Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hmmmm...

Two Guardians for one platform. Platform needs to be next to at least one of them. Either can use.


So lets say their are 12 guardians, two are a HW crew. Can you put them all in a line, and put one HS crew on each end of the line, and then choose which one is firing depending on what line of sight you want to use?
 Can you switch which HW crew member is firing on your your turn and the enemies turn, without moving anything?
 If one HW crew member dies, does the gun 'teleport' to the other end of the line to be with the other crew member?

It strikes me as kinda cheesy.

are you talking about support batteries or the normal platforms given to eldar guardian defenders? either way i think you need to reread the rules, or read the new codex.

The normal HW platforms for the troops.

And I have read the rules, and it was the new codex, and that is why I am asking these questions. Heck, I even quoted some of the rules. For you, I will even reread them. (pause) Yep, they say the same things that I was questioning before.

Now, if my questions were unclear, I will gladly restate them.

The rule is that the "platorm" is just a model, and you have to nominate a crew member who you acually draw line of sight from and is considered as "holding" the weapon. You also need both crewmen to stay in coherency with the platform. Both of these requirements would prevent the tactic you suggested.

It states it must stay in coherency with "at least one of the crew."

It also states that the model is not to really be treated as a model, and to just assume it is carried by whichever model is firing it.

Generally the most common and least questionable interpretation I've seen is to treat it as a model. The rules do specify that you measure from it, so its exact position is important. I always move it just like another model in the squad, but I move it out of the way of assaults since it cannot participate.

Posted By Mannahnin on 04/15/2007 11:44 AM
Generally the most common and least questionable interpretation I've seen is to treat it as a model. The rules do specify that you measure from it, so its exact position is important.

I am afraid youre mistaken, Mannahnin.



So going by what it says, you can have a congo line of gaurdians, one of each of the heavy weapons crewman on either end of the line while maintaining coherency with the platform with a single model.

Though the danger is when the model who is in coherency being removed, and having to place the other gaurdian back into coherency with it to use the weapon.

The real question is: Can you move the weapon platform marker immediatly to the other crewman? Since either can fire it at any given time, I am inclined to beleive that its location is just to show (as a marker) which model of the two crew is firing the weapon and it can be placed immediatly anywhere within coherency between the two crew before firing the weapon. Rememeber, it specifically states that the platform is ALWAYS ignored, it is just a marker.

I much prefer the older rules which specified that you needed line of sight from both the gun and one crewman and range was measured from the gun. It was more realistic and caused less problems, IMHO. A good house rule if you ask me.

Posted By Ghaz on 04/15/2007 12:09 PM
I much prefer the older rules which specified that you needed line of sight from both the gun and one crewman and range was measured from the gun. It was more realistic and caused less problems, IMHO. A good house rule if you ask me.

Not really. This way is so simple it is easy to miss, as many here in this thread can attest to by the posts they make.

just fire from one of the crewman, and place the platform next to it to show which crewman is firing, treating it as a marker, like it says in the rules. As that is all it is, is a marker representing what weapon is being carried.

How embarassing. Thanks for the correction, HF. Shows you I only tried out the new codex for a little over a month before switching over to DA & CSM in preparation for the Colonial.

How hard is it to check line of sight from two models instead of one?

Posted By Ghaz on 04/15/2007 2:52 PM

Not really. This way is so simple it is easy to miss, as many here in this thread can attest to by the posts they make.

How hard is it to check line of sight from two models instead of one?

Why check LOS from two models when you can do it from one?

[edit]

Not to mention that the 4th ed eldar heavy wepons rules are CONSIDERABLY more clearly written than previously known.

I didn't see any problems with them once they put out the FAQ:

So, getting back on topic....

Is it legal to have a 'congo line' of guardians, with the HW crew on either end; then pick either one to shoot as it is convenient? Allowing the platform to 'teleport' back and forth as desired? If one platform dies, can the platform 'teleport' to the other crewmember?

Posted By Ghaz on 04/15/2007 3:27 PM

Not to mention that the 4th ed eldar heavy wepons rules are CONSIDERABLY more clearly written than previously known.

I didn't see any problems with them once they put out the FAQ:

Q. Where do I draw line of sight and measure range from when firing a support/heavy weapon platform?

A. You need line of sight both from a crewman and the weapon, range is measured from the weapon. The exceptions to this are the D-Cannon and Shadow Weaver, which do not require line of sight.

Thats all well and good, but the rules are definatly changed now which allows such things as dividing the crewman from coherency with each other and being able to place them anywhere you like within coherency of the unit. Simple, concise and no need to be FaQ'ed.

Which brings me back to coredumps's original statement. He views it as somewhat cheesy.
I can see where he is coming from there, but then again, it is only one weapon that this unit is firing as opposed to half of all other armies whose troops special weapons are more voluminous inside the units.

Marines: Can take up to 2 specialized weapons.
Dark eldar: Warrior squads can take upto 4 specialized weapons in a squad or 2 in a raider squad.
Sisters: Can take two specialised weapons.
Imperial guard: Can take up to two specialized weapons, more if in command squads..
Orks: Can have either three or four specialized weapons, depending on the unit.

Eldar's advatage is increased LOS through a spread if you so choose to deploy in that fashion. Other armies who are allowed to upgrade troops weapons gets increased LOS in the unit, AND more weapons.

Not saying it is or isnt cheesy, just providing food for thought.

Posted By coredump on 04/15/2007 3:51 PM

So, getting back on topic....

Is it legal to have a 'congo line' of guardians, with the HW crew on either end; then pick either one to shoot as it is convenient? Allowing the platform to 'teleport' back and forth as desired? If one platform dies, can the platform 'teleport' to the other crewmember?

For all intents and purposes, yes.

I think I made a rather good point of that in the post where I cited the rules.

Posted By Hellfury on 04/15/2007 3:55 PM

Posted By coredump on 04/15/2007 3:51 PM

So, getting back on topic....

Is it legal to have a 'congo line' of guardians, with the HW crew on either end; then pick either one to shoot as it is convenient? Allowing the platform to 'teleport' back and forth as desired? If one platform dies, can the platform 'teleport' to the other crewmember?

For all intents and purposes, yes.

I think I made a rather good point of that in the post where I cited the rules.

i disagree, models dont just teleport, i believe you have to move the hw crew to the hw.

It looked legal to me also, but I didn't *want* it to be legal.



eh... I guess.
"You guys can buy and pay for 2-3 special weapons, but they are where they are.
You guys can only buy and pay for one special weapon, but it can be in either of two places."

mmmmmm....okay. I guess that makes it a bit less cheesy in my mind.

Lets do this in a more formal manner since so many opinions and not so many facts are flying around.

First, I will again cite the pertinent rule:



My premises:

1. One of the stipulations for firing the weapon mounted on the platform is that it is "in coherency with one of the crew". (first paragraph, second sentence)
   
2. "One crewman may fire the weapon instead of his shuriken catapult, the other may shoot with his own weapon freely. Line of sight and range are always drawn from the firing crew member" (second paragraph, first sentence)

Conclusion:

• You may indeed seperate platform crewman from each other on a "congo line" on either end of said line, and be able to draw LOS from either crewman.

While I cannot make a formal argument for placing the platform immediatly within coherency of the remaining crew without taking the least advantageous path, I still beleive because the platform is regarded for all intents and puposes as a marker, that you may move the platform to the crewman and not the crewman to the platform.

But all things considered, it is a small matter as you can move both into coherency while still travelling in the direction that the rest of the unit is travelling.

I never said the rules didn't change, it's just that I don't think they needed to be changed as drastically as they did. Also I don't believe that the crew and weapon needed to be in coherency with the older FAQ ruling either. It's just makes more sense that the gun actually plays a part in the older codex and actually had to be able to see that target it was shooting at. Presently it's nothing more than a useless piece of clutter on the table.

I don't believe it is legal to "conga line" as has been put forth.

Rule 1: The weapon and crewman must be in coherency to use the weapon.

Premise 1: Even though the rules go on to state "the gun model is ignored...essentially a marker..." the gun model in fact is not ignored in all cases, and its location is important. Therefore the rules are placing a restriction on the movement of the model.

Supporting Fact 1: If the gun model is "ignored in all cases" how does it move? It's still a model and must be treated as such. The rules don't allow you, for instance, to suffer a casualty on the lascanon gunner in a space marine squad, and say "oh, his buddy X inches away picks up the weapon" and then proceed to transfer the weapon model to the other side of the unit, replacing the "vanilla" marine with the heavy weapon. This would be considered cheating by most players, as you are essentially getting free movement from a heavy weapon.

Supporting fact 2: By what rule can an Eldar weapon platform "teleport," without regard to distance, from one crewman to another? This would be a new precedent in the game; a model with no movement limitations whatsoever.

Premise 2: Because the RAW insists on maintaining coherency, we must assume that the gun model moves with the unit, at the majority movement in the unit. If the movement phase was unimportant, the rules would place no restriction on "maintaining coherency," because it would be a non-issue. In other words, if the gun model were allowed "free reign" as you are putting forth in the "conga line" interpretation, "coherency" would never, ever come into play and therefore would not have been mentioned in the ruleset for weapon platforms. (GW could have written "...crewmen considered to be carrying the weapon..." and ended it there)

Premise 3: We can only conclude, therefore, that because the rules place a restriction on "maintaining coherency" that the model in fact is important during movement. Because all models in 40k move at the speed of the slowest model in the unit they are a part of, we can only conclude that a weapon platform has all of the movement restrictions of a normal guardian. (so move 6", fleet if you want, and assault movement are all allowed). So, by the RAW, you can only assume that the gun model can not in fact teleport willy-nilly, but must move as a guardian and must be in coherency with either crewman on any given turn in order to be used.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 04/16/2007 8:31 AM
I don't believe it is legal to "conga line" as has been put forth.

Rule 1: The weapon and crewman must be in coherency to use the weapon.

Only partially correct. The platform and atleast ONE crewman must be in coherency with each other. (first paragraph, second sentence)

Because there is no stipulation stating that the firing crewmember must be within coherency of the platform in order to fire the weapon., then it can be posited that you may in fact "conga line" the guardians and be able to fire the weapon mounted on the platform with either crewman. (second paragraph, first sentence)

If you assume that all coloured dots representing a guardian defender squad are in coherency, then it satisfies all rules put forth in the 4th ed rulebook and eldar gaurdian entry, and thus, is legal:

• It meets the minimum requirements for squad size
• It has two guardian HW Platform crew
• The platform is in coherency with one of those crew
• They are all equipped with shuriken catapults

Since these requirements are met, then either of the crew may fire the weapon mounted on the platform and draw LOS from their current position as defined in the second paragraph of the guardian heavy weapon platform rules.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 04/16/2007 8:31 AM

Premise 3: [Conclusion] We can only conclude, therefore, that because the rules place a restriction on "maintaining coherency" that the model in fact is important during movement. Because all models in 40k move at the speed of the slowest model in the unit they are a part of, we can only conclude that a weapon platform has all of the movement restrictions of a normal guardian. (so move 6", fleet if you want, and assault movement are all allowed). So, by the RAW, you can only assume that the gun model can not in fact teleport willy-nilly, but must move as a guardian and must be in coherency with either crewman on any given turn in order to be used.

For the argument towards instantly placing the platform widdershins:

Agreed and conceded.

Ah yes I seem to have initiated a second discussion if it hadn't been already...

Regardless I think my point still applies to the exploit depicted above in that it logically follows that the guardian firing the weapon must be in coherency with it.

Using a common-sense approach isn't usually wise, but the 40k rule set is a permissive system. They tell you what you can do. Assuming that you can fire the weapon platform--when coherency is important--with a crewman that is out of coherency with the weapon is a stretch, and falls into the "use the less advantageous interpretation" category. Furthermore I think I should point out that the rule is poorly written and applying RAW to it makes things shaky. There are definitely two different schools of thought from which to approach this one, and your interpretation isn't wrong; it 's just that when there are two equally valid interpretations, you should use the less advantageous of the two.

Admittedly when I first read the rule I subconsciously amended it with "can only be used by crew in coherency with it."

So, to clarify, I play it: move gun model with guardian movement in order to maintain coherency=yes; immediately move gun model to out-of-coherency gunner or fire with the same=no.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 04/16/2007 3:00 PM

Regardless I think my point still applies to the exploit depicted above in that it logically follows that the guardian firing the weapon must be in coherency with it.

I would agree except that the caveat of atleast one crew be in coherency. It does not state both must be in coherency. So I vehemetly disagree.

I think if they went through the trouble of stating at least one member must be in coherency, it could be assumed that it would have been just as easy to write that they both must be in coherency.

GW chose the option of atleast one crew musst be in coherency. So there it stands. I dont feel that RaW makes it shaky, it makes it solid. I am at a loss as to how to explain it any other way. I have cited the rules twice ( with a screen cap, no less) and drawn diagrams. I feel my position is backed by the rules fully... *shrug*
Any general rules of coherency as noted in the rulebook is overruled by the specific codex rule  I cited. Nor does the specific rule break any general rules.

I can see your argument is rock solid as far as moving the platform wherever you may like, but it doesnt support the argument against the proposed "conga line" of seperated crewman being able to fire the weapon and draw line of sight from their respective positions.

In fact, your whole argument is flawed regarding seperate firing positions (as noted three posts above) because it fails to note the singular ommitted stipulation of only one model needing to be in coherency with the platform. You note coherency is important (and it very much is), but you ommited that the requirement is for a minimum of one crew.

 

I just want to mention that there is no indication anymore that the weapon is considered a "model" within the scope of the rules.

The weapon is no longer called a "model" in the Eldar codex and it doesn't have any characteristics that would denote it as either creature or vehicle.

The point is, by the RAW you can freely move the platform around willy-nilly. In other words, it doesn't move the speed of the slowest model in the unit because it isn't a model in the unit.

 

 

 

Yak,
then why does it need to maintain coherency?

How does a non-model maintain coherency?

And it does refer to "...the platform model..." (granted, it then says to ignore it, but then why the need for coherency?)

Yak I have to agree with Coredump here. You've said yourself (probably not quoting exactly) that a model is a model is a model. Since coherency is a stipulation, as per my point above, we must assume that we are supposed to treat the platform as a "model" in regards to movement.

To respond to Hellfury--I already stated that your argument is justified by the rules. Even if you don't have to have both crew in coherency (I didn't assert this at all, and it's not what the rule says...where did this come from?) my point is that the gunner actually using the weapon has to be [the one] in coherency with it.

My point is that the rules don't make a specific allowance for you to use the out of coherency crew member to fire the weapon. Thus, the weapon can only be used by any crew that are in coherency with it.

This does not add extra "baggage" onto the "at least one must be in coherency..." stipulation set forth by the RAW. What I'm saying is that you can't draw LOS from a crew member that is out of coherency with the gun platform model itself and pretend like he's the one firing the weapon. That's rule exploitation in its purest form. You don't assume you can do things that the rules don't say you can do.

Nowhere else in 40k is a model armed with a special weapon of any sort allowed to "change place" with another model removed as a casualty. This is essentially what you're trying to do with the grav platform when trying to "fire" it from a crew member not in coherency with it. The weapon can't just teleport around, so how is an Eldar standing far away [out of coherency with gun model] supposed to "crew" the gun?

I'd like to add that I personally read the rule assuming the author's intent was "in order to use the gun you must have at least one model in coherency with it." There is nothing that indicates that we should assume that the out-of-coherency crew member, if there is one, can also make equal use of the gun. This just doesn't follow logically. One crewman is explicitly stated as having to be in coherency to use the weapon, and that is the basis of my conservative interpretation.

Bottom line: trying to "conga line" is a stretch of the rules and opens up other loopholes (such as the teleporting platform argument) which don't exist if you assume that the model making use of the gun must be within coherency with the gun. Granted this isn't spelled out word for word in the RAW, but once again I reassert that if there are two equally playable ways to use a rule, and one of the ways can be construed as being overly advantageous or a "stretch," that generally the more conservative interpretation is the one to go with. Applying this consistently nearly always ends up matching any clarifications released as official FAQs.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 04/17/2007 11:15 AM

Nowhere else in 40k is a model armed with a special weapon of any sort allowed to "change place" with another model removed as a casualty. This is essentially what you're trying to do with the grav platform when trying to "fire" it from a crew member not in coherency with it. The weapon can't just teleport around, so how is an Eldar standing far away [out of coherency with gun model] supposed to "crew" the gun?

Likewise, nowhere else in 40K is there a model that we are told to ignore for everything except coherency with atleast a single model. Your example is flawed because this rule already sets a new precedent.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 04/17/2007 11:15 AM

My point is that the rules don't make a specific allowance for you to use the out of coherency crew member to fire the weapon. Thus, the weapon can only be used by any crew that are in coherency with it.

This does not add extra "baggage" onto the "at least one must be in coherency..." stipulation set forth by the RAW. What I'm saying is that you can't draw LOS from a crew member that is out of coherency with the gun platform model itself and pretend like he's the one firing the weapon. That's rule exploitation in its purest form. You don't assume you can do things that the rules don't say you can do.

Nowhere else in 40k is a model armed with a special weapon of any sort allowed to "change place" with another model removed as a casualty. This is essentially what you're trying to do with the grav platform when trying to "fire" it from a crew member not in coherency with it. The weapon can't just teleport around, so how is an Eldar standing far away [out of coherency with gun model] supposed to "crew" the gun?

I'd like to add that I personally read the rule assuming the author's intent was "in order to use the gun you must have at least one model in coherency with it." There is nothing that indicates that we should assume that the out-of-coherency crew member, if there is one, can also make equal use of the gun. This just doesn't follow logically. One crewman is explicitly stated as having to be in coherency to use the weapon, and that is the basis of my conservative interpretation.

Bottom line: trying to "conga line" is a stretch of the rules and opens up other loopholes (such as the teleporting platform argument) which don't exist if you assume that the model making use of the gun must be within coherency with the gun. Granted this isn't spelled out word for word in the RAW, but once again I reassert that if there are two equally playable ways to use a rule, and one of the ways can be construed as being overly advantageous or a "stretch," that generally the more conservative interpretation is the one to go with. Applying this consistently nearly always ends up matching any clarifications released as official FAQs.

Sorry bud, but you seem to be going through an aweful stretch yourself trying to explain why it isnt a legal manuever.

My method follows ALL rules. Specific overrides general rules, remember?

I am tired of repeating myself as much as I am sure you are tired of me repeating myself and me reading your repeats. You have exhausted me. I no longer wish to argue such a tawdry point. Play it however you want. I know Ill be using how its simply explained in the rules to play this. There is no neeed to hound over why it is or isnt legal with intent disputes. The rules simply are the rules.

And the rules plainly say that it is indeed legal to conga line without having to stretch disbelief one iota. If it is FaQ'ed later so that it is from your viewpoint, so be it. I welcome it. But I seriously dont think it needs a FaQ at all.

Both cases require long-winded description, because the implications of this oversimplified rule are larger than the RAW implies by volume of content.

The diagram posted above as well as disagreements about what is and isn't legal while using the "conga line" reinforce this fact.

Just as the rules don't implicitly state that "a crewmember out of coherency with the grav platform can still fire the weapon,"

neither do they state

"the crewmember that wishes to make use of the weapon platform must be in coherency with it."

This is reinforced by the fact that GW goes on to state that it is intended that the model using the weapon be treated as being armed with it...

So, by your interpretation, what is happening? Are they tossing the weapon platform about in the squad?

The rules state that in order to fire the weapon, you have to have at least one crewmember in coherency with the gun. They go on to state that the model firing the weapon is assumed to be "armed" with the weapon. This leads to the assumption that only one Guardian can use the weapon at a time.

Furthermore, point out to me where is explicitly allows you to use the "conga line" tactic and I'll concede the point. As you'll find no such rule, and you assume that such a usage of the unit is "legal," then you are not playing by RAW. You are playing by made-up rules. When RAW is ambiguous, always err on the side of "less advantageous."

Since when does any single weapon get two completely different lines of sight? Undoubtedly this rule is poorly written, so do indeed play whichever way makes you happy, or that your local metagame allows. Either way RAW forces to you make some assumptions in this case, and one is clearly game-breaking while the other is not. (the whole "breaking precedent" argument...)

EDIT: I forgot to mention: Specific rules that explicitly override the main rules have precedent. That is to say, rules that are "in exception to" and worded as such override normal play. The Grav Platform rules are not "in exception" to anything, and dictate the use of the Gun Platform Model on the tabletop. They do not automatically exempt you from the rest of the shooting rules, or even the rest of the rules set. If you looked at everything this way, then everything becomes broken because the individual rules are built upon core rules in this rule set. RAW doesn't mean that you view every "specific" rule in isolation. RAW means you play what is written in the contiguous rule set unless there are specific exceptions.