make my opponent do a roll off because he wanted to do this, he'd have to make me do the same for the changed meaning of the term. Hopefully he won the roll or my landraider would own the board. Thankfully I'm not that guy and things like this are not a issue for me.

 

The last game when puppet master was used against me a the player shot one weapon from my land raider. We didn't discuss it or argue, he just showed me the rule and took his shot. We both read the rule and it was clear to us.

 

I'm going to bow out of this conversation As nothing new has been added and we are just going in circles.

[Fibonacci]

It is simple English.  Correct. There is only one attack.  Absolutley true.

An attack is the act of attacking.  It it the start of aggression.  It is several other definitions you can find on your own, I am sure.

 

If you cannot (or will not) see that one single "shooting attack" can have multiple shots fired then there is no hope of understanding the rule the way we do. Stick with simple english and not rules lawyer-ese.  Don't try to define an Attack in GW terms.  Just look at it as a normal word.

 

America's war with Japan was started by the attack on Pearl Harbor.  One attack.  Many shots fired.  Don't try to read anything more into it than that.

[[TA]Typher]

Your example isn't specific is broad. The power causes a specific event.

 

A land raider's hurricane bolter makes a shooting attack.

 

The assault cannon makes a shooting attack

 

The multi-melta makes a shooting attack.

 

A land raider's other hurricane bolter makes a shooting attack.

 

 

The model shooting all of these would be making shooting attacks. Plural.

 

 

 

If you attach the term "a shooting attack" to mean all weapons fired, then without adding additional wording to them you break the other rules that I've pointed out. Implying what a rule should say instead of going by just the wording written is what has to happen to make everything work.

 

Of course if a shooting attack is just that. a singular event instead of a special term that incorporates everything else then this isn't a problem.

[Gentlemanloser]

I have quoted the answer.

 

Look at Step 5 of a shooting attack.

 

It is concluded when the wound pool is emptied.  The wound pool contains the wounds caused by all the weapons and all the shots those weapons are able to make (that hit and wound of course).

 

That is a 'Shooting Attack'.

 

 

When the wound pool has been emptied, the shooting attack has been completely resolved

 

Page 15, "Emptied Wound Pool".

 

Do I really have to work back and quote what the Wound Pool is, or how there can be wounds with different Strengths, AP or *special rules* (like armourbane)?  Page 14 "The Wound Pool".

 

 

I'm going to bow out of this conversation As nothing new has been added and we are just going in circles.

 

Apart form me quoting the rules and page numbers of various parts of the shooting Phase...

 

 

If you attach the term "a shooting attack" to mean all weapons fired,
then without adding additional wording to them you break the other rules
that I've pointed out.

 

No you don't.

 

Page 51.  Special Rules

 

 

any special rules that apply to the weapon in question

[Ming]

Just goes to show that units with puppet master are important enough to die first.

 

It does seem to be a broken rule worth a FAQ, but since it does not seem to occur all the time it is being ignored. Frankly, if puppet master is cast in the shooting phase, and a unit can ONLY fire once in the shooting phase, one could reasonably argue a unit can only fire by puppet master once per shooting phase (usual shooting rules apply). This would not stop a player from attempting tpo cast puppet master on a single unit multiple times if it had the ability to do so from several sources.