Topic: Is the repeating pistol a pistol?

[Mats]

Ok, I have a pretty basic question about the repeating pistol. Is it a pistol or not? In the book it only says that you always can stand and shoot with it, but is says nothing about the weapon being a pistol.

So if a pistolier champion equipped with a repeating pistol moves and shoots, will he have one shot which hits on 4+, and 3 shots which hit on 5+ within 4 inches and 6+ at long range, against normal sized targets? Seems very stupid to me, but I guess it might be difficult to convince a tournament opponent that the weapon indeed is a pistol, with the rules as they now are written.

Cheers

[fbjorn]

Combined with a pistol it counts as 4x multiple shots, so all four shots should be resolved the same way at least (-1 for multiple shots).
Besides that I agree that it's unclear.

[Dendo Star]

It still counts as a normal pistol.

[Mats]

Denodo Star, exactly where does it say that it counts as a normal pistol? I really wish it does count as a pistol. However, why would GW write out that it always can stand and shoot instead of writing that it follows the rules of pistols, if that is the case?

Anyway, a precise reference to where the rules that repeating pistol counts as a pistol would indeed make my day.

Cheers

[Dendo Star]

In the previous Empire FAQ, 6th edition, where the rules for the repeater pistol are exactley the same as present, it was explained all rules governing pistols cover the Repeater Pistol as well.

And, to answer your question as to as to why it is written in can always stand & shoot...

 Because it's a pistol.

[Stephan Chiarini]

They don't call the repeater handgun a "handgun" in it's description.  Does that mean it doesn't function exactly like a handgun, but has 3x multiple shots  ?

The repeater pistol functions as a pistol in every way that it matters.  I think that by the fact that it does not state "Move or Fire" under the description should dispell any question you have about it.

Clearly you can move AND fire with it, clearly it has an 8 inch range, clearly it lets off 3 shots, and clearly it can be combined with another pistol to give you 4x shots.  What else do you need to know?

[Mats]

I totally agree that it is move AND fire, has an 8 inch range, and 3x multiple shots. What I don’t know is what to hit modifications I should apply when trying to land the shots.

[fbjorn]

Some would argue that a repeater X-Bow isn't just a X-Bow with 2x multiple shots, and therefor a repeater pistol isn't just a pistol with 3x multiple shots unless it says so somewere in the rules. Unfortunately only some but not all characteristics of a pistol is mentioned in the rules for the repeater pistol.
I totally agree that the intention must be that it indeed is a pistol, but I also agree that the rules are unclear.

[MisterGato]

The NEB seem to pretty clearly say what using a repeater pistol and a normal pistol at the same time gives you 4x multiple shots, so if you were using both weapons at once the implication seem to clearly be you take all 4 at a -1 modifier.

[Mats]

MisterGato - The multiple shot is not the issue. As you point out its quite clear that you get -1 for multiple shots for all four shots. The question is if you get -1 for moving and shooting, and -1 for long range with the repeating pistol. Referring to the ed. 6 errata will probably not convince a hard ass, WAAC, tourney player, so until we get a new erratum, I might have to skip the pistolier champion.

[Hoffa]

Why, why, why  can Gw never learn to write propper rules.  ( I think both rules design and playtesting has been good here unfortunatly the efforts of the designers and playtesters has been sabotaged by GWs lazy attitude towards proofreading.)

Fortunately there is another thing about the repeater. It has the special rule. "Alway stand and shoot". But there is no such thing as an universal "Always stand and shoot rule" (look in the special weapon rules section brb p 54)

The only place in the rules where "Always stand and shoot" is explained is in the pistol rules under "Missile weapons"  brb p 57

This is a clear hint that the special rules for the repeater pistol are to be read as an addition to the rules for a normal pistol.  IE. The repeater pistol follows all the rules of a normal pistol + all the extra special rules of the repeater. 

PS Spellchecking seems to be unaviable for the moment.

[Captain Tineal]

If somebody tried to argue with me that a Repeater PISTOL is not a pistol, I think I'd have to punch them in the neck. 

[johnwayne]

If somebody tried to argue with me that a Repeater PISTOL is not a pistol, I think I'd have to punch them in the neck. 

my thoughts exactly :p

[Taladryel]

1. By way of fluff, common sense, probable designer intent and 6ed references, it's a pistol.

2. Under a RAW (Rules As Written) interpretation, it is not a pistol. I.e. NOWHERE in its rules does it state that it either a) follows all the rules for a regular pistol or b) ignores movement and range mods. The rules ONLY state that it, when combined with a pistol, is MSx4 (and is MSx3 by itself), and always stands and shoots.

2.5. Yes, GW Design Studio is populated with dolts and Gav Thorpe clones, who lack any basic understanding of games design or English grammar. This has been the case for years, and will only grow worse in the future.

3. My personal (and some other people's) policy for cases where two competing rules interpretations exist is to use the worse one. First, you never know if GW intended this to be the case (they've made several 7th Edition rules changes deliberately, wherein people initially thought these were "typos" and omissions), and second, this way you avoid any rules arguments whatsoever (few opponents would strenuously object to gaining such an advantage). On the marginal plus side, the champ is BS4.

4. Realistically, if someone were to use six-shooters on me, I'd let them claim that they follow all the normal rules for a pistol as well. That said, I would fully expect a 5-game tournament to feature at least one game with a player who disputes this. Again, in this case there is genuine RAW ambiguity; citing 6th Edition interpretations doesn't work, since someone who'd started to play in 7th wouldn't have known of any of them (and since rules DO change between editions). The best way to handle the problem is to discuss the issue with your opponent BEFORE the game - and if he/she/other persists in a strictly RAW interpretation, well, so be it, but then you can always tank his Sports score.

5. The "Always Stand and Shoot" logic doesn't work. By same rationale, Crimson Death, described as a "two-handed weapon" and giving the user +2 strength, should be a GW and strike last. It isn't and doesn't. Weapon-specific rules trump ANY rulebook weapon rules UNLESS specifically otherwise noted.

6. If GW ever decides to release a 7th Edition Empire FAQ, I'm 98% certain that they would rule the Repeater is a pistol (probably with something like "duh, of course it is"). Understand, these people have no clue about how the game works, and tend to play very little against those who do.

[Captain Tineal]

4. Realistically, if someone were to use six-shooters on me, I'd let them claim that they follow all the normal rules for a pistol as well. That said, I would fully expect a 5-game tournament to feature at least one game with a player who disputes this. Again, in this case there is genuine RAW ambiguity; citing 6th Edition interpretations doesn't work, since someone who'd started to play in 7th wouldn't have known of any of them (and since rules DO change between editions). The best way to handle the problem is to discuss the issue with your opponent BEFORE the game - and if he/she/other persists in a strictly RAW interpretation, well, so be it, but then you can always tank his Sports score.

The problem with this, is now you have to make a list of weird rules to discuss pre-game with every opponent... I'm not saying this isn't a problem with the wording, but if people are going to piddle away gaming time over something that is ommiting something that is intended (and stated in the name of the item like in this case) it really makes everybody's life worse.

[Taladryel]

Pre-game discussions have been a part of GW gaming for a while now. Just remember what used to happen in the days before "tactical wheeling" was FAQed. Of course, you are right in that every new rules supplement (army-specific or general) tends to add to that list. Still. Better work it out pre-game than to have a moment of unpleasantness around the bottom of Turn 3 (wait, you can't do that...oh yes I can, and my list is built around my being able to do that...but you can't...yes I can...no you can't...etc.).

[RGB]

Ugh.

If someone tried to argue with me it wasn't a pistol I'd probably not play that person anymore. Of course it is. That said, GW should clarify it next chance they get.

[Hoffa]

If the always stand and shoot argument I made earlier dosen't work then we must conclude that the "always stand and shoot" rule of the repeater in fact dosen't do anything as there is no such universal rule in the rulebook.   

(Only if the repeater does indeed follow all of the rules for normal pistols does the always stand and shoot part of it rule become defined.)

[Taladryel]

Methinks you're confusing the issues.

A specific piece of equipment - a new type of gun, a magic item, etc. - can have any special rule that the designers want. In the Repeater Pistol's case, this special rule is "Always Stand & Shoot".

But just because a piece of equipment X has Special Rule Y that is identical to the special rule for Generic Equipment Z does NOT translate into X == Z. My example was a weapon that has the special rules "two-handed" and "+2S", but was NOT a Great Weapon (and so did NOT "Always Strike Last"). Another, even better example is the Repeater Crossbow. A regular Crossbow is move-or-fire; a Repeater is not. Because the Repeater's OWN rules/statline/etc. do NOT contain either the words "Move-or-fire" or the words "is treated just like a Crossbow".

So - from a purely logical standpoint - using a weapon-specific special rule to equate equipment X to equipment Y doesn't work. Unless you stipulate that ONLY Pistols as described in the main book can EVER have the "Always Stand & Shoot" special rule. Which, of course, is not the case.

[Hoffa]

I stipulate that there is no  "Always Stand & Shoot" rule that the repeater can use if it is not considerad to be a pistol.

How would you "Always Stand & Shoot"  with a repeater pistol if you are not allowed to use the explanation of "Always Stand & Shoot" that is found in the rules for normal pistols ? 

[Taladryel]

Because the Repeater Pistol rules specifically state that THIS PARTICULAR weapon will Always Stand & Shoot. There is no need to further define the rule (as it says, you always stand and shoot).

Again - just because Weapon A has one rule that's the same as Weapon B, doesn't mean A and B share ALL the rules. Logically speaking, that is. You're saying that EVERY Move-or-Fire weapon is automatically a Handgun and gets Armour Piercing - it isn't, and doesn't.

Realistically speaking, the Repeater will eventually be FAQed as a pistol - or, alternatively, X% of people will play it one way, while 1-X% will play it the other way.

EDIT - let me try to make this point even clearer. The Repeater rules say something like "the Repeater Pistol always stands and shoots". They do NOT say "always stands and shoots LIKE PISTOLS". Or "BECAUSE IT IS A PISTOL". And that's the key omission that renders Always Stand & Shoot to be here a weapon-specific rule that happens to coincide with a weapon-specific rule for normal pistols. Again, GW probably didn't INTEND it this way, but that's how they WROTE it. Which is especially stupid of them, considering that they had PRECISELY THE SAME LANGUAGE PROBLEM THE LAST TIME. And had to FAQ it. 

[Hoffa]

Because the Repeater Pistol rules specifically state that THIS PARTICULAR weapon will Always Stand & Shoot. There is no need to further define the rule (as it says, you always stand and shoot).

There is every need to define the rule if you can't use the definition in the pistol rules (which you can only do if the repeater pistol is a pistol)

Imagine that the brb pistol didn't have always stand and shoot. How would you play the repeaters always stand and shoot ?

You would find your self asking if

1) If the repeater could stand and shoot without los ?
2) If the repeater could stand and shoot against enemies pursuing into the repeater pistol armed unit ?
3) If the repeater could stand and shoot against enemies that began less than half their charge move away ?

All three of the above are resonable intrepretations of how a an undefined rule called always stand and shoot could work. But with out a definition you wouldn't know which, if any, of them would apply.

And there is my point.  The repeater pistol has a special rule that is only definied in the context of pistols. This is a strong but not conclusive argument for the repeater pistol being a pistol. (For if it isn't a pistol it has an undefined and therefore unusable special rule)

Ps This is not the same as saying that everything that has move-or-fire must follow all the rules for handguns because move or fire is defined on p 55 outside of the description of any individual weapon. As I have pointed out several times there is no independent definition of always stand and shoot.

[Taladryel]

EDIT - oh what's the use.

First, your three questions above can be easily answered by reading page 19 of the rulebook and making simple logical inferences.

Second, your logic boils down to - "since Weapon A's special rule is the same as Weapon B's special rule, they must be the same weapon." Aside from the obvious logical fallacy, which I just can't seem to communicate in sufficiently clear terms, you are forgetting that Always S&S is indeed a weapon-specific rule, and different weapons can have the same rule defined and described differently. Does not make them the same weapon. See the mess with "Strike First" rule across army books back in 6th Edition.

So under RAW, as I've said before, your argument doesn't work. Arguing intent doesn't work either, since GW has deliberately made not-quite-sensible rules changes in the past, and arguing "a pistol is a pistol" doesn't work either because a Crossbow is not a Repeater Crossbow.

What you SHOULD have been arguing is "because GW has ruled on this thusly in 6th, and because the opposing - non-pistol - interpretation of the rule renders it useless, it is most likely a pistol with multiple shot". But that's not what you argued.

Unfortunately, I have a habit of dropping threads where I have to repeat the same point three times over with little apparent success. To reiterate, I do think that this is a GW goof, and would not mind letting my opponent use "normal" rules for the weapon - but if I were to use them myself, I'd clarify this during the pre-game discussion, in particular as current RAW does not support the old weapon rules (no movement or range mods), and as many people a) play by RAW and/or b) started in WFB AFTER 6th Edition, i.e. are unaware of the old rules/FAQs on the subject.

Signing off.

[Hoffa]

I've gotten your point well enought. You seem to not have understod me but there is not much more I can do. I will just let you know that I have never argued that: Because two weapons have the same special rule they must be the same weapon.  I have argued that: If two weapons have the same special rule AND the rule is only defined as part of the rules for one of the weapons they probably are the same weapon because if they are not, one of them can't use it's special rule.

Nothing that isn't a pistol can use any part of the pistol rules and with out reading the pistol rules there is no way to know how to play "Always stand and shoot"   (I strongly disagree that you can infer the way the normal pistols "always stand and shoot" works by reading p19.)

Therefore anything with "always stand and shoot" is likely to be a pistol and follow all of the pistol rules except for those that it explicitly overrides.

I will now leave this dicussion untill someone brings up something new.

PS If you opponent allows you to use inference as an argument you might as well infer that the repeater pistol is a pistol and save your self all this trouble 

[Graf von Carroburg]

It would be silly if you got no penalties to hit with a one-barrel pistol, but did with multiple barrels strapped together all pointing the same way.

Then again, you'd think the same about cannon barrels...