My question is regarding the cybernetic implant that lets players use a weapon as a free action. Does that mean that they can fire both this weapon and any weapon they may be carring? Seems like in general the rules don't let you attack with more than one weapon in a round unles you sue the dual strike move.

Unless you have a talant stating otherwise, you can only use one weapon once per round. What the Interface allows you to do is do full round actions or two half-actions whilst also shooting the interfaced weapon (which is usually shoulder-mounted).

This is now backed up by Sam Stewart:

"In answer to your rules question, yes, the 'one attack per turn' still applies."

MILLANDSON said:

Thing is, the text for the MIU weapon interface specifically says:

This system allows user to fire an additional ranged weapon as a Free Actionusing his full Ballistic Skill- -no matter what other actions he may be taking at the time .

That last bit seems quite clear to me, the weapon interface allows an additional attack.

*points to the post above yours*

""In answer to your rules question, yes, the 'one attack per turn' still applies." - FFG Sam Stewart.

Since he's the guy who runs the development of RT, I'll take his word as to the meaning of it. It doesn't give another attack. It just means you can do a full action or 2 half actions (but not attacks) as well as firing with the MIU WI.

I was thinking the same thing, the text specifically says that you can make an attack with it, no matter what. My question is, does it state what kind of weapon you are limited to? The text again says "ranged weapon", but Im assuming I cant slap a lascannon on there. Also does it state what the firing arc of the mounted weapon is? Im guessing maybe a 45 degree in front of the user?

*edit*

How are you limited to 1 attack per turn? I can fire 2 pistols in a turn....that's two attacks yes?

Smokes said:

The limit isn't 1 attack per turn. It's one attack action per turn. Using Swift Attack, Lightning Attack or multiple arms/weapons allows you to make multiple attacks as part of a single action.

Firing a weapon connected to a MIU Weapon Interface is an attack action. Consequently, you can't use any other attack actions during that turn.

MILLANDSON said:

Do you have an explanation of how they let such specific text into the book when they intended for something different ?

Because without an explanation it looks like Same Stewart didn't read the MIU weapon interface text before replying to you.

Also, could someone give me a page reference for the one attack per turn rule ?

The only thing I can find is page 236 which states that "A character cannot take the same Half Action twice in the same turn". But the MIU Weapon interface is a free action, not a half action, so the situation would be murky. If not for the very specific text in its description.

It also occurs to me that if a one attack per turn rule exists, then it is redundant because standard attack is the only half action attack. Even called shots take a full action.

I would suggest it is because you can do any other actions, but restrictions on the number of attacks, etc, still apply. It doesn't say that you can do it as well as another attack. Basically, it can be interpreted in two different ways, and Sam has decided on the one that means that it's not overpowered.

And Dark Heresy stated that you could only do one attack action per turn. I would assume that that was mistakenly left out of Rogue Trader.

MILLANDSON said:

If it was left out then why does the text for the interface say no matter what other actions he may be taking at the time ?

If it doesn't refer to the one attack per turn rule, what other rule does the bolded text refer to ?

I have noticed that without the one attack per turn rule, there are only two attack actions that could be performed on the same turn as a standard attack:

- Feint, which does nothing if the character performs any action between the feint and the standard attack. Any action would include attempting a dodge and parry. It doesn't seem right that a feint would require you to take a hit from your target before you can use it.

- Knock-Down.

The rest are all full actions.

I have also noticed that the ballistic mechadendrite would be rather useless if the one attack per turn applied to it.

The more I look, the more things I find that speak against this alleged one attack per turn rule, and I can't find anything to say that it exists. Do you know where I can find this rule ?

All I can find is the rule against repeating a half action.

No need to start getting worked up with me, I'm just going by what was said in Dark Heresy about attacks, the Rogue Trader rules, and what the developers have said.

If you don't want to follow what the devs say, don't. No one is forcing you to. FFG aren't going to send their team of ninja to come steal all your RPG stuff if you don't comply.

I'm just going to follow the rules as intended by the developers, as otherwise the MIU WI is overpowered.

MILLANDSON said:

Fair enough. Personally I'm expecting something to be done about the MIU WI when the errata comes out so that it is less useful than the ballistic mecadendrite.

The only issue I have is that I keep seeing people mention this one attack per turn rule, but I've never seen it written down in anything official. How can you be sure that the developers intend for that rule to be followed when they haven't written it down ?

Personally I follow the rules as written..

Bilateralrope said:

Really? Doesn't that get boring?

Rules as written is a good starting point... but that's it. Every GM has a little bit of games designer in them, in my experience, and I don't know anyone (in person, in real life) that would ever willingly constrict themselves by only going by the rules as written.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Ok, I do use house rules where I think that they will improve things.

If the one attack per turn rule was a house rule, I wouldn't be so annoyed about it as it is only a stupid house rule. My problem with it is that he is claiming that it belongs in a third category. Something more important than the RAW, yet not important enough for the developers to write down.

I'm just going to follow the rules as intended by the developers, as otherwise the MIU WI is overpowered.

Why do you think that the developers as a group support it ?

All I see is MILLANDSON claiming that one developer supports it. The others clearly don't, because if they did then it would be in an official document.

Why do you think that the thoughts of one developer are anything more than a house rule ?

This is not the first time I've seen someone believing that a house rule was an official rule.

Bilateralrope said:

Not one developer. Sam Stewart, the man who is in charge of all games development for Rogue Trader; essentially, if he says that something is the case within the context of Rogue Trader's rules, then it's the case, because it's his job to decide these things.

Have they put out an official Errata yet? I think this issue qualifies.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Exactly. Sam's interpretation IS the RAW.

And since no errata is out yet Bila, how can you justify saying "The others clearly don't, because if they did then it would be in an official document."? No other developer has made a public comment on the matter, and generally, from talking to Sam during my playtesting, the "Rules Questions" answers by one dev is the view of all the devs, they ask around for opinions on it before replying.

So the aforementioned "is still restricted by the one combat action a round" rule is RAW, according to the RT devs.

I think there's a serious misunderstanding in terms of what constitutes RAW and RAI.

RAW is the Rules as Written - the literal meaning of the words we are presented with. RAW is that there is only a restriction on two half action attacks. RAW is that the MIU's weapon is fired as an "additional" weapon "regardless" of whatever other actions were performed. That's what the words in the book actually say.

RAI is the Rules as Intended - the intention behind the rule presented. A Dev, especially one like Sam Stewart, can give use the RAI from the very source, and for the purposes of balance and gameplay, the Devs suggest that the Weapon MIU's free action attack not be compatible with other attack actions. Fine by me.

That doesn't change the RAW, though. Only an Errata will change the RAW, because an Errata can actually change what was written down.

Example: In a discussion on Fire Bombs and their penetration value, someone asked Ross Watson about their value and whether it was intended. Ross's response was that it should probably be 0, and that the issue would be considered in later errata.

RAI, then, is that the Fire Bomb's penetration value should probably be lower, maybe even 0. Until that's placed in the errata, however, the Fire Bomb's penetration is 6 by RAW, and a lower penetration value would be a House Rule, albeit one backed by Dev intentions.

Except that the e-mails containing the clarifications were written....

But yea, fair point. I would still say that the RAI are ultimately more important. For instance, the Storm quality as written is nothing like what the intention was, as it was badly written, and everyone seemed fine accepting the clarification from the devs there. I don't see how this is different.

Oh, I agree - the Weapon MIU seems way too powerful to me, and restricting its use seems quite reasonable.

Just like the Storm quality's Dev-recommended rule changes, that makes it a highly recommended house rule, though, not RAW. Semantics, I know, but words lose their meaning otherwise.

MILLANDSON said:

When did the rules as written start including unwritten rules ?

If the RAI are so important, why do I have to piece them together from second hand sources ?

Under this one attack per turn rule, why would I ever attach a ballastic mechadendrite ?

First, i dont wanna make any personel attacks or sound aggressive. But that whole MIU Weapon Control System comes up every second week or so, couldnt we make it sticky ?

Also the whole discussion always goes the same way, someone asks if its to good to be true then another one says yeah the devs never intended it to be so strong. Then the Rogue Trader Rulebook gets quoted, but then its said thats just a misprint and the devs never wanted it to be like that. But seriously it sounds pretty clear and straight to me. On the other side even if there will be an errata for it my group will keep playing it like its in the RAW.

The Storm Quality is another issue, where an Email from a Dev was posted once, but theres still no errata for it. In my opinion the general accepted meaning of that rule makes the Heavy Bolter in particular and all other hand weapons damage wise(except the real heavy weapons) totally obsolete. But thats no problem cause we houseruled that weapons with the storm quality just keep their normal max rof without doubling it.

The Mechandrites can be fired as your reaction, so its in your enemys round and doesnt fall under that theoretical 1 Attack per round rule anyhow.

WayOfTheGun said:

Erm... I posted an e-mail by Sam Stewart stating that the MIU WI still comes under the whole "no duplicate half actions in a turn" rule, despite it being a free action, which makes it the same as the Storm Quality.

And you are correct on the ballistic mechadendrite. Since it can be shot in another person's turn as a reaction, it isn't in your turn, so it doesn't come under the "no duplicate half actions" rule.

Otherwise, why would you ever have a ballistic mechadendrite? It costs a lot, and you have to have a specific talent for you to be able to use it.

I must be blind, as I can't find where you actually posted his email to you, or what would be more helpful, where someone official posted it themselves. And the last thing you posted is different than the first one- if it's covered by the duplicate actions thing, that just means you can't use the same Standard Attack Half Action with it and another weapon. So you could Semi-auto and use it, for example.

Evilgm said:

The third post in the thread:

"In answer to your rules question, yes, the 'one attack per turn' still
applies.

Sam Stewart
Associate RPG Developer
Fantasy Flight Games"