A couple questions. First, with the Banner of Devastation do the boltguns keep rapid fire? Also can I fast blessing or maldictions out of land raiders?

Standard of Devastation : Yes. Nothing states it is removed, just an additional bonus if within 6" of the standard (applicable to the full range of the boltgun).

*** EDIT *** (of course I could be wrong)

If that is the case, would it fire eight shots within half the weapons max range (doubling the shots) or would it jus give me one extra shot for a total of five?

Razakil wrote:
If that is the case, would it fire eight shots within half the weapons max range (doubling the shots) or would it jus give me one extra shot for a total of five?

Neither, as it will be fired as a Salvo 2/4 weapon or a rapid fire weapon.

Did the OP mean *cast* blessings? If so, no.

You can pick between firing as Salvo or a Rapid Fire weapon. There isn't ever a reason to use Rapid Fire when you have the Salvo that I can see so you'll always use the Salvo profile if you qualify.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You can pick between firing as Salvo or a Rapid Fire weapon. There isn't ever a reason to use Rapid Fire when you have the Salvo that I can see so you'll always use the Salvo profile if you qualify.

Are you sure you can choose? It dosnt say you MAY fire as a Salvo, it says you treat them as salvo. Also, salvo can only fire half of its range if you move, so rapid fire would come in handy if you have to move.

EDIT:
You can only cast spells on the unit thats in the LR or on the LR itself.

Razakil wrote:
A couple questions. First, with the Banner of Devastation do the boltguns keep rapid fire? Also can I fast blessing or maldictions out of land raiders?

No, re-read the text
No, you can only cast powers on the unit you are embarked with and (I think) the LR itself

 Texanity wrote:
Are you sure you can choose? It dosnt say you MAY fire as a Salvo, it says you treat them as salvo.

This is correct, you don't get the choice, any boltguns within range ARE Salvo weapons full stop. It doesn't say anything about creating a new profile for the weapon, nor does it use any wording like "may" or "choose to". Page 66 if you want to check.

 Texanity wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You can pick between firing as Salvo or a Rapid Fire weapon. There isn't ever a reason to use Rapid Fire when you have the Salvo that I can see so you'll always use the Salvo profile if you qualify.

Are you sure you can choose? It dosnt say you MAY fire as a Salvo, it says you treat them as salvo. Also, salvo can only fire half of its range if you move, so rapid fire would come in handy if you have to move.

EDIT:
You can only cast spells on the unit thats in the LR or on the LR itself.

Its worth noting to the OP that Bikes are relentless and therefor even while moving, can fire 4 shots.

I am fairly certain that you can cast powers out of vehicles that have ports like Razorbacks, but not Land Raiders.

Moridan wrote:
I am fairly certain that you can cast powers out of vehicles that have ports like Razorbacks, but not Land Raiders.

You can only use the fire points of a transport for psychic shooting attacks. You are not allowed to use them for line of sight for blessings or maledictions.

And Razorbacks don't have firing points.

 Mandor wrote:

Moridan wrote:
I am fairly certain that you can cast powers out of vehicles that have ports like Razorbacks, but not Land Raiders.

You can only use the fire points of a transport for psychic shooting attacks. You are not allowed to use them for line of sight for blessings or maledictions.

I hate not having my books at work.

So you can shoot out of fire points, but you cant see out of them to cast a blessing on a friendly vehicle next door? hmm

 Mandor wrote:

Moridan wrote:
I am fairly certain that you can cast powers out of vehicles that have ports like Razorbacks, but not Land Raiders.

You can only use the fire points of a transport for psychic shooting attacks. You are not allowed to use them for line of sight for blessings or maledictions.

Line of sight has nothing to do with it. Even powers that don't require line of sight can't be used on targets that are not embarked upon or the embarked vehicle.

 Texanity wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You can pick between firing as Salvo or a Rapid Fire weapon. There isn't ever a reason to use Rapid Fire when you have the Salvo that I can see so you'll always use the Salvo profile if you qualify.

Are you sure you can choose? It dosnt say you MAY fire as a Salvo, it says you treat them as salvo. Also, salvo can only fire half of its range if you move, so rapid fire would come in handy if you have to move.

EDIT:
You can only cast spells on the unit thats in the LR or on the LR itself.

Meh, wasn't sure about the exact wording. Should have clarified.

Either way, the Salvo profile is always going to be better.

 Super Ready wrote:

 Texanity wrote:
Are you sure you can choose? It dosnt say you MAY fire as a Salvo, it says you treat them as salvo.

This is correct, you don't get the choice, any boltguns within range ARE Salvo weapons full stop. It doesn't say anything about creating a new profile for the weapon, nor does it use any wording like "may" or "choose to". Page 66 if you want to check.

So it says that they are no longer Rapid Fire?

Why cant the Boltgun have two types?

Psycannons are Heavy4/ Assault2, they have two types, so we know having two types is possible.

Purely an academic argument as there would never be a reason to not use the Salvo profile.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Purely an academic argument as there would never be a reason to not use the Salvo profile.

Unless the firing model moves and the target is 23 inches away.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:

 Texanity wrote:
Are you sure you can choose? It dosnt say you MAY fire as a Salvo, it says you treat them as salvo.

This is correct, you don't get the choice, any boltguns within range ARE Salvo weapons full stop. It doesn't say anything about creating a new profile for the weapon, nor does it use any wording like "may" or "choose to". Page 66 if you want to check.

So it says that they are no longer Rapid Fire?

Why cant the Boltgun have two types?

Psycannons are Heavy4/ Assault2, they have two types, so we know having two types is possible.

It doesn't have two types because there's nothing saying it has two types.
It's Rapid Fire. The Banner says it is now Salvo.
Nothing about keeping Rapid Fire or giving you an option.

But it doesn't say it loses Rapid Fire, which it must say for the weapon to lose it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
But it doesn't say it loses Rapid Fire, which it must say for the weapon to lose it.

That's not true.

The rule says that they "treat their boltguns as Salvo 2/4 weapons"
There's no allowance to treat them as Rapid Fire.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
But it doesn't say it loses Rapid Fire, which it must say for the weapon to lose it.

That's not true.

The rule says that they "treat their boltguns as Salvo 2/4 weapons"
There's no allowance to treat them as Rapid Fire.

They are rapid fire, and we treat them as salvo.

Where does it say a weapon can not have 2 types?

we know having two types is possible because Psycannons have 2 types.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
But it doesn't say it loses Rapid Fire, which it must say for the weapon to lose it.

That's not true.

The rule says that they "treat their boltguns as Salvo 2/4 weapons"
There's no allowance to treat them as Rapid Fire.

They are rapid fire, and we treat them as salvo.

Where does it say a weapon can not have 2 types?

we know having two types is possible because Psycannons have 2 types.

The rulebook doesn't state what you can't do, only what you can. The psycannon they specifically tell us it has two types, ie, they give a two-type profile.

That is not the case here, all boltguns within a certain range are treated as salvo 2/4. If you're in that range, your boltgun is salvo 2/4. You no longer have the original profile to choose.

Target wrote:
The rulebook doesn't state what you can't do, only what you can.

Really? it is a permissive ruleset

The psycannon they specifically tell us it has two types, ie, they give a two-type profile.

That is not the case here, all boltguns within a certain range are treated as salvo 2/4. If you're in that range, your boltgun is salvo 2/4. You no longer have the original profile to choose.

Boltguns have the Type Rapid Fire, the banner says to treat them as Salvo2/4, It does not say that Rapid Fire is removed.

Permissive ruleset tells us that Rapid Fire only goes away if the rules say it goes away. The Banner does not say that rapid Fire is removed, so it is not.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Target wrote:
The rulebook doesn't state what you can't do, only what you can.

Really? it is a permissive ruleset

The psycannon they specifically tell us it has two types, ie, they give a two-type profile.

That is not the case here, all boltguns within a certain range are treated as salvo 2/4. If you're in that range, your boltgun is salvo 2/4. You no longer have the original profile to choose.

Boltguns have the Type Rapid Fire, the banner says to treat them as Salvo2/4, It does not say that Rapid Fire is removed.

Permissive ruleset tells us that Rapid Fire only goes away if the rules say it goes away. The Banner does not say that rapid Fire is removed, so it is not.

If you attempt to use Rapid Fire you are not treating the boltgun as a Salvo 2/4 weapon.
Therefore you're breaking a rule.

You are treating the boltgun as a Salvo 2/4 weapon, but it has rapid fire, so you chose to use Rapid fire Type instead of Salvo 2/4 Type.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You are treating the boltgun as a Salvo 2/4 weapon, but it has rapid fire, so you chose to use Rapid fire Type instead of Salvo 2/4 Type.

How can you treat it as a Salvo 2/4 weapon if you're using Rapid Fire?

You'd have to treat it as a Salvo 2/4/Rapid Fire weapon (using the Psycannon as an example). The Banner does not give you permission to do that.

Because they are treated as Salvo2/4, and the base profile is Rapid Fire, and as nothing removes Rapid Fire from the profile, they Bolters retain the Rapid Fire Type.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because they are treated as Salvo2/4, and the base profile is Rapid Fire, and as nothing removes Rapid Fire from the profile, they Bolters retain the Rapid Fire Type.

And again - if you're using Rapid Fire you are absolutely not treating the weapon as Salvo 2/4.
You're treating the weapon as Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4.

Does the Banner give you permission to treat the weapon as Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because they are treated as Salvo2/4, and the base profile is Rapid Fire, and as nothing removes Rapid Fire from the profile, they Bolters retain the Rapid Fire Type.

And again - if you're using Rapid Fire you are absolutely not treating the weapon as Salvo 2/4.
You're treating the weapon as Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4.

Does the Banner give you permission to treat the weapon as Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4?

I'm gonna have to go with rigeld2 on this one.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because they are treated as Salvo2/4, and the base profile is Rapid Fire, and as nothing removes Rapid Fire from the profile, they Bolters retain the Rapid Fire Type.

And again - if you're using Rapid Fire you are absolutely not treating the weapon as Salvo 2/4.
You're treating the weapon as Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4.

Does the Banner give you permission to treat the weapon as Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4?

Dude salvo would have to replace rapid-fire.

Rigeld2 has it right.

 captain collius wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because they are treated as Salvo2/4, and the base profile is Rapid Fire, and as nothing removes Rapid Fire from the profile, they Bolters retain the Rapid Fire Type.

And again - if you're using Rapid Fire you are absolutely not treating the weapon as Salvo 2/4.
You're treating the weapon as Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4.

Does the Banner give you permission to treat the weapon as Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4?

Dude salvo would have to replace rapid-fire.

Rigeld2 has it right.

Citation needed.

Where in the banner's rules does it say that Rapid Fire is removed?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Citation needed.

Where in the banner's rules does it say that Rapid Fire is removed?

It doesn't need to.

Your assertion is that you are allowed to treat the boltgun as Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4.
Citation required. The BoD does not state that - instead it requires you to treat the boltgun as Salvo 2/4.

The burden lies on you, sir.

The boltgun's rules are in the BRB, it is 24" Rapid Fire.

The banner says to treat it as Salvo2/4 thus giving it a second type as nothing takes the Rapid Fire type away.

page 56 for Boltguns. There lies your proof that Boltguns are Rapid Fire.

where are the rules taking away the Rapid Fire Type? (The burden indeed lies on you to show this, Sir).

 DeathReaper wrote:
The boltgun's rules are in the BRB, it is 24" Rapid Fire.

Irrelevant.

The banner says to treat it as Salvo2/4 thus giving it a second type as nothing takes the Rapid Fire type away.

Does the rule say "as a second type"?

page 56 for Boltguns. There lies your proof that Boltguns are Rapid Fire.

where are the rules taking away the Rapid Fire Type? (The burden indeed lies on you to show this, Sir).

I've cited them. The BoD gives no permission to treat a weapon as Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4. You are asserting it does. You still haven't shown that it does.
The actual rules require you to treat it as Salvo 2/4. Rapid Fire is mentioned nowhere and therefore treating the weapon as Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4 is breaking the rules.

The Banner does not say 'treat their boltguns as Salvo 2/4 weapons Instead of Rapid Fire.'

it just says "treat their boltguns as Salvo 2/4 weapons"

The former would be needed to remove the Rapid Fire Type.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The Banner does not say 'treat their boltguns as Salvo 2/4 weapons Instead of Rapid Fire.'

it just says "treat their boltguns as Salvo 2/4 weapons"

The former would be needed to remove the Rapid Fire Type.

So we know "treat as" must mean the same thing as "is" right?

So the banner says that your boltguns are Salvo 2/4 weapons.
Does the banner say that your boltguns are Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4 weapons? Oh, it doesn't.
Since your boltguns are not Rapid Fire (they're Salvo 2/4 remember?) trying to move and shoot 12.1" is cheating.

It's similar to a set modifier - regardless of what you were before, you're Salvo now.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
But it doesn't say it loses Rapid Fire, which it must say for the weapon to lose it.

That's not true.

The rule says that they "treat their boltguns as Salvo 2/4 weapons"
There's no allowance to treat them as Rapid Fire.

They are rapid fire, and we treat them as salvo.

Where does it say a weapon can not have 2 types?

we know having two types is possible because Psycannons have 2 types.

I opted to quote this, here's why:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Where does it say a weapon can not have 2 types?

rigeld2 wrote:
The rule says that they "treat their boltguns as Salvo 2/4 weapons"

It could have the two types if the rule stated
- 'may treat their boltguns as Salvo 2/4 weapons'
or
- 'their boltguns also as Salvo 2/4 weapons'
or anything similar.

Ther rule does not give you any options, the cause (dakka banner bubble) commits you to its effect (boltguns in bubble are Salvo 2/4 weapons)
the only non-written thing you can assume is "combine with RW and/or LRC for best results"

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The Banner does not say 'treat their boltguns as Salvo 2/4 weapons Instead of Rapid Fire.'

it just says "treat their boltguns as Salvo 2/4 weapons"

The former would be needed to remove the Rapid Fire Type.

So we know "treat as" must mean the same thing as "is" right?

So the banner says that your boltguns are Salvo 2/4 weapons.
Does the banner say that your boltguns are Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4 weapons? Oh, it doesn't.
Since your boltguns are not Rapid Fire (they're Salvo 2/4 remember?) trying to move and shoot 12.1" is cheating.

It's similar to a set modifier - regardless of what you were before, you're Salvo now.

Yes, "treat as" must mean the same thing as "is" in order for the rules to work correctly.

The banner does say that the boltguns are Salvo2/4 weapons.

This does not remove the Rapid Fire type as weapons are allowed to have two types.

So moving and shooting it as the Rapid Fire type is perfectly within the rules.

It does not say they are Salvo2/4 instead of rapid fire, so they retain the Rapid Fire type.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The Banner does not say 'treat their boltguns as Salvo 2/4 weapons Instead of Rapid Fire.'

it just says "treat their boltguns as Salvo 2/4 weapons"

The former would be needed to remove the Rapid Fire Type.

So we know "treat as" must mean the same thing as "is" right?

So the banner says that your boltguns are Salvo 2/4 weapons.
Does the banner say that your boltguns are Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4 weapons? Oh, it doesn't.
Since your boltguns are not Rapid Fire (they're Salvo 2/4 remember?) trying to move and shoot 12.1" is cheating.

It's similar to a set modifier - regardless of what you were before, you're Salvo now.

Yes, "treat as" must mean the same thing as "is" in order for the rules to work correctly.

The banner does say that the boltguns are Salvo2/4 weapons.

This does not remove the Rapid Fire type as weapons are allowed to have two types.

So moving and shooting it as the Rapid Fire type is perfectly within the rules.

It does not say they are Salvo2/4 instead of rapid fire, so they retain the Rapid Fire type.

So you're treating them as something other than Salvo 2/4?

Yes or no - You are treating boltguns within 6" of a BoD as Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4.

Rulebook reference time!

Page 50. "A shooting weapon always has one of the following types" - emphasis mine. Then again on page 51, "Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo (...) Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each"

The Grey Knight example can't be used as precedent as it comes from a 5th edition Codex. Every example of a weapon with more than one "mode" since 6th landed has had separate profiles given - for an example from the Dark Angels codex itself, look at the Mace of Absolution on page 52.

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're treating them as something other than Salvo 2/4?

Yes or no - You are treating boltguns within 6" of a BoD as Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4.

We treat them as Salvo 2/4, and their base type is Rapid Fire.

So you can use either profile.

 Super Ready wrote:
Rulebook reference time!

Page 50. "A shooting weapon always has one of the following types" - emphasis mine. Then again on page 51, "Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo (...) Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each"

The Grey Knight example can't be used as precedent as it comes from a 5th edition Codex. Every example of a weapon with more than one "mode" since 6th landed has had separate profiles given - for an example from the Dark Angels codex itself, look at the Mace of Absolution on page 52.

Sternguard Boltguns would like to have a word with that rules quote from P.50, they have 4 statlines.

P.S. Psycannons can be used as precedent, as the GK Codex is currently a valid codex that works with the rules from 6th Ed.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're treating them as something other than Salvo 2/4?

Yes or no - You are treating boltguns within 6" of a BoD as Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4.

We treat them as Salvo 2/4, and their base type is Rapid Fire.

So you can use either profile.

Avoiding the question.
Yes or no - You are treating boltguns within 6" of a BoD as Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Sternguard Boltguns would like to have a word with that rules quote from P.50, they have 4 statlines.

This particular example proves my point. A separate profile line for each - not all loaded into the one profile.

Note that Psycannon's do not have a separate stat line (That'd require a whole new line, cf. Missile Launchers, Sterngard Bolters).

They're "special".

rigeld2 wrote:
Note that Psycannon's do not have a separate stat line (That'd require a whole new line, cf. Missile Launchers, Sterngard Bolters).

They're "special".

But neither will a Salvo/Rapid Fire bolter.

 Grey Templar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Note that Psycannon's do not have a separate stat line (That'd require a whole new line, cf. Missile Launchers, Sterngard Bolters).

They're "special".

But neither will a Salvo/Rapid Fire bolter.

Right - just clarifying that Psycannons are the only thing DR can call on as precedent.
Psycannon's generate a conflict in the ruiles and the codex wins those.

DR needs to cite a conflict in the rules here.

Why is it a conflict?

Weapons can have two types.

Nothing takes away the Rapid Fire type.

As to your question, no, I am treating them as Salvo 2/4. They are base Rapid Fire as well and nothing take Rapid Fire away from them. because it does not say instead of rapid fire treat them as Salvo.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Why is it a conflict?

Weapons can have two types.

Nothing takes away the Rapid Fire type.

As to your question, no, I am treating them as Salvo 2/4. They are base Rapid Fire as well and nothing take Rapid Fire away from them. because it does not say instead of rapid fire treat them as Salvo.

If you're attempting to fire as a Rapid Fire weapon, it must have that rule in its profile.
Since we've established that there are not multiple lines, you must be treating the weapon as Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4.
That would be cheating.

Weapons can have two types, but they must be spelled out in a profile.

It does have Rapid Fire in its profile.

Due to the banner it also has Salvo 2/4 since the banner does not say replace, or instead of.

It doesn't have to.
It sets the profile to Salvo 2/4.

If you try and use Rapid Fire you're not treating the weapon as Salvo 2/4 which breaks a rule.

Doe s"treat" equate to "must also use as"?

It can be treated as "salvo" whilst also being "rapid fire". They are not mutually exclusive.

How would Rapid Fire and Salvo 2/4 work together in practice?

 WarOne wrote:
How would Rapid Fire and Salvo 2/4 work together in practice?

they don't, you would have to choose one or the other, just like a Psycannon, or a Missile Launcher, or Specialist Ammo.

If the rules were permissive of allowing both types to be in effect simultaneously, how would such a weapon be fired and under what conditions.

Trying to figure out if the rules for firing such a weapon gets wonky.

 WarOne wrote:
If the rules were permissive of allowing both types to be in effect simultaneously, how would such a weapon be fired and under what conditions.

Trying to figure out if the rules for firing such a weapon gets wonky.

To answer your question - before the unit fires you would opt to use either the Salvo profile or the Rapid Fire profile. Generally when you have 2 profiles like that Relentless models always use the heavier version (and so would have to use the Salvo profile).

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Doe s"treat" equate to "must also use as"?

It can be treated as "salvo" whilst also being "rapid fire". They are not mutually exclusive.

You're right, they aren't.

But the rule does not say to treat the boltgun as a Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4 weapon.
Which means using it as Rapid Fire is cheating.

Edit : You're required to treat the weapon as Salvo. Nothing more.
Not "Salvo 2/4 in addition to..." Or "when it is advantageous..." Just as Salvo.

This argument could also apply to negating the Twin-Linked aspect of some boltguns. Since the type is being set and not additive/replaced.

If you treat all terrain as dangerous for a turn does that mean you can choose not to take the dangerous terrain test?

Twin linked is not a type.

However, nothing says to treat as Salvo instead of Rapid Fire.

Jyst treat as Salvo, and nothing takes away the Rapid Fire type.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
If you treat all terrain as dangerous for a turn does that mean you can choose not to take the dangerous terrain test?

Open and Dangerous terrain is still open, and Dangerous, therefore since you need to go through Dangerous you test for dangerous.

That situation is not at all comparable to a weapon having two types. However, a Psycannon has two types...

Rigeld - again, even if you fire it as rapid fire, if you wrote out its state line you would have included "salvo", and thus you would have "treated it as" salvo.

Again, does "treat as" require "must use as"?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - again, even if you fire it as rapid fire, if you wrote out its state line you would have included "salvo", and thus you would have "treated it as" salvo.

Again, does "treat as" require "must use as"?

Ok... how in the world are you treating a weapon as a salvo 2/4, if you are firing it as rf?

It's not useful if you use it on infantry that you plan to move? Well, deploy it with relentless units: isn't it what we should call... "tactics"?

Again, define what "treated as" means, and show it means "is required to USE as"

You havent actually answered the question. Show proof that "treats as" is equivalent to "use as" and you might have an argument.

Also your last line is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, define what "treated as" means, and show it means "is required to USE as"

You havent actually answered the question. Show proof that "treats as" is equivalent to "use as" and you might have an argument.

Also your last line is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

That's not the point I'm trying to make, so I don't need to show that proof.

According to you a passed FNP test can result in a wound, because you treat it as saved.
Models deploying by Deep Strike treat all difficult terrain as dangerous, so you can opt to not make dangerous terrain tests.
If a Psychic Pilot suffers Perils its no big deal - you don't have to treat it as a Glancing Hit.
No Specified Melee Weapon can be gained infinitely as its optional, right?

Treated as means is.
The profile for a BoD boltgun is Range 24 STR 4 AP 5 Salvo 2/4. We know this because the BoD says to treat them as Salvo.

Please type out the weapon profile as you see it. And please argue against my actual argument instead of what you want it to be.

Except nothing you posted is "must use as". Treated as Dangerous means it is difficult AND dangerous, and you have no choice about taking Diff / Dang terrain tests. Flawed logic

Salvo 2/4 & Rapid fire is the profile, AND twinlinked if on a bike. It has been treated as Salvo AND IS Rapid fire as well, because nothing about "treated as" removes the pre-existing rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except nothing you posted is "must use as". Treated as Dangerous means it is difficult AND dangerous, and you have no choice about taking Diff / Dang terrain tests. Flawed logic

Salvo 2/4 & Rapid fire is the profile, AND twinlinked if on a bike. It has been treated as Salvo AND IS Rapid fire as well, because nothing about "treated as" removes the pre-existing rules.

Psychic Pilot does not say that the Perils wound must turn into a Glancing Hit - it's simply treated as one.
Therefore I opt for it to stay as a wound.
Vehicles cannot suffer wounds.
Psychic Pilot doesn't suffer when rolling Perils.

Again, you're misconstruing my argument. I have not said, and will not say, that the rule says "must use as".
I'm saying that the BoD rule says that your boltgun is Salvo. Not Salvo plus other things - just Salvo.

Counts as == Treated as, agreed?

Lash Whips make all models in BTB count Initiative as 1. According to your argument (since it does not replace or say must use as) a SM Captain could still swing on I5 if he was based during the charge. We know this is not true.

So are you also arguing it replaces twinlinked?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So are you also arguing it replaces twinlinked?

Yes, it would. As I said.

Any response to my argument or just trying to get me to contradict myself?

Enough with the hostiility. It was a genuine question

Would you also argue that treating all terrain as difficult would turn Impassable terrain into Difficult?

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So are you also arguing it replaces twinlinked?

Yes, it would. As I said.

Any response to my argument or just trying to get me to contradict myself?

I think the twin-linked bit is misleading and not a good example, rulebook references:

Page 50. "A shooting weapon always has one of the following types: assault, heavy, ordnance, pistol, rapid fire, or salvo"

Page 51: "Special Rules: The type section of a weapon's profile also includes any special rules that apply to the weapon in question."

Boltguns are treated as salvo, as per the rule (I agree with Rigeld2), however twin-linking remains, as they are not a "type" being replaced, they are special rules that apply to the weapon. Changing the weapon type would not change the special rules.

Why is it that the rule book and new codices use "treat as" to mean "is" and you seem to want to ignore that fact?

FNP is a great example.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Enough with the hostiility. It was a genuine question

Would you also argue that treating all terrain as difficult would turn Impassable terrain into Difficult?

Depending on how it's worded, yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Target wrote:
Boltguns are treated as salvo, as per the rule (I agree with Rigeld2), however twin-linking remains, as they are not a "type" being replaced, they are special rules that apply to the weapon. Changing the weapon type would not change the special rules.

The rule doesn't say "Salvo and other special rules it already had."
It says "Salvo". End of line.

I think the Twin linked is far more of a grey area than Rapid Fire.

It was mostly to do with Enfeeble, which from memory tells you to treat ALL terrain as difficult. If you are claiming a direct replacement of one type for another, this would lead to impassable terrain no longer being impassable.

Target - yet psycannon have 2 profiles. So we know that rule isnt always true, so why does it suddenly HAVE to be true here?
Liturgies - I am not ignoring that fact. It IS Salvo, and it IS Rapid Fire. Same as enfeebled Impasssable terrain IS Impassable and IS Difficult. DS into difficult terrain means the terrain IS difficult AND dangerous.

For example - deepstrikign drop pod, unit disembarks. Unit inside must make a normal move wholly within 6". They treat the terrain as dangerous, but do they also take a difficult terrain test? Given you are not told one type replaces the other, the answer is YES.

It's rapid fire but it is treated as salvo in range of the banner. That is different to it gets to be both.

So you're example under enfeeble is that you cannot gain an extra benefit by choosing the most advantageous of the two when you're told to treat x as y?
So why do you get the benefit of rapidfire when you move and salvo when you don't?

Dont put words in my mouth. I never said that.

I was stating do you believe Impassable is lost under enfeeble? The majority consensus on the last thread is that it is NOT lost, as terrain can have more than one type and nothing states the previous type is replaced

I am simply being consistent.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It was mostly to do with Enfeeble, which from memory tells you to treat ALL terrain as difficult. If you are claiming a direct replacement of one type for another, this would lead to impassable terrain no longer being impassable.

Correct, RAW.
I think in that case it's obvious what the intent is.

Target - yet psycannon have 2 profiles. So we know that rule isnt always true, so why does it suddenly HAVE to be true here?

Because the GK codex specifies that Psycannons are Assault 2/Heavy 4 which generates a conflict, and the codex wins those.
The DA codex specifies a single Type (Salvo) and you're attempting to insert a second one. You need a conflict to have the codex win that fight - and the only way for there to be a conflict is if you create one with your incorrect interpretation.

Liturgies - I am not ignoring that fact. It IS Salvo, and it IS Rapid Fire. Same as enfeebled Impasssable terrain IS Impassable and IS Difficult. DS into difficult terrain means the terrain IS difficult AND dangerous.

Well, no - that's not true. If it is Salvo, then it's not Rapid Fire/Salvo.

For example - deepstrikign drop pod, unit disembarks. Unit inside must make a normal move wholly within 6". They treat the terrain as dangerous, but do they also take a difficult terrain test? Given you are not told one type replaces the other, the answer is YES.

Given the rules for dangerous terrain the answer is yes. In 5th dangerous terrain alone didn't cause a difficult terrain test. In 6th rules changed and Dangerous Terrain is a superset of Difficult Terrain (page 90).
Dangerous includes all rules for Difficult and in addition causes Dangerous Terrain tests.

No, it can be Salvo while also having Rapid Fire, because it is not "just Salvo". You are inserting a restriction that does not exist in the rules - it IS SAlvo, and IS Rapidfire, and happily satisfies the requiremetn to be Salvo.

There is a conflict as you are not told to replace, so you have no permission to replace the type, only add. You now have two types, whcih is a conflict the codex wins out on.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it can be Salvo while also having Rapid Fire, because it is not "just Salvo". You are inserting a restriction that does not exist in the rules - it IS SAlvo, and IS Rapidfire, and happily satisfies the requiremetn to be Salvo.

There is a conflict as you are not told to replace, so you have no permission to replace the type, only add. You now have two types, whcih is a conflict the codex wins out on.

You are not told to add a type. You are told that it IS a type.

Exactly like Lash Whips. According to you they're useless because everyone that is affected can just opt to use their other initiative value.

And according to you impassable lava becomes passable if you are enfeebled.

Stop with the accusative tone, not really needed in an honest debate.

I'm with nos here, nothing says it loses rf, so it doesn't.
However when firing the rf weapon your not treating it as salvo, so whilst it still has the rf rule you cannot fire it that way untill its out of range of the banner.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And according to you impassable lava becomes passable if you are enfeebled.

Absolutely correct. And? RAW is silly sometimes.

Stop with the accusative tone, not really needed in an honest debate.

I apologize - I'm not intending any accusative tone. Please don't read what I say that way.

Yes or no - using your interpretation Lash Whips are useless because a model that is base to base with one can simply choose to use it's normal initiative instead of 1 because Lash Whips do not replace your init value.

Neither - you dont have a mechanism to choose which I value you use, so you are stuck

RAW is silly sometimes.

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it can be Salvo while also having Rapid Fire, because it is not "just Salvo". You are inserting a restriction that does not exist in the rules - it IS SAlvo, and IS Rapidfire, and happily satisfies the requiremetn to be Salvo.

There is a conflict as you are not told to replace, so you have no permission to replace the type, only add. You now have two types, whcih is a conflict the codex wins out on.

You are not told to add a type. You are told that it IS a type.

Right we treat it as Salvo 2/4, the regular bolter is Rapid Fire type.

It now has two types as nothing takes the Rapid Fire type away from the bolter.

Just like a Psycannon is Assault 2 or Heavy 4.

Just like a Splinter Cannon is Assault 4 or Heavy 6.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It now has two types as nothing takes the Rapid Fire type away from the bolter.

Just like a Psycannon is Assault 2 or Heavy 4.

Just like a Splinter Cannon is Assault 4 or Heavy 6.

So you have permission to shoot the bolter as rapidfire even though you're told to treat it as salvo?
The second you try to shoot it as a rapidfire weapon you are not treating it salvo and are breaking rules.

It IS Salvo, and it IS Rapid Fire.

We are treating it as Salvo, but since it has the Rapid Fire type as well we are shooting with that type instead of Salvo.


It does not say we "must use as" a Salvo type.

Salvo 2/4 & Rapid fire is the profile, AND twinlinked if on a bike. It has been treated as Salvo AND IS Rapid fire as well, because nothing about "treated as" removes the pre-existing rules.

I'm sorry if you are told to treat it as x, how is not treating it as x still treating it as x.

Please explain that, you have not squared that circle. Nothing removes the pre-existing rule but there is a restriction to using it, it says to use this or "treat it as" this.

If I treat sand as hazardous waste, it doesn't mean it is hazardous waste but I do use all of the rules and precautions for hazardous waste when dealing with it.
If I treat someone as sub-human, they remain human but I still don't afford them the same status as everyone else because I'm scum.

Because you treat it as Salvo 2/4, we are still doing that, we have the option to fire it as a Salvo 2/4 type.

We are not choosing to use the Salvo 2/4 type, we are using the Rapid Fire type, as nothing removes the Rapid Fire type from the profile.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because you treat it as Salvo 2/4, we are still doing that, we have the option to fire it as a Salvo 2/4 type.

We are not choosing to use the Salvo 2/4 type, we are using the Rapid Fire type, as nothing removes the Rapid Fire type from the profile.

Are you shooting the weapon as a rapidfire type? Are you rolling 1 dice per gun to hit a target 12-24 inches away after moving?
If yes to the above then you are not treating it as a salvo 2/4 weapon.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because you treat it as Salvo 2/4, we are still doing that, we have the option to fire it as a Salvo 2/4 type.

We are not choosing to use the Salvo 2/4 type, we are using the Rapid Fire type, as nothing removes the Rapid Fire type from the profile.

Are you shooting the weapon as a rapidfire type? Are you rolling 1 dice per gun to hit a target 12-24 inches away after moving?
If yes to the above then you are not treating it as a salvo 2/4 weapon.

Yes you are, just because you treat it as Salvo 2/4 Nothing takes away the Rapid Fire profile.

Doe s"treat" equate to "must also use as"?

It can be treated as "salvo" whilst also being "rapid fire". They are not mutually exclusive.

They are. A weapon has a single profile, either it's
A -the usual thing as rapidfire, assault x or whatever
B -those rare ones where it is assault x/heavy y etc
C -those rare ones where a weapon has a listed ammo types which you can choose between.

This is not the same as B as B is a single profile, we have a weapon with 2 profiles now according to you. And it's not C as you have no permission to change "ammo types". You don't treat a missile launcher as Frag, it has specific permission to choose the ammo type, same as bolters for sternguard.
You do not have permission to treat it as A but use B.

"Treat as" does equate to "use as". If I use a hammer to open a can is it any less of a can-opener? I am treating it as a can-opener.


When a jetbike unit treats impassable terrain as dangerous terrain it is no longer impassable. Same for jump, jet and skimmers. Take a look at that NOS

 liturgies of blood wrote:
They are. A weapon has a single profile, either it's
A -the usual thing as rapidfire, assault x or whatever
B -those rare ones where it is assault x/heavy y etc
C -those rare ones where a weapon has a listed ammo types which you can choose between.

This is not the same as B as B is a single profile, we have a weapon with 2 profiles now according to you. And it's not C as you have no permission to change "ammo types". You don't treat a missile launcher as Frag, it has specific permission to choose the ammo type, same as bolters for sternguard.
You do not have permission to treat it as A but use B.

"Treat as" does equate to "use as". If I use a hammer to open a can is it any less of a can-opener? I am treating it as a can-opener.


When a jetbike unit treats impassable terrain as dangerous terrain it is no longer impassable. Same for jump, jet and skimmers. Take a look at that NOS

It actually becomes B, as it only has a single profile, it does not have two profiles, as the range and AP do not change, all that is added is the Salvo 2/4 to the existing profile.

Treat as does not = use as, that has no basis in the rules at all.

When a jetbike treats impassable terrain as dangerous terrain it is still impassible, but jetbikes have a specific exception to move over impassible, this is in no way the same situation as a weapon having two types.

 DeathReaper wrote:

It actually becomes B, as it only has a single profile, it does not have two profiles, as the range and AP do not change, all that is added is the Salvo 2/4 to the existing profile.

Citation and basis in rules needed. Treating x as y in under condition z means that for all intents and purposes under condition z, x is y.

Treat as does not = use as, that has no basis in the rules at all.

When a jetbike treats impassable terrain as dangerous terrain it is still impassible, but jetbikes have a specific exception to move over impassible, this is in no way the same situation as a weapon having two types.

I'm not saying it's no longer a boltgun and would normally have rapidfire, I am saying that within 6" of the banner you cannot use that profile as you are told to use another one.
Impassible terrain doesn't stop being impassible terrain, it's rules don't come into effect in this situation.

You have permission to ignore the normal state of affairs and insert this new metric to deal with impassable terrain because the rules tell you to treat it this way.
In condition z (where you are a jump unit), x (impassable terrain) is treated as y (dangerous terrain).
In condition z (where you are within 6" of the banner), x (boltguns) is treated as y (salvo 2/4).

How are these statements not identical in execution? How is this different. You are asserting that they are with no backing. Show me a RAW argument please, a page number, anything because otherwise we have to rely on English and that ball falls to my side of the debate.

Fleet says that Fleet of X is treated as being the USR.
Poison weapons, treated as S1.
Psychic pilot, treated as LD 10 for certain things.
Models are all treated as having a ccw if none is listed.
Unusual force or power weapons are treated as AP3.
Vehicles treat difficult terrain as dangerous.
etc etc.
The rule book makes it clear that treat as means "is" for all intents and purposes under the context of the rule they are talking about.
In this context a bolter is salvo 2/4 within 6" of a dakka banner.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

It actually becomes B, as it only has a single profile, it does not have two profiles, as the range and AP do not change, all that is added is the Salvo 2/4 to the existing profile.

Citation and basis in rules needed. Treating x as y in under condition z means that for all intents and purposes under condition z, x is y.

Well It does not get a second profile, only Salvo 2/4.

Claiming it gets a separate profile would mean you have a Salvo 2/4 weapon with no range, Str, or AP...

Take the Enfeeble example above, enfeeble makes the unit treat all terrain as difficult.

Impassible is a type of terrain, but it still can not move through impassible terrain because treating it as difficult does not take away the fact that it is still Impassible terrain.

I am seriously trying to decide if this guy is a really good troll, or is actually silly enough to believe the nonsense he is regurgitating over and over.

 nolzur wrote:
I am seriously trying to decide if this guy is a really good troll, or is actually silly enough to believe the nonsense he is regurgitating over and over.

Do not call liturgies of blood a troll.

Do not call anyone a troll, It is against the forum rules, and please read the forum rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 nolzur wrote:
I am seriously trying to decide if this guy is a really good troll, or is actually silly enough to believe the nonsense he is regurgitating over and over.

Do not call liturgies of blood a troll.

Do not call anyone a troll, It is against the forum rules, and please read the forum rules.

Considering the difference in timestamp (~an hour, plenty of time to read all the posts), I think Nolzur was calling DR a troll.

But yes, I agree with DR, name-calling is bad form.

Liturgies - again, please show how "treats as" is synonymous with "must use this profile: salvo 2/4"

You have been asked to show this repeatedly, and have not done so.

So far I read that "treat as" should not equal "is".

Digressing (briefly) from the wapons:
"vehicles treat difficult terrain as dangerous"... for a vehicle, is a difficult terrain difficult?
Yes (if it weren't, you would not take the dangerous terrain test).

Now, back to 'the shooting phase':
"treat boltguns as Salvo 2/4"
If I move and fire, am I treating the weapon as a Salvo one?
If I shoot RF (1 at full, 2 at half), am I treating the weapon as a Salvo one (or, if you prefer, may a Salvo 2/4 be fired as 1/2)?

The answers to these solve the arcane.
(btw, I keep being positive that you cannot use the bolter as rapid fire, when you're treating it as a Salvo weapon)

It can be "Is", but that does not mean "is only"

One is restrictive, the other is not.

I have shown examples of where it treat as means "is" only. There are also many examples in the BRB of "treat as" meaning instead of. Cavalry and terrain fyi.
You need to show me an example where it means "either, or". Enfeeble is not a case of "either, or" it is a case of in addition.

Terrain in enfeble's case is a case of additionally. You can have terrain cause multiple effects I grant you but that follows a set convention within the rules. Enfeeble does not make impassable passable as there is still a general restriction there. In this case you have no general permission to use the bolter profile as it has been surplanted by a specific codex rule.

Specific > general.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Liturgies - again, please show how "treats as" is synonymous with "must use this profile: salvo 2/4"

That's not required actually. Asking for it is asking for us to chase a red herring.

I have absolute proof that you have permission to make a boltgun Salvo 2/4.
You must find permission to turn that into an additive state instead of an end-of state.

You method breaks Lash Whips and Whip Coils, among other things I'm sure.
My method breaks no rules.

Your method breaks Enfeeble and Impassable terrain, and mine breaks no rules either whereas I have absolute proof that yours does

You have turned a statement "Treat as Salvo" into a restrictive statemetn "Treat ONLY as Salvo"

FInd proof that you are allowed to make this restriction, or else "treat as salvo" is satisfied by {treat as salvo alone, treat as salvo / rapid fire,......}

Liturgies - all you gave there was an assertion. Terrain can have multiple types AS CAN WEAPONS. Psycannon being the easy example. SO why is it additive when the EXACT SAME "treats as" language is used. To whit, provide some proof as to your arbitrary-seeming choice of replacement versus additive

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Liturgies - all you gave there was an assertion.

Right back at you. You have asserted your position and not proven anything. Terrain actually can have different types in the one piece, difficult and dangerous for example. A weapon cannot be both rapidfire and assault unless you have specific permission like with a combi-melta or something ACTUALLY listed at rapidfire/assault x.

Terrain can have multiple types AS CAN WEAPONS. Psycannon being the easy example. SO why is it additive when the EXACT SAME "treats as" language is used. To whit, provide some proof as to your arbitrary-seeming choice of replacement versus additive

Psycannon 1 profile. x/y is one profile.

And Salvo2/4 / Rapid fire is only one profile as well

I note you skipped the part where you decided one time "treats as" is replacement and another that it is additive. Rules?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And Salvo2/4 / Rapid fire is only one profile as well

I note you skipped the part where you decided one time "treats as" is replacement and another that it is additive. Rules?

Context is king and you've ignored the context. Sometimes treats as means one thing sometimes another. There are lots of examples of it in all of the codices and brb.
HOWEVER, in this case it is clearly a case of is.

Heavy vehicles are always treated as being stationary for the purpose of shooting is that a replacement or is it additive? Do you could as both moving and not for shooting?
Oh no you only go by what the rules tell you to treat it as.

Chariots' pilots are treated as being in b2b with the models in b2b with the chariot. That is a clear case of "Is".

Ruins page 98
A building on a base, the base is treated as area terrain.

Is that base area terrain? Yes
Is this in addition to the rest of the rules for a building? Yes.

Buildings page 94
A collapsed building is treated as impassable terrain.
Is the building now impassable terrain? Yes
Is it still treated as a building? No
Did the status as difficult terrain change to make it impassable? Yes.

As for enfeeble the last 2 lines of impassable terrain my be what that hinges on. That reads to me that impassable is a separate issue to difficult, dangerous and open in general.
"Note that this category is used for terrain that is actually, physically impassable. If you want terrain that is more or less lethal, look to dangerous terrain and lethal terrain, covered later.


Page 52 of the weapons section.

Some weapons can be used in different ways, representing different power settings or types of ammo. Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.

How are you fulfilling this clause here? There is no seperate line no creation of an additional profile. There is no replacement of the current profile with "salvo 2/4/ rapidfire" just treat as salvo 2/4. No "may shoot as salvo 2/4" instead of the normal profile. There is no optional language used, it is just a simple declarative statement. In this case treat x as y. Not x as both
Where is the permission to create the salvo 2/4 / rapidfire profile? You're jumping at shadows to create it

Where is the permission to require "trreat as ONLY"?

Chariot Pilots are also NOT in base to base. If they were in Base to Base they would love the unit in close combat, and they do not do so. Oh look, they are BOTH in b2b AND not in b2b at the same time!

Context tells me to add this new profile, not to replace it. Try again

How do you love a unit in cc? Is that a different type of attack now?

A chariot rider is treated as he is b2b with the models in b2b with the chariot.... that's the rules clearly printed on page 82. I don't know what you were trying to say but a chariot rider can strike in combat.

This isn't Schroedinger's wargame. You cannot be two mutually exclusive things at one here without some very clear permission which you have yet to provide. Since you're arguing RAW, give me a page number and quote. I did that and you picked one of the many examples I gave and got it wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Your method breaks Enfeeble and Impassable terrain,

That's a lie. Nothing breaks, it just is obviously not what is intended.

and mine breaks no rules either whereas I have absolute proof that yours does

So Whip Coils and Lash Whips work correctly using your interpretation? Want me to quote the post where you said they don't work?

You have turned a statement "Treat as Salvo" into a restrictive statemetn "Treat ONLY as Salvo"

No, I haven't. I have taken a statement that says a bolter is Salvo at face value. You've turned it into an additive statement with no permission to do so.

FInd proof that you are allowed to make this restriction, or else "treat as salvo" is satisfied by {treat as salvo alone, treat as salvo / rapid fire,......}

Treating a CCWless model as having 2 CCWs satisfies the rule that they're treated as having a CCW also. It has just as much basis in the rules as your assertion.

Phew... this makes my head hurt... But I have to go with liturgies and rigeld2... Nosferatu's interpretation makes an unstated assumption whereas the other only applies the words in the codex...

The rule says to change X to Y, not X to X/Y... And trying to compare this to the Psycannon is fallacious because that is it's starting profile, not the result of a profile change. Yes, it does have a "dual-natured" profile, but that is totally different to this situation. This rule is not telling us to change the bolter into a dual-natured profile. The simplest and "common English" usage of the wording ('treat as') is to replace X with Y.

Only my $.02 though...

And nothing breaks about Whip Lash, so you also committed a lie. It just wasnt intended for there to be no effect if the marine player chooses so.

Breaking a rule != making a rule effectively useless. Unless you have a new definition for "breaking" than the one normally used in context with rules, i.e. directly flouting the rules statement (moving 12" in the movement phase when Infantry is what breaking would normally mean in this context)

Again: no matter what you say I have done I can say you have performed the opposite. You HAVE taken a statement which is open (treat as) and stated it must be closed (treat as only) with no permission to do so.

But in the rules they are prescriptive, you are inserting "the rules don't say I cannot" into this argument. They rules say treat it as this, not you may treat it as this.

If you treat it as anything but what the rules tell you to treat it as you are not only breaking the spirit of the rules but the letter of them too.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And nothing breaks about Whip Lash, so you also committed a lie. It just wasnt intended for there to be no effect if the marine player chooses so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Neither - you dont have a mechanism to choose which I value you use, so you are stuck

RAW is silly sometimes.

I didn't lie. You said "you are stuck" which means it's broken. Your words, not mine. Please apologize.

Again: no matter what you say I have done I can say you have performed the opposite. You HAVE taken a statement which is open (treat as) and stated it must be closed (treat as only) with no permission to do so.

Permissive rule set, correct?
We have permission to treat the boltgun as Salvo. Correct?

You're assuming you have permission to treat the boltgun as Rapid Fire/Salvo. Correct?
Please show the rules basis for that assumption.

The Base type is Rapid Fire, we are treating it as a Salvo 2/4 weapon, and nothing tells us to ignore the Rapid Fire type. (Just like enfeeble and impassible terrain, nothing takes away impassible so it is both).

That is why the permissive ruleset tells us it is a Rapid Fire/ Salvo 2/4 weapon.

 DeathReaper wrote:

That is why the permissive ruleset tells us it is a Rapid Fire/ Salvo 2/4 weapon.

You have failed to show permission here. I have shown other times in the brb that argue with your view that treat as is always a case of both.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

That is why the permissive ruleset tells us it is a Rapid Fire/ Salvo 2/4 weapon.

You have failed to show permission here. I have shown other times in the brb that argue with your view that treat as is always a case of both.

Then what tells us that the weapon is no longer a Rapid Fire type?

Nothing says that the Rapid Fire type is lost...

It's not lost, it's just not used.
If I treat you like a child in this debate, you're not automatically 4 but I talk down to you like you are.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
It's not lost, it's just not used.

And what rules state this?

If I treat you like a child in this debate, you're not automatically 4 but I talk down to you like you are.

What?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
It's not lost, it's just not used.

And what rules state this?

If I treat you like a child in this debate, you're not automatically 4 but I talk down to you like you are.

What?

He's illustrating his point (though not in the nicest way) that if you treat something as salvo (or as a child) that's what you use it as (or treat it as).

"Treat all weapons as salvo 2/4" if you use rapid fire, you are not following this

But really, this thing has gone in circles since like...the first page, so it's probably about at that quittin time

The rule that tells you to treat the bolter as salvo 2/4.


If a rule said treat all weapons as heavy 2 within 24", would you still be able to fire them and move?

 DeathReaper wrote:
The Base type is Rapid Fire, we are treating it as a Salvo 2/4 weapon, and nothing tells us to ignore the Rapid Fire type. (Just like enfeeble and impassible terrain, nothing takes away impassible so it is both).

Please, tell me what rule basis you have for using the Rapid Fire type when the weapon is Salvo 2/4.
The weapons is not Rapid Fire /Salvo 2/4 - we know this is true because we are told the weapon is Salvo 2/4.

That is why the permissive ruleset tells us it is a Rapid Fire/ Salvo 2/4 weapon.

So..... no rules then?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
The rule that tells you to treat the bolter as salvo 2/4.


If a rule said treat all weapons as heavy 2 within 24", would you still be able to fire them and move?

If you chose not to fire them as Heavy 2 and fired them as their base type you would still be able to fire them and move (Without having to snap shot).

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The Base type is Rapid Fire, we are treating it as a Salvo 2/4 weapon, and nothing tells us to ignore the Rapid Fire type. (Just like enfeeble and impassible terrain, nothing takes away impassible so it is both).

Please, tell me what rule basis you have for using the Rapid Fire type when the weapon is Salvo 2/4.
The weapons is not Rapid Fire /Salvo 2/4 - we know this is true because we are told the weapon is Salvo 2/4.

That is why the permissive ruleset tells us it is a Rapid Fire/ Salvo 2/4 weapon.

So..... no rules then?

I gave you the rules. P.56 says that boltguns are rapis fire. (They mean Rapid Fire, but the BRB says rapis).

What rules take Rapis Fire away from the Boltgun? (None do, you guys have agreed on that fact).

 DeathReaper wrote:
What rules take Rapis Fire away from the Boltgun? (None do, you guys have agreed on that fact).

The fact that the DA banner says that the bolter is Salvo means that it is not Rapis Fire/Salvo.
It does not say that it's Salvo plus whatever it was before.

You're making a leap unsupported by rules. You have yet to show how being told that a bolter is Salvo actually means its Rapid Fire/Salvo.

You have that backwards, Nothing takes away the Rapid Fire type.

We know weapons can have two types.

Nothing takes Rapid Fire away from the bolter, the banner just states that the weapons are Salvo 2/4

Therefore the weapons have two types.

No leap. Fully supported by the rules.

Just like enfeebled unit treats all terrain as difficult, that just adds a type, so impassible terrain would be impassible and difficult. Though you could not move through it, because one of those two types restricts movement altogether.

It's not being added, it's been treated as, that is a very different thing.

 DeathReaper wrote:
We know weapons can have two types.

When explicitly spelled out.

Nothing takes Rapid Fire away from the bolter, the banner just states that the weapons are Salvo 2/4

Are Rapid Fire and Salvo the same thing?

Therefore the weapons have two types.

And there's the leap. Because specific weapons conflict with the BRB and have multiple types, you're asserting that this one does too despite never being told that.

You're told that the weapon is Salvo. You are not told to add Salvo the the weapon, or that the weapon gains Salvo in addition to its other types.

The weapon is not Rapid Fire while within 6" of the banner, it is Salvo.

It tells us that when it tells us to treat the boltguns as salvo 2/4 thereby adding the Salvo 2/4 type to boltguns.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It tells us that when it tells us to treat the boltguns as salvo 2/4 thereby adding the Salvo 2/4 type to boltguns.

Since when does "is" mean "add"?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It tells us that when it tells us to treat the boltguns as salvo 2/4 thereby adding the Salvo 2/4 type to boltguns.

Since when does "is" mean "add"?

When there is nothing tanking away the base type.

Since when does "is" mean "only"?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It tells us that when it tells us to treat the boltguns as salvo 2/4 thereby adding the Salvo 2/4 type to boltguns.

Since when does "is" mean "add"?

When there is nothing tanking away the base type.

Since when does "is" mean "only"?

Since ... always?

If something is A then it is not A+B. Pretty much by definition.

ninja'd.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It tells us that when it tells us to treat the boltguns as salvo 2/4 thereby adding the Salvo 2/4 type to boltguns.

Since when does "is" mean "add"?

When there is nothing tanking away the base type.

Since when does "is" mean "only"?

Since ... always?

If something is A then it is not A+B. Pretty much by definition.

Things can have two types...

A Psycannon is Heavy 2.

A Psycannon is also Assault 2

A Pistol is a shooting weapon. a Pistol is a melee weapon...

Both if those have explicit permission. Gee - it's like I didn't already know they exist.

Where is your explicit permission? You've failed to show it. Please do so or concede.

The permission has been posted, ignore it if you wish, that does not mean it is not there.

The weapons are Rapid Fire Agreed?

We treat them as salvo Agreed?

Nothing says the weapon Loses Rapid Fire Agreed?

 DeathReaper wrote:
The permission has been posted, ignore it if you wish, that does not mean it is not there.

Please link the post, or cite the explicit permission. It doesn't exist. Your failure to show explicit permission is noted.

The weapons are Rapid Fire Agreed?

Normally, yes. That is, outside the 6" range of the banner.

We treat them as salvo Agreed?

Which means they are Salvo.

Nothing says the weapon Loses Rapid Fire Agreed?

It. Doesn't. Need. To.

You're making the unsupported assumption that it keeps Rapid Fire.
The banner changes the weapon to Salvo. We know this because it says to treat the weapon as Salvo. It does not say to treat the banner as Salvo in addition to Rapid Fire, or any other combination of words that would allow the type to be additive. Your argument breaks Lash Whips and Whip Coils, among other things. Mine breaks nothing. In order to break the fewest amount of rules your argument cannot be correct.

The weapons are Rapid Fire. Page 56 tells us this.

Ignore that if you wish.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The weapons are Rapid Fire. Page 56 tells us this.

No, the weapons are Salvo. The DA codex tells us this. The DA codex does not tell us they are Rapid Fire/Salvo.

Ignore that if you wish.

I've ignored nothing. Thank you for conceding.

The weapons are salvo as per DA, and they are Rapid Fire as Per the BRB.

Weapons can have more than one type.

Having Salvo does not over ride any other type because nothing says it looses any of its current types.

Permission shown, Do not ignore it this time.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The weapons are salvo as per DA, and they are Rapid Fire as Per the BRB.

Incorrect.

Weapons can have more than one type.

When given explicit permission.

Having Salvo does not over ride any other type because nothing says it looses any of its current types.

Incorrect.
You have a boltgun. You read a rule that says your boltgun is now a bolt pistol.
Can you shoot past 12"? Can you fire twice under 12"?

Permission shown, Do not ignore it this time.

I've ignored nothing. You still haven't shown explicit permission to have both types.
Again, your interpretation breaks the rules at least twice. That means it cannot be correct.

So "treats as" means "treats as only"?

Yes or no.

Edit: Another easy example: Does "place within" mean "place fully within"?

Can you not see how you are creating a restrictive statement from an open one?

Treat as an exhaustive list of options does mean treat as only.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Treat as an exhaustive list of options does mean treat as only.

So you disagree with yourself, and Enfeeble does make impassable terrain passable? (by treating is as Difficult - an exhaustive list of options, apparently)

Any chance of consistency of argument?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It tells us that when it tells us to treat the boltguns as salvo 2/4 thereby adding the Salvo 2/4 type to boltguns.

Since when does "is" mean "add"?

When there is nothing tanking away the base type.

Since when does "is" mean "only"?

OMG... Are we really debating the definition of "is"???? Are we back to the Clinton-Lewinsky days??? Good grief... This thread has gotten so circular, I'm dizzy... Rigeld, You have made excellent points and I agree with you 100%. A few others want to assert things that aren't written in the rule and they seem to be pretty adamant about their faulty reasoning. Isn't there some old saying about debating a certain type of person and how that makes you look? I'm done with this thread since I don't want to start to appear like them... Cheers! :-)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Treat as an exhaustive list of options does mean treat as only.

So you disagree with yourself, and Enfeeble does make impassable terrain passable? (by treating is as Difficult - an exhaustive list of options, apparently)

Any chance of consistency of argument?

I don't really care about enfeeble, RAW yeah, you can enter impassable terrain. RAI and HIWPI no.

Ah, so that is a complete volte face from your previous position? The one you stated so vociferously in another thread, and earlier in this thread, when I asked you to show the difference between the two "treats as" statements and you claimed "context"? (without being able to ever point to the specific context deciding phrase, either)

Again: you have posited that "treat as" is "treat as only". Page and paragraph as to why that is the case will suffice, or concede

I showed you the examples where it can only mean is.
Read them or don't, at this stage you're arguing because you need to be right not because you are.

Think you added an additional "not" in there

Please retract your (at a guess, assuming you werent writing complete gibberish) impugning of my character that you made. I am arguing because I am correct, or have an honest impression that I am, and not for any other reason. Go sling your mud elsewhere.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So "treats as" means "treats as only"?

Yes or no.

No, not always. I will not agree with such a broad statement.

Edit: Another easy example: Does "place within" mean "place fully within"?

Can you not see how you are creating a restrictive statement from an open one?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Things can have two types...

A Psycannon is Heavy 2.

A Psycannon is also Assault 2

A Pistol is a shooting weapon. a Pistol is a melee weapon...

Wait...

Codex GK explicitly states: "A psycannon can either be fired as a Heavy or an Assault weapon" (p. 58, bottom left)

As for pistol, a pistol is only one type: Pistol
and weapons with the "Pistol" type are Assault 1 that also count as being a ccw during assault. (brb, p.52, top left)

Couple dumb questions:
-----
Consider a R24-S4-AP5-Salvo 2/4 weapon (checking with the brb while writing):
1. If moving, it fires 2 shots up to 12", right? (first number, half range)
2. If stationary, it fires 4 shots up to 24", right? (second number, full range)
3. It can not fire less than the pointed shots, right? (number of shots is equal to etc, p.52, bottom left)

Now, consider a Boltgun, wether it moves or not:
4. It fires 2 shots up to 12"
5. It fires 1 shot from 12 to 24"

Finally, let's consider a Boltgun within 6" of a Standard of Devastation, therefore "treated as" Salvo 2/4
6. If you move and fire 2 shots at 12", are you treating it as Salvo2/4? Yes (incidentally, it overlaps with the rapid fire mode of firing)
7. If you stand still and fire 1 shot at 24", are you treating it as Salvo2/4? No, you are firing too few rounds.
8. If you move and fire 1 shot at 24"", are you treating it as Salvo2/4? No, you are ignoring the part stating that moving models fire half range.

No, it is not a poor position if that is the correct reading of the rules. This is RAW, not rules-to-make-thegame-work

Very pertinent example - during 5th, prior to a late edition FAQ, Shrike COULD NOT infiltrate with a unit without the infiltrate USR on their profile.

This made his rule entirely non-functional, yet was the absolute 100% accurate rules-as-written.

During 4th edition C: SM Terminators did not have an armour save, as they did not have the wargear "Terminator Armour". Was this silly? Yes, of course it was. Was it wrong, from a strict rules stand point? No

So please, stop arguing "broken consequences" here.

You will not agree that "treat as" always equals "treat as only" , so when *does* it become the restrictive latter statement? When do you know it is a replacement as opposed to an addition?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rigeld - enfeeble was not directed at you. There is a reason I was quoting Liturgies, who has made a complete volte face and is now trying to pretend otherwise

Nos, you said
"You will not agree that "treat as" always equals "treat as only" , so when *does* it become the restrictive latter statement? When do you know it is a replacement as opposed to an addition?"

We know it is a replacement- "treat X as Y" because that is actually what the rule says, To imply that it means "treat X as X/Y" is assuming something that is not actually written. Your argument becomes RAI instead of what the rule actually says.

Rig can you use a Bolt Pistol to make Overwatch shots?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it is not a poor position if that is the correct reading of the rules. This is RAW, not rules-to-make-thegame-work

And when there are two interpretations, one of which breaks rules and one doesn't, which one is correct?

Very pertinent example - during 5th, prior to a late edition FAQ, Shrike COULD NOT infiltrate with a unit without the infiltrate USR on their profile.

This made his rule entirely non-functional, yet was the absolute 100% accurate rules-as-written.

It didn't make it non-functional. The rule you're talking about gives Shrike Infiltrate - if it was non-functional it wouldn't.

During 4th edition C: SM Terminators did not have an armour save, as they did not have the wargear "Terminator Armour". Was this silly? Yes, of course it was. Was it wrong, from a strict rules stand point? No

I wasn't around in 4th so I can't speak to that. From what you're saying though it's not an interpretation issue, just a factual rules issue.

So please, stop arguing "broken consequences" here.

So... the game literally breaks using your interpretation and you're okay with that?

You will not agree that "treat as" always equals "treat as only" , so when *does* it become the restrictive latter statement? When do you know it is a replacement as opposed to an addition?

You know it's addition when the words "in addition to" or "also" or some other indicative phrase is used.
If it isn't used, you cannot (and must not) assume that it's meant to be.
It's replacement when it simply says "A is B." or "A is treated as B."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Rig can you use a Bolt Pistol to make Overwatch shots?

Yes, absolutely.

BRB page 52 wrote:A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase.

I bolded the important word here. It's both a shooting weapon and also a close combat weapon in the Assault phase.

So a pistol counts as a CC weapon in the assault phase.

why are you using it to shoot?

If it counts as it loses its previous type according to you.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So a pistol counts as a CC weapon in the assault phase.

why are you using it to shoot?

If it counts as it loses its previous type according to you.

Because it is also a ranged weapon.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So a pistol counts as a CC weapon in the assault phase.

why are you using it to shoot?

If it counts as it loses its previous type according to you.

No, and furthermore rigeld2 quoted exactly why it doesn't. Keyword: also

 DeathReaper wrote:
So a pistol counts as a CC weapon in the assault phase.

why are you using it to shoot?

If it counts as it loses its previous type according to you.

It would behoove you to read my entire post instead of just a single word.

A Pistol also counts as a CCW. Note the bolded word. Note how it's missing in the DA banner.
Please attempt to make an actual point instead of ignoring parts of my post.

Yes there is that qualifier.

So the DA banner says counts as only salvo 2/4 then, did I miss that part?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes there is that qualifier.

So the DA banner says counts as only salvo 2/4 then, did I miss that part?

No you didn't miss it. But it does say to treat it as Salvo 2/4. Does is somewhere say treat is as Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4, did we all miss that part? Let's just go with what the rule ACTUALLY says (RAW), not what we think it might mean (RAI).

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes there is that qualifier.

So the DA banner says counts as only salvo 2/4 then, did I miss that part?

No, it doesn't use the word "only".
It doesn't have to.

Saying that something is A means that it's only A, not A+B.
Saying that something is A and also B means that it's only A+B, not A+B+C.

Rigeld - no, it allowed a unit he was joined to to infiltrate. Which they could never do. Which is a broken rule.

GW make broken rules. IF that is the *actual* written rule then you acknowledge that and move on. You wont acknowledge that, so it wont move on.

Again: show where "treats as" means "treats as only". Page and paragraph.

So Nos, it's no longer a RAW agruement from yourself? You admit you're arguing RAI?

Building damage table page 94.
Total Collapse and Detonation.
Both of these say "The building can no longer be occupied and is hereafter treated as impassable terrain."
"Treated as" in this case means "is".

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - no, it allowed a unit he was joined to to infiltrate. Which they could never do. Which is a broken rule.

It also gives Shrike infiltrate. I'm looking right at the rule in the codex. He doesn't have it without that rule.

GW make broken rules. IF that is the *actual* written rule then you acknowledge that and move on. You wont acknowledge that, so it wont move on.

There's a difference between a rule not working as designed and a rule literally breaking the game. Shrike's rule was the former, you're advocating for an interpretation that leads to the latter.

Again: show where "treats as" means "treats as only". Page and paragraph.

Saying that something is A means that it's only A, not A+B.
Saying that something is A and also B means that it's only A+B, not A+B+C.

I don't have to show that because it's normal language usage.

A phone is connected and able to make calls.
I go to you and tell you to treat the phone as disconnected.
That does not mean you are able to make calls on the disconnected phone.

Liturgies - so, yet again putting words in my mouth? I didnt actually say that. I was pointing out that this can result in broken rules. That doesnt mean I am arguing RAI. I suggest you read up on the meaning of RAI and RAW to learn what each means.

Rigeld - So, one of the two rules worked. What about the one that just didnt work?

Why is there a difference, RAW, between the two end results? You have seen the old silly RAW thread, yes?

Are you now saying you are NOT arguing RAW, but what you believe RAI is? That is the only possible reason that the consequences of the rule have any bearing on a discussion about what th erule actually states.

So, again you are saying "treats as" means "treat as only" in all cases, yes? Yet you denied that was the case earlier. Which is it? When does it become additive? What are the rules for this?

Show some *actual* rules from how you determine when "treats as" is additive, and when it is replacement. Prove your case. Because currently you have a load of assertions not backed up.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - So, one of the two rules worked. What about the one that just didnt work?

It didn't break the game by not working. Your assertion does break the game when Lash Whips and Whip Coils are used.

Shrike in a game - game continues with a single non functional rule.
Lash Whips in a game - game is broken as soon as a model starts the Fight sub-phase in b2b with a Lash Whip model.

Why is there a difference, RAW, between the two end results? You have seen the old silly RAW thread, yes?

Read what I just said and that should explain the difference. One results in a non-functional rule, the other results in a non-functional game.

Are you now saying you are NOT arguing RAW, but what you believe RAI is? That is the only possible reason that the consequences of the rule have any bearing on a discussion about what th erule actually states.

No, and please don't put words in my mouth. I enjoy it as much as you do.
And no, that's not the only possible reason.

So, again you are saying "treats as" means "treat as only" in all cases, yes? Yet you denied that was the case earlier. Which is it? When does it become additive? What are the rules for this?

No, I'm not saying that it always means that and never have. As soon as I do you'll come back with "but what about when it says also!?!???"
With no other qualifiers "treats as" is the same thing as "treats as only". Now go ahead and take that out of context to make me look like a fool.

Show some *actual* rules from how you determine when "treats as" is additive, and when it is replacement. Prove your case. Because currently you have a load of assertions not backed up.

That's a lie. I've backed up literally every word I've said. Please, I'm begging you, quote something I haven't backed up.

Please, show some actual rules to define "the". That's exactly what you're asking me to do.

Edit: I hate autocorrect

It's funny nos, I asked a question about your arguing RAI, you get snippy with me and then accuse Rigeld of arguing RAI.

It's not breaking any rule when you read "treats as" effectively as "is" and according to you we break 1 rule and you're interpretation breaks more than 3(collapsed buildings, whip coils etc) so on the balance of break the least rules, the argument goes to us.

On what the rules actually say on the paper it goes to us.

What else is there?