PDA

View Full Version : HE Spciefic: Does the Reaver Bow Suffer a -1 for multiple Shots?



Trains_Get_Robbed
07-05-2010, 23:32
Like I just stated does teh Reaver Bow suffer a -1 for multiple shots. And I' am almost positve to the answer of this, but does the Reaver Bow fire 3 shots for a stand and shoot? (I think it does not.)

Sorry I couldn't find the HE Faq anywhere. Thanks :D

Nurgling Chieftain
07-05-2010, 23:36
It doesn't suffer the -1 and cannot use the 3 shots while standing&shooting. The High Elf FAQ is here:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1540038_WH_HighElves_Oct_2008.pdf

Trains_Get_Robbed
07-05-2010, 23:38
Thank you kind sir! I've googled to 5 times now and keep getting weird scripts on my computer :/ Thankful this works! :)

theunwantedbeing
08-05-2010, 11:26
The official GW FAQ says it cant stand and shoot with it using its magical effects.

Going just off rules it firstly doesnt have the x multiple shots special rule, so it won't have a -1 to hit modifier applied to the 3 shots.
Secondly its a very RAW interpretation that standing and shooting isnt "his shooting phase" to deny him the use of the magical effects of the bow.(this conflicts with other things ruled to be allowed to benefit from abilities that work "in their shooting phase")

So there's little reason to not let him stand and shoot with it using its effects.
Other than the GW FAQ disagreeing of course, but they're often terribly written and poorly answered by a third party group.

Xyon
08-05-2010, 13:07
Iv always interpreted the faq to say he can stand and shoot with 1 s5 shot, but not 3.

Desert Rain
08-05-2010, 14:09
Iv always interpreted the faq to say he can stand and shoot with 1 s5 shot, but not 3.
Yeah me to.
The rules says that he shoots at S5 and that he shoots 3 times in the shooting phase. In the movement phase, where S&S occurs he would just fire 1 shot and the strength would be 5 since that isn't specified to be just in the shooting phase.

Minsc
09-05-2010, 00:11
I'd say that S&S is S3 actually:


Treat the Reaverbow as a normal Longbow with the exceptions: the bearer may shoot three times at the same target in each of his Shooting phases and any hits are resolved at S5.

The fact that is says "and" instead of the S5-part beeing a whole now sentence, seems to me like it's only S5 in the bearers shootingphase, just like the 3-shots rule.

If it had said "May shoot 3 shots in his shooting phase.[new phrase]Any hits are resolved at S5", it would've been clear that it's always S5, but the "and" part makes it unclear.

Foxbat
09-05-2010, 02:13
The fact that is says "and" instead of the S5-part beeing a whole now sentence, seems to me like it's only S5 in the bearers shootingphase, just like the 3-shots rule.The rule covering the “Reaver bow” is written as a list, please note the “:” after the word “exceptions”. This means that the items identified afterwards are independent parts of the list itself. In this case, the first part indicating that the bow can be shot multiple times during the shooting phase, and the second part being the strength of any hits scored by the user of the bow.

This is why GW advised as they did, the multi-shot ability only applies during the shooting phase. However, as there is no limitation as on which hits benefit from the higher strength, any hit scored by the user of the bow, whether or not it's during the shooting phase, would be at the higher strength.

Kalandros
09-05-2010, 05:31
English is such a terrible language. (:

But I agree, 3x S5 in shooting phase, 1x S5 in stand & shoot (even though it should be 3x, bad rules writer) and of course, its a magic weapon when it comes to Wraiths and Forest Spirits, unlike other magical ranged weapons that were ruled to not cause magic damage.

Ultimate Life Form
09-05-2010, 05:38
Well maybe the Bow takes a bit time to ready, and stand & shoot simply only leaves time for one shot?

Dutch_Digger
09-05-2010, 08:55
you can read the 'and' both as a , and as a ;
Obviously the use of one of these signs would have been better
neither interpretation is essentially wrong, both are right.

':' doesnt prove the line before 'and' and the line after it to be 2 different parts of the list. the second part can still be an explanation to the first part.

I think only the faq can guide us through this.

fabiankj
09-05-2010, 09:10
it doesnt suffer -1 cause its a bow

Minsc
09-05-2010, 09:25
please note the “:” after the word “exceptions”. This means that the items identified afterwards are independent parts of the list itself.

This sounds like something you've come up with yourself, or at the very least it's your opinion and nothing carved in stone.


it doesnt suffer -1 cause its a bow

Beeing a bow has nothing to do with it, it simply hasn't the multiple shot's rule.

Foxbat
09-05-2010, 10:39
':' doesnt prove the line before 'and' and the line after it to be 2 different parts of the list. the second part can still be an explanation to the first part.
Actually in this case it does because GW used the plural version of exception.

The problem we are running into is whether or not the two comments separated by “and” are really two distinct parts or not. As the preceding term to the list is plural, then we are told that the list contains more than one item. As a result, the “and” simply identifies where in the list the first item ends and the second item begins.

While I would have placed a comma before the “and”, this is not strictly required in this situation as the list only contains two items and neither one is a compound item that is to be taken together. For example: “I have a peanut allergy and can have anything on the menu with the following exceptions: the peanut butter and jam sandwich, and the pad thai.” In this situation a comma would be needed to more easily tell where each item in the list ends and begins.

Dutch_Digger
09-05-2010, 12:50
i thought that aswell at first. Wether or not the second part is an extention of the first line or not, it will still be several alterations to the rule. exceptions will be plural in both cases.


, or ; would replace the word 'and', not an addition as in your example, although your version will help GW aswell.

xragg
09-05-2010, 18:51
Actually in this case it does because GW used the plural version of exception.

The problem we are running into is whether or not the two comments separated by “and” are really two distinct parts or not. As the preceding term to the list is plural, then we are told that the list contains more than one item. As a result, the “and” simply identifies where in the list the first item ends and the second item begins.

While I would have placed a comma before the “and”, this is not strictly required in this situation as the list only contains two items and neither one is a compound item that is to be taken together. For example: “I have a peanut allergy and can have anything on the menu with the following exceptions: the peanut butter and jam sandwich, and the pad thai.” In this situation a comma would be needed to more easily tell where each item in the list ends and begins.

agreed. "exceptions" requires more then one exception to be grammatically correct.