Just wanted to see how the banner is played correctly? Is it a complete replacement of the weapons profile or does it gain additional powers.

Is it 1 ability or multiple?

Salvo replaces the weapon's Type (Rapid Fire) but doesn't replace any Special Rules (Twin-Linked, Rending, whatever)

As above. You are told to changhe the type, not the other special rules.

Clearly there is some debate about this.

Bottom line ask your TO or gaming group how they want to play it after reading the arguments on both sides:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/514902.page

There may be some debate, but that doesn't mean the rules are unclear.

Seems fairly straight forward to me. It states you treat the bolt gun as a Salvo weapon. Rapid fire and Salvo are not special rules, they are weapon types, so the only thing you are required to do is to switch them out. Nothing else in the profile is changed. I do not see why any special rules attached to the weapon would be lost, at least not without stating as much.

Besides, do you really think they intended the banner to completely nullify every tactic that allows special rules to be applied to the weapons?

Salvo just wouldn't be a fair trade off, let alone a benefit, if you lost access to all special rules as the special rules are normally far better. Given the shocking price of these banners, some cost more then whole units, it is clear they are meant to give massive benefits on the field. Salvo, added to any special rule, is the only way I could see it justifying that massive cost.

rigeld2 wrote:
There may be some debate, but that doesn't mean the rules are unclear.

Exactly my thoughts.

Just because people think that Salvo replaces Rapid Fire type, instead of simply adding the Salvo type, does not make it so. Especially when there is nothing that says the bolters lose the rapid fire type.

JinxDragon wrote:
Seems fairly straight forward to me. It states you treat the bolt gun as a Salvo weapon. Rapid fire and Salvo are not special rules, they are weapon types, so the only thing you are required to do is to switch them out. Nothing else in the profile is changed. I do not see why any special rules attached to the weapon would be lost, at least not without stating as much.

Besides, do you really think they intended the banner to completely nullify every tactic that allows special rules to be applied to the weapons?

Salvo just wouldn't be a fair trade off, let alone a benefit, if you lost access to all special rules as the special rules are normally far better. Given the shocking price of these banners, some cost more then whole units, it is clear they are meant to give massive benefits on the field. Salvo, added to any special rule, is the only way I could see it justifying that massive cost.

Actually the argument is that a Boltgun in range of the Banner is both Rapid Fire and Salvo.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
There may be some debate, but that doesn't mean the rules are unclear.

Exactly my thoughts.

Just because people think that Salvo replaces Rapid Fire type, instead of simply adding the Salvo type, does not make it so. Especially when there is nothing that says the bolters lose the rapid fire type.

Except for the actual rules that say the weapon is treated as Salvo. If you're firing it as Rapid Fire, are you treating it as Salvo? Or are you breaking a rule?

Not that you would ever choose to be Rapid Fire over Salvo on a Bike or a LRC.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not that you would ever choose to be Rapid Fire over Salvo on a Bike or a LRC.

No, but if you are footslogging (and can choose type), you would definitely take Rapid Fire over Salvo.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
There may be some debate, but that doesn't mean the rules are unclear.

Exactly my thoughts.

Just because people think that Salvo replaces Rapid Fire type, instead of simply adding the Salvo type, does not make it so. Especially when there is nothing that says the bolters lose the rapid fire type.

Except for the actual rules that say the weapon is treated as Salvo. If you're firing it as Rapid Fire, are you treating it as Salvo? Or are you breaking a rule?

Does "treat as" equate to "must also use as"?

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

Show us proof that "treats as" is equivalent to "use as" and you might have an argument.

A Hovering flyer is "treated as" a Fast Skimmer.
Are you suggesting it can still Zoom?

How, they are in conflict with each other?!

Nothing in the banners description states you get to chose between the weapons types at a whim. It says you treat the weapon as Salvo, which is very different then being offered a choice between them. If you do not use the weapon as a salvo weapon, then you have not followed the banner rule as it is written because it isn't following the rules set forth for Salvo weapons.

Likewise, nothing in the base rules for type allows you to select between two different weapon types. I actually have doubt that a weapon can even have duel types, as per the writing in the main rule book. The very first sentence states that a weapon always has one weapon type. While I am sure a codex could change this easily, as per the order of rules, it does support the argument that this is a replacement for the weapon type. As there is no additional rules being provided to inform us how we deal with duel weapon types, something not set out in the main rule book at all, we clearly have a problem with the weapon having duel types.

Can someone provide me with an example of a weapon that has two weapon types, one that doesn't have a special rule that tells you how to deal with this fact?

JinxDragon wrote:
Can someone provide me with an example of a weapon that has two weapon types, one that doesn't have a special rule that tells you how to deal with this fact?

There aren't any. Every weapon with multiple types has it's own rule allowing the choice of type. Psycannon being a good example.

There is that too, every time a weapon has a different type it is written out as a separate profile.

I find it a little hard to take the words 'treat as' to mean add an additional profile onto the weapon. Not only would it be too vague a term, as evident by the fact the majority do not come to that conclusion, but it is one they have used in other parts of the rule book. In those other parts it's use is very clear, you are to ignore all related rules for this 'type' and instead replace them with the related rules for this other 'type.' This makes it near impossible for me to accept an argument that treat as means anything other then replace this section of the rules with these rules.

If they wanted the boltgun to have an additional profile, so you could chose between them, then they would of stated out that profile and said to add it to the existing one.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not that you would ever choose to be Rapid Fire over Salvo on a Bike or a LRC.

No, but if you are footslogging (and can choose type), you would definitely take Rapid Fire over Salvo.

Maybe I am just confused how Salvo works, but it seems like for even footsloggers the Salvo would be superior.

Salvo is 4 shots at 24" if stationary or 2 shots at 12" if you move.
Rapid Fire is 1 shot at 24" or 2 shots at 12".

If you can choose your profile, you would still be able to fire at a unit greater than 12" if you move.

From everything I have seen, using Noise marines, Salvo is better then Rapid fire. There is only one instance where Salvo is worse the rapid fire, and that is if your target happens to be a few inches outside of maximum range. In such a case you would be able to move and shoot 1 shot with rapid fire, but are very unlikely to get within the half-max range needed to fire a Salvo weapon after moving.

Right, I keep getting the salvo profiles mixed up.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Does "treat as" equate to "must also use as"?

Yes. Because you have no option to use it as anything else.

 grendel083 wrote:
A Hovering flyer is "treated as" a Fast Skimmer.
Are you suggesting it can still Zoom?

I didn't see this brought up in that other merry-go-round thread but it seems pretty convincing to me. I seem to remember some discussion a long time ago about that exact thing. I can't remember if it was about movement or disembarking or shooting but I'm pretty sure the conclusion was that "treated as" meant "it's this instead of what it was before".

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Does "treat as" equate to "must also use as"?

Yes. Because you have no option to use it as anything else.

Got a rules quote that actually says that?

Nothing about the term "treated as" removes the pre-existing rules of Rapid Fire.

Treated as Dangerous means it is difficult AND dangerous

If you cast enfeeble on a unit, then that unit treats all terrain as difficult terrain, in that case impassible terrain becomes difficult and you can move right through it...

Or the rules for enfeeble do not take away the Impassible classification, but instead adds to it and you still can not move through impassible terrain.

I am trying to be consistent is all.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Treated as Dangerous means it is difficult AND dangerous

Perhaps you should read the dangerous terrain rules. (Page 90)

If you cast enfeeble on a unit, then that unit treats all terrain as difficult terrain, in that case impassible terrain becomes difficult and you can move right through it...

Or the rules for enfeeble do not take away the Impassible classification, but instead adds to it and you still can not move through impassible terrain.

As written you can do that. I don't believe that is the intent, however (for Enfeeble to allow movement into Impassable terrain).

I am trying to be consistent is all.

So you allow Hovering Flyers to move 36"? And make any number of turns?

"Treated as" means the same thing as "counts as" which means the same thing as "is", not "is in addition to" or "is sometimes".

If you're rolling on a chart and someone says "if you roll a 1 on a D6, treat it as if you had rolled a 2" you're not gonna go on the chart and say "Well, I can pick and choose then!"

You're gonna take the result on the chart that is for rolling a 2.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Treated as Dangerous means it is difficult AND dangerous

Perhaps you should read the dangerous terrain rules. (Page 90)

I have, follow the rules for, and treated as are the same thing...

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:If you cast enfeeble on a unit, then that unit treats all terrain as difficult terrain, in that case impassible terrain becomes difficult and you can move right through it...

Or the rules for enfeeble do not take away the Impassible classification, but instead adds to it and you still can not move through impassible terrain.

As written you can do that. I don't believe that is the intent, however (for Enfeeble to allow movement into Impassable terrain).

That is not true, as nothing takes the impassible terrain tag away from impassible terrain.

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:I am trying to be consistent is all.

So you allow Hovering Flyers to move 36"? And make any number of turns?

"Treated as" means the same thing as "counts as" which means the same thing as "is", not "is in addition to" or "is sometimes".

What are you talking about?

Bottom line, it should be discussed with your opponent or the TO before the match so you know how you and your opponents are going to play it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Treated as Dangerous means it is difficult AND dangerous

Perhaps you should read the dangerous terrain rules. (Page 90)

I have, follow the rules for, and treated as are the same thing...

Right. Dangerous terrain does not mean that it is difficult and dangerous.
Dangerous terrain means that you follow the rules for difficult terrain and also do other stuff. Hence why I suggested you read the rules on page 90 - what you said isn't entirely correct.

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:If you cast enfeeble on a unit, then that unit treats all terrain as difficult terrain, in that case impassible terrain becomes difficult and you can move right through it...

Or the rules for enfeeble do not take away the Impassible classification, but instead adds to it and you still can not move through impassible terrain.

As written you can do that. I don't believe that is the intent, however (for Enfeeble to allow movement into Impassable terrain).

That is not true, as nothing takes the impassible terrain tag away from impassible terrain.

Well, it does - because the unit treats all terrain as difficult. Because you have no option to treat it as impassable, it's not.

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:I am trying to be consistent is all.

So you allow Hovering Flyers to move 36"? And make any number of turns?

"Treated as" means the same thing as "counts as" which means the same thing as "is", not "is in addition to" or "is sometimes".

What are you talking about?

A Hovering Flyer is treated as a Fast Skimmer. Which means that, according to you, it has not lost the ability to Zoom, but it gains the ability to turn as much as it wants (being a Fast Skimmer and all).

Bottom line, it should be discussed with your opponent or the TO before the match so you know how you and your opponents are going to play it.

Sure, just like you should discuss with your opponent about using dice versus asking a random person on the street for a random number.
One method has support from actual rules, one is making things up.

I have one more question about the bikes. Since they are relentless, if they move do you salvo full range or half since you still are considered to have moved?

Full - read the rules for Relentless.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Treated as Dangerous means it is difficult AND dangerous

Perhaps you should read the dangerous terrain rules. (Page 90)

I have, follow the rules for, and treated as are the same thing...

Right. Dangerous terrain does not mean that it is difficult and dangerous.
Dangerous terrain means that you follow the rules for difficult terrain and also do other stuff. Hence why I suggested you read the rules on page 90 - what you said isn't entirely correct.

Following the rules for difficult terrain means it is difficult terrain and dangerous terrain...

Well, it does - because the unit treats all terrain as difficult. Because you have no option to treat it as impassable, it's not.

See, that is the thing, it does not say to treat it as impassible, it actually is impassable terrain... that we are treating ad difficult with nothing taking away the impassible terrain.

Therefore it is Impassable and Difficult.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Treated as Dangerous means it is difficult AND dangerous

Perhaps you should read the dangerous terrain rules. (Page 90)

I have, follow the rules for, and treated as are the same thing...

Right. Dangerous terrain does not mean that it is difficult and dangerous.
Dangerous terrain means that you follow the rules for difficult terrain and also do other stuff. Hence why I suggested you read the rules on page 90 - what you said isn't entirely correct.

Following the rules for difficult terrain means it is difficult terrain and dangerous terrain...

BRB Page 90 wrote:Dangerous terrain follows all the rules for difficult
terrain - you've got to watch your step! In addition, each
model must take a Dangerous Terrain test as soon as it
enters, leaves or moves within dangerous terrain.

No - it's Dangerous terrain. There's no such thing as "dangerous and difficult" (such a thing would be redundant).

See, that is the thing, it does not say to treat it as impassible, it actually is impassable terrain... that we are treating ad difficult with nothing taking away the impassible terrain.

Therefore it is Impassable and Difficult.

Citation required for something that is "treated as" something to also be something else. You've failed to show it every single time it's been asked. Literally every time.

You're using a Contemptor Dread to count as a normal dread in our game. I shoot at it with lasguns and wound on 3s, removing the model after one wound. You ask why, I say because I was treating it as a grot.

The citation is in the DA banner itself. The banner does not say Treats as only. Nor does it say that boltguns lose their original type.

Weapons can have two types, so that is not any restriction.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The citation is in the DA banner itself. The banner does not say Treats as only. Nor does it say that boltguns lose their original type.

Weapons can have two types, so that is not any restriction.

If I fire a weapon as Rapid Fire, am I treating the weapon as Salvo?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The citation is in the DA banner itself. The banner does not say Treats as only. Nor does it say that boltguns lose their original type.

Weapons can have two types, so that is not any restriction.

If I fire a weapon as Rapid Fire, am I treating the weapon as Salvo?

Yes, you are just not firing the Salvo type, you are firing the rapid fire type, as it has both types.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The citation is in the DA banner itself. The banner does not say Treats as only. Nor does it say that boltguns lose their original type.

Weapons can have two types, so that is not any restriction.

If I fire a weapon as Rapid Fire, am I treating the weapon as Salvo?

Yes, you are just not firing the Salvo type, you are firing the rapid fire type, as it has both types.

How are you treating the weapon as Salvo if you're not firing it as Salvo? Where is the permission to fire it as another type? You're told it has one type, not one in addition.

You are told it has one type (Rapid fire) and the banner says to treat it as Salvo. So Salvo is added to its type.

It gains the Salvo type as nothing says that the rapid fire type is removed.

Unless you have a quote that I missed that says that the weapon is no longer Rapid Fire.

The permission to fire it as Rapid Fire is in the shooting rules, as it is a Rapid Fire weapon and we are not told to remove that Type from the weapon.

Assuming you have two types...
What rule lets you pick between types?
Psycannon has unique rule allowing it, what rule does a Bolter use?

The rules for Rapid-Fire and Salvo are contradictory and therefore mutually exclusive. It is impossible for a weapon to be both simultaneously, as that will result in literal straight RaW contradictions, and it seems reasonable to assume that each weapon profile can only have a single weapon type, given that no clear duplicates exist and weapon types are contradictory in their rules.

It is not reasonable to assume that adding Salvo to Rapid-fire gives you a magical new ability to select which rule you'd like to use - and which to ignore - at any given time. You have no permission to ignore the rules for Salvo. You have implicit permission to override the rules for Rapid-fire with the rules for Salvo, given that they contradict and the Banner's effect is obviously modifying the weapon's profile.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You are told it has one type (Rapid fire) and the banner says to treat it as Salvo. So Salvo is added to its type.

It gains the Salvo type as nothing says that the rapid fire type is removed.

Unless you have a quote that I missed that says that the weapon is no longer Rapid Fire.

The permission to fire it as Rapid Fire is in the shooting rules, as it is a Rapid Fire weapon and we are not told to remove that Type from the weapon.

So instead of answering my question you just repeat your (incorrect) assumption that has no basis in actual rules.
Well done... ?

 grendel083 wrote:
Assuming you have two types...
What rule lets you pick between types?
Psycannon has unique rule allowing it, what rule does a Bolter use?

there are more than just the Psycannon.

The Splinter Cannon is Assault 4 or Heavy 6. (Well it was in the previous Eldar book as I think the new one just came out).

What allows you to choose?

The rule on page 12 that allow a unit to shoot and by virtue of the models in question having a Rapid Fire bolter, which is also Salvo, as per the banner.

Rig, you are incorrectly thinking that treats as means treats as only, which is of course not true.

Please show how "treats as" is synonymous with "must use this profile: salvo 2/4"

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

 DeathReaper wrote:
The Splinter Cannon is Assault 4 or Heavy 6. (Well it was in the previous Eldar book as I think the new one just came out).

Dark Eldar codex, not Eldar. And the rules for the Cannon specifically give you permission to (except for vehicles).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Assuming you have two types...
What rule lets you pick between types?
Psycannon has unique rule allowing it, what rule does a Bolter use?

there are more than just the Psycannon.

The Splinter Cannon is Assault 4 or Heavy 6. (Well it was in the previous Eldar book as I think the new one just came out).

What allows you to choose?

The rule on page 12 that allow a unit to shoot and by virtue of the models in question having a Rapid Fire bolter, which is also Salvo, as per the banner.

That page allows you to shoot.
But there is no rule that allows you to choose which type a weapon can be fired with.
As mention Psycannons have a unique rule. I'm unfamiliar with Dark Eldar, I assume the Splinter cannon does also?

I actually have.
Treats as must equal counts as which must equal is. Agreed?

If the Bolter is Salvo 2/4, why are you attempting to shoot it as Rapid Fire?

The Banner does not say "in addition to" it says "treats as". Which means it replaces.

Page 51 says that a weapon with multiple types will have multiple lines in its profile. Please, show me this new profile you're asserting exists. I'm sure you can since you're asserting the ability to choose which one to use.

So either you can not shoot at all whilst within the banners radius, or you have to choose your weapon type before firing the bolter.

The former breaks the banner, so the logical conclusion is the latter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
I actually have.
Treats as must equal counts as which must equal is. Agreed?

If the Bolter is Salvo 2/4, why are you attempting to shoot it as Rapid Fire?

The Banner does not say "in addition to" it says "treats as". Which means it replaces.

Page 51 says that a weapon with multiple types will have multiple lines in its profile. Please, show me this new profile you're asserting exists. I'm sure you can since you're asserting the ability to choose which one to use.

Treats as does not mean replaces.

Treats as means is (Which a weapon can be two types), not instead of or replaces.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So either you can not shoot at all whilst within the banners radius, or you have to choose your weapon type before firing the bolter.

The former breaks the banner, so the logical conclusion is the latter.

That's a lie. I'd say its simply incorrect, but you've been corrected enough that it must be deliberate now.
Between this and your other thread you're simply trolling now.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So either you can not shoot at all whilst within the banners radius, or you have to choose your weapon type before firing the bolter.

The former breaks the banner, so the logical conclusion is the latter.

That's a lie. I'd say its simply incorrect, but you've been corrected enough that it must be deliberate now.
Between this and your other thread you're simply trolling now.

What part was a lie exactly?

Please do not attribute malice when there is none.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So either you can not shoot at all whilst within the banners radius, or you have to choose your weapon type before firing the bolter.

The former breaks the banner, so the logical conclusion is the latter.

OR when it says treat it as Salvo, you treat it as Salvo, and not a broken Rapid Fire/Salvo hybrid.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Please show how "treats as" is synonymous with "must use this profile: salvo 2/4"

Sure. Salvo and Rapid-fire are mutually exclusive weapon types. We're told to use Salvo. This is a rules conflict. Therefore, the new and more specific rule takes precedent. There's no reason to think you get a choice. Where is this choice coming from? It's not in the rules anywhere. Your supposed citation certainly didn't include it.

We are told to treat it as salvo, we are never "told to use Salvo" Please understand the difference.

They do not say we must use it as a salvo weapon, they simply add a type to the weapon.

The permission to shoot comes from the shooting rules.

I will quote "Any model that is found to be in range of at least one visible enemy model in the target unit can fire." (13)

"WHO CAN SHOOT:
Certain situations prevent a model from firing. The most common are;
. Their unit is locked in close combat with the foe.
. Their unit is running (see page l4).
This is not a comprehensive list. Other garne rules or special rules can sometimes affect a unit's ability to shoot - this is explained thoroughly when it occurs."(12)

Does the banner have anything that "affect[s] a unit's ability to shoot"? If so is it "explained thoroughly when it occurs"?

If not then you can shoot.

Rigeld - by the same token as another thread, the rule does not say "treat as ONLY" Salvo, meaning it is not saying it is *exclusively* salvo.

So to turn it around - where is the rule requiring that you "treat as ONLY" salvo? Please cite page and paragraph.

Secondly - treat as is not the same as use as. That has no rules reference you can find.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - by the same token as another thread, the rule does not say "treat as ONLY" Salvo, meaning it is not saying it is *exclusively* salvo.

So to turn it around - where is the rule requiring that you "treat as ONLY" salvo? Please cite page and paragraph.

Secondly - treat as is not the same as use as. That has no rules reference you can find.

Please cite where the rules distinguish treat as and use as. Page is fine I can find the paragraph.

Please find the rule definition of treat as and use as first. Page and graph

Otherwise we fall back on English. In English the two are different

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Please find the rule definition of treat as and use as first. Page and graph

Otherwise we fall back on English. In English the two are different

Please prove that assertion.

Burden is on you, currently. Or are you stating there is no rules definition for Treat as and Use as?

Once you have provided your proof we can move on, or once you have conceded there is no rules basis we can move on. YOu have to do something first

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Burden is on you, currently. Or are you stating there is no rules definition for Treat as and Use as?

Once you have provided your proof we can move on, or once you have conceded there is no rules basis we can move on. YOu have to do something first

I made no assertion as to the presence of a rules definition.

You made the assertion that in English the two are different, prove your assertion.

Go find a dictionary, and do some work yourself.

I dont feel the need to prove trivialities to you.

I have a dictionary and as the crux of your argument it is not a triviality, it is quite possible you are mistaken as to the equivalence of these phrases in this context.

Are you simply leaving your claim of difference as a bald, unsupported assertion based on your personal interpretation of English?

It is trivial that "use as" and "treat as" have different meanings in this context.

Are you stating you are unable to challenge this assertion, or you are unwilling to? So far you have not added to this thread any rules or new arguments, just made demands.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is trivial that "use as" and "treat as" have different meanings in this context.

Are you stating you are unable to challenge this assertion, or you are unwilling to? So far you have not added to this thread any rules or new arguments, just made demands.

There is no requirement form me to challenge this assertion, you have to support assertions that you have made. However I will provide a definition for you. My demands have simply been for you to support your burden of proof. A reasonable request.

Treat as: regard something as being of a specified nature with implications for one's actions concerning it

Use: Take hold or deploy something as a means of accomplishing or achieving something

From those definitions, which are the most applicable I could find in the OED, as use as is not defined, I fail to see how you make a relevant distinction in this context.

Treat as, the words used, is clear and unambiguous and in conflict with your claim.

Use as, in this context would also appear to be synonymous, and also irrelevant as it is not the phraseology used.

There is a requirement for you to posit an actual arugment, however, rather than simply make demands. Otherwise there is no debate. One is wearing, the other isnt.

It isnt irrelevant - the claim is that in order to "treat [something] as" Salvo means you must "use [something] as" salvo, otherwise you have not complied with the rule to "treat as" salvo.

The point is that Treat as and Use as are NOT synonymous here - treating only has implications, not requirements, as your quote shows. So if you are Salvo & Rapid fire, as "treat as" is not an explicit replacement of one type with the other, and still fire as rapid fire, you have not broken the rule/

The implications are that you fire it as Salvo. Are there other implications I am missing.

You regard it as being salvo, which has implications for how you use it. Those implications are spelt out in the Salvo rules.

So you are creating an absolutely restrictive statement there?

That you may ONLY use it as Salvo, when you are also Rapid Fire type?

Please prove the assertion that you may ONLY use it as Salvo. Page and graph

I have made the assertion that you treat it as Salvo using the common English definition, as required. I have supported that .

It a appears you are asserting treat as means something different to the dictionary definition.

I have made no assertion to the presence of the word only, as I have no need to.

You appear to be reading the definition of treat as to say

... may have implications for how you use it.

Please back up that interpretation.

For the people who are arguing it is both Rapid Fire and Salvo, where do you get permission to choose which profile (for lack of a better word) to use?

Every weapon that can be fired with a different profile (whether it is a completely different profile, or just a different weapon type) specifically states that you choose which profile to use.

I am asserting no such thing.

Step back: are you claiming you MUST use it as Salvo, or not?

Are you claiming "treat as" requires replacement? So Rapid Fire is replaced with Salvo?

You have yet to make a clear argument


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
For the people who are arguing it is both Rapid Fire and Salvo, where do you get permission to choose which profile (for lack of a better word) to use?

Every weapon that can be fired with a different profile (whether it is a completely different profile, or just a different weapon type) specifically states that you choose which profile to use.

Thats just a different issue though - the first issue is
Is "treats as" a replacement?

If the answer is "yes" then the second issue never comes up. If the answer is "no" then we still need to come up with an answer on how you determine what profile you use, or if in fact there is no rule actually allowing you to do so and the weapon is essentially useless - but that does not impinge in any way on the first.

It is like pointing out some CCW dont have a derivable profile and so, according to 6th ed, dont function any longer. It doesnt alter that that is what the 6th edition says you must have to be a weapon, and that therefore if you dont have a profile disarming strike cannot affect you.

So rather than head down the second path - resolve the first one first.

So, is "treat as" a replacement?

I am not making an argument I am attempting to understand your position so I can decide if I agree with it or not. As currently presented I do not find your argument persuasive.

I do not see how you are getting around the implications of treating it as Salvo and thus finding permission to treat fire it some other way.

It may be because I am reading implications in the definition of treat as as the plural noun, which means consequences and you are reading it differently. It seems pretty clear to me at least that it is the plural noun in use in that sentence.

You are asserting that the implication is you must fire it as Salvo, yet I do not see that as an implication.

Is that what you think?

I see the "implication" as "you follow the Salvo rules" - but nothing stating you ONLY follow the rules. Your assessment is that the "treat as" is restrictive and exhaustive - you treat it as Salvo and ONLY salvo. Is that accurate?

I have edited my previous post for clarity. Please reread as it should answer that inquiry.

Again - are you stating that "implications" of Salvo is it can ONLy be Salvo?

In otherwords it is a replacement of type: rapid fire with type: salvo?

Please explain

The consequence of treating it as Salvo is that it fires as Salvo. As I read it still actually is rapid fire, but it fires as Salvo, as that is the implication of regarding it as being Salvo.

So as far as I can tell it is not a replacement, but nor can it be fired as a rapid fire weapon. I don't think treat as causes it to gain the Salvo type at all.

I am not really comfortable making this argument though as, as I stated I am trying to assess your argument and see if I agree with it. If I do then we have no conflict. If I do not then I will be able to better form a counter argument based on an understanding of what you are saying. As such I am, or was, holding a neutral position and offering you the chance to persuade me.

I think I am pretty close to fully grasping your argument, however and it pretty much dissuades me of your position, for the reasons mentioned in my previous post.

I think there's wide agreement that "treat as" is equivalent in game terms to "is". Boltguns within 6" of the banner are Salvo.

The problem is that weapons are not prohibited from having two profiles, so we have to find out if "treat as" is also equivalent to "use as". The dictionary definition doesn't actually help us here, so in my view we have to look at precedent in the rules.

This is where the hovering Flyer example comes in. we are told to treat hovering Flyers exactly as Fast Skimmers, which follow completely different - and conflicting - rules for movement. While it is possible to have several vehicle types, to my knowledge no conflicting types exist. Therefore, the correct interpretation must be that in this case "treat as" means "use as" for all intents and purposes, and thus by precedent the same goes for friendly boltguns within 6" of the Banner of Devastation, unless otherwise specified.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again - are you stating that "implications" of Salvo is it can ONLy be Salvo?

In otherwords it is a replacement of type: rapid fire with type: salvo?

Please explain

Treat: To act or behave in a specified manner toward.
One thing all the definitions don't say, is that treat means in addition. Adding one type to another fits no definition of treat.

Weapon types are mutually exclusive. They simply don't work together. In each and every case of a weapon with two types, it has had a unique rule allowing the choice. As noted before this is absent in this case. This can't be "left for another discussion", it has implications here.

Basically the rules don't allow for a weapon with two types.

So we have weapon type A, and Type B.
we are told to treat type A as type B, with the rules not allowing A&B.

So yes, with the restrictions of the rules, in this case, it must be treated as Salvo only.

 grendel083 wrote:

Treat: To act or behave in a specified manner toward.
One thing all the definitions don't say, is that treat means in addition. Adding one type to another fits no definition of treat.

Weapon types are mutually exclusive. They simply don't work together. In each and every case of a weapon with two types, it has had a unique rule allowing the choice. As noted before this is absent in this case. This can't be "left for another discussion", it has implications here.

Basically the rules don't allow for a weapon with two types.

Hmm, this is actually an interesting argument. I was going to tell you that you were wrong, and that page 51 of the rulebook allows a weapon to have two profiles, where the player can choose which to use, but the Banner of Devastation actually only modifies the type - there's nothing about a second profile. If Salvo is supposed to represent a new profile line, then we are strictly speaking missing the range, strength and AP.

tgjensen wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Treat: To act or behave in a specified manner toward.
One thing all the definitions don't say, is that treat means in addition. Adding one type to another fits no definition of treat.

Weapon types are mutually exclusive. They simply don't work together. In each and every case of a weapon with two types, it has had a unique rule allowing the choice. As noted before this is absent in this case. This can't be "left for another discussion", it has implications here.

Basically the rules don't allow for a weapon with two types.

Hmm, this is actually an interesting argument. I was going to tell you that you were wrong, and that page 51 of the rulebook allows a weapon to have two profiles, where the player can choose which to use, but the Banner of Devastation actually only modifies the type - there's nothing about a second profile. If Salvo is supposed to represent a new profile line, then we are strictly speaking missing the range, strength and AP.

Yep, profile is different.
Compare the Missile Launcher to the Psycannon.
Missile launcher has multiple profiles, which is fine.
Psycannon has multiple types, and requires a rule (specific to the Psycannon, it's not a general rule) allowing the choice.

As others have said, pretty easy to see it is able to acquire TL but not RF.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - by the same token as another thread, the rule does not say "treat as ONLY" Salvo, meaning it is not saying it is *exclusively* salvo.

So to turn it around - where is the rule requiring that you "treat as ONLY" salvo? Please cite page and paragraph.

Secondly - treat as is not the same as use as. That has no rules reference you can find.

I hand you a toothpick and tell you to treat it as a chain sword.
Can you get that annoying piece of meat out of your teeth without cutting off your head?

Treat as is the same as count as which is the same as is. The Bolter is Salvo. Find permission to make it read The Bolter is Salvo in addition to something else. DR has failed at every opportunity to show this - perhaps you could.

Drager - so you are stating the definite article "the", as in the singular consequence [was implication] is it fires as Salvo?

So again, you are creating a restrictive statement - it is Salvo (treat as == is, all the way through the 40k rules) and no other type.

Grendel - do you know what else is missing from that definition? Any mention of exclusivity. There is no "only" in that statement. It does not need to state "in addition" as, by failing to restrict it is left open - it is non-exhaustive, to bring in another thread

I also disagree that whether or not the resulting salvo / rapidfire weapon could actualy work is at all relevant to this argument, as you are now saying BECAUSE the resultant mix is inoperable that means the rule is wrong, and must be something else - that is a HYWPI argument, not a strict rules based one.

"Basically the rules don't allow for a weapon with two types"
This, strictly, is a false statement. The rules do not tell you how they operate, but they do not place any restrictions on those weapon types existing in the first place. There is no a priori restriction, which is what your argument hinges upon.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Drager - so you are stating the definite article "the", as in the singular consequence [was implication] is it fires as Salvo?

So again, you are creating a restrictive statement - it is Salvo (treat as == is, all the way through the 40k rules) and no other type

I am not creating a restrictive statement. I am reading one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Basically the rules don't allow for a weapon with two types"
This, strictly, is a false statement. The rules do not tell you how they operate, but they do not place any restrictions on those weapon types existing in the first place. There is no a priori restriction, which is what your argument hinges upon.

That'll teach me for not being completely precise on the Internet.

"Basically the rules don't allow for a functioning weapon with two types"
Better?

You can continue to state that "treat as" does not mean "treat only as", but equally you can't show that "Treat as" means "Treat in addition to".

Now there are two interpretations, and one of those does not function.

And, again, I am asking you to explain how it is restrictive, as the reading I have given of your own quotes does not place any restrictions

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And, again, I am asking you to explain how it is restrictive, as the reading I have given of your own quotes does not place any restrictions

A weapon can't function with two types. That's pretty restrictive.

And, as has already been pointred out, is a different rules argument entirely

You are doing this backwards: you have decided the outcome is unworkable, and have stated that means you cannot arrive at the outcome, therefore the answer is that Salvo replaces Rapid Fire

You havent actually provided proof of that, and your quotes in fact show the opposite - that treat as is NOT restrictive as you claim.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And, again, I am asking you to explain how it is restrictive, as the reading I have given of your own quotes does not place any restrictions

Yes it does, as far as I could see you have only been reinforcing the restrictive reading the last couple of posts. I don't know where the disconnect in our thinking is so I cannot make it any clearer for you, apologies.

You are not following my argument any more than I am following yours, we appear to be on the same page right to the end of the definition of treats as, with regards to implications/consequences.

Yes - you are stating it only has one implication, whereas the actual definition does not state that. The definition does not state that the ONLY implications are....

the definition is very open ended as to what it allows.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes - you are stating it only has one implication, whereas the actual definition does not state that. The definition does not state that the ONLY implications are....

the definition is very open ended as to what it allows.

No, I'm not. What are the other implications of treating it as Salvo? I am not disregarding further implications, I just can't think of any, though any that exist apply.

Also the word only would mean nothing in the definition of treats as, so why would you expect it to appear?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And, as has already been pointred out, is a different rules argument entirely

You are doing this backwards: you have decided the outcome is unworkable, and have stated that means you cannot arrive at the outcome, therefore the answer is that Salvo replaces Rapid Fire

You havent actually provided proof of that, and your quotes in fact show the opposite - that treat as is NOT restrictive as you claim.

And in a similar respect, you haven't provided proof that it becomes Salvo AND Rapid Fire.
So would you say both interpretations are valid?
Yet one doesn't function?

Seriously - "Treat as" is an exhaustive statement as it means the same thing as "is" not "is in addition to" or "is with some caveats".

There's no permission to allow a second Type.

A is B.

that does not mean the same thing as

A is B(+C)

The onus on proving the loss of something (rapid fire) should surely be on your side? You have yet to do so.

If you have impassable terrain that is treated as difficult, is it now JUST difficult terrain? The rules are as silent on having multiple terrain types as the rules for weapons are on having multiple weapon types.

This is DRs consistency argument - so far your argument leads to Impassable terrain becoming passable (a strict benefit) because you have attempted to weaken the opponent.

So no, I do not think both are valid - as you have created a restriciton that is entirely absent from the written definition, is absent from the rules in the main book. Do I think this then causes issues? Yes, however that does not suddenly makie your interpretation a valid one.

Models drawing LOS from their eyes meaning some models cannot shoot does not make the rule different in the first place. It just means most people change the rule.

Here as the written rule does not function (you end up with a weapon you cannot fire, as you cannot pick a type) the quesiton then becomes - what to do about it

Do you create a dual profile? One with type: rapid fire, and one with type: Salvo?

Do you replace the Rapid fire type with Salvo?

As to whcih to choose - I dont see any way of picking, as there is no intent argument that can be made.

Drager - again, you are creating a restrictive statement - that in order to treat the weapon as salvo, you must ONLY fire it as salvo. That isnt in the definition of "treats"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you have impassable terrain that is treated as difficult, is it now JUST difficult terrain? The rules are as silent on having multiple terrain types as the rules for weapons are on having multiple weapon types.

Right, and I admitted that in the terrain discussion he was correct RAW but the Intent was obvious in that case.

This is DRs consistency argument - so far your argument leads to Impassable terrain becoming passable (a strict benefit) because you have attempted to weaken the opponent.

I'm being entirely consistent.

Here as the written rule does not function (you end up with a weapon you cannot fire, as you cannot pick a type) the quesiton then becomes - what to do about it

I've proven that incorrect.

Actually rigeld you havent proven it, you made an assertion.

A(X,y,z) is treated as (X') means you have A(X,X', y, z)

No, that's incorrect.

Treated as must mean the same as is.

Therefore you have A(X').

So you have lost the other rules as well?

White is treated as black does not stop white also being white

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The onus on proving the loss of something (rapid fire) should surely be on your side? You have yet to do so.

I'd say it's on both. Even if you can completely disprove my view, you still have to prove yours is correct.

Do you create a dual profile? One with type: rapid fire, and one with type: Salvo?

Do you replace the Rapid fire type with Salvo?

As to whcih to choose - I dont see any way of picking, as there is no intent argument that can be made.

Creating a seperate profile is adding in all kinds of things not listed in the banner rules.
What is being suggested is adding a type to an existing profile, similar to a Psycannon, but without any rule allowing for the choice of profile. In other words a broken weapon.
If the rule said anything about adding another profile, then there would be no discussion here at all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you have lost the other rules as well?

White is treated as black does not stop white also being white

The other Types, yes. Your letter assignments weren't very clear.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Drager - again, you are creating a restrictive statement - that in order to treat the weapon as salvo, you must ONLY fire it as salvo. That isnt in the definition of "treats"

Yes it is. As I have shown.

At this point we have both presented evidence and come to differing conclusions, unless you have something new, there is little point in continuing as we will both simply assert a position from now on I guess. I am happy my interpretation and reasoning is solid and that you are mistaken in your understanding. You feel the opposite, as is your right.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
White is treated as black does not stop white also being white

It does however stop it being treated as white.
You're thinking of treating White as Back AND White.

A boltgun is still a boltgun. It is still Rapid Fire.
But it can't be treated as Rapid Fire.
Because it can't be both, as types are mutually exclusive.

grendel083 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The onus on proving the loss of something (rapid fire) should surely be on your side? You have yet to do so.

I'd say it's on both. Even if you can completely disprove my view, you still have to prove yours is correct.

No you dont, as mine is the H0 in this instance. The default position. Replacement has to be H1. Without proof of H1 (or evidence disproving H0) , you are not moved from H0

grendel083 wrote:

Do you create a dual profile? One with type: rapid fire, and one with type: Salvo?

Do you replace the Rapid fire type with Salvo?

As to whcih to choose - I dont see any way of picking, as there is no intent argument that can be made.

Creating a seperate profile is adding in all kinds of things not listed in the banner rules.

Which is the point of that entire paragraph, if you had actually read it through properly. I am stating H0 is holding currently, despite Rigelds assertions otherwise, so you end up with a broken rule. How to then resolve the broken rule - I gave the two realistic methods of doing so, both of which are made up from the lack of rules we are currently in.

[quote=grendel083 What is being suggested is adding a type to an existing profile, similar to a Psycannon, but without any rule allowing for the choice of profile. In other words a broken weapon.
If the rule said anything about adding another profile, then there would be no discussion here at all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
, despite Rigelds assertions otherwise

So instead of proving me wrong, you just say that I'm wrong.
That's interesting.

grendel083 wrote:Because it can't be both, as types are mutually exclusive.

You keep asserting this falsehood. Please stop

There is no rule stating this. If you disagree, page and para would be useful.

BRB page 50 wrote:A shooting weapon always has one of the following types:
Assault, Heavy, Ordnance,Pistol, Rapid Fire or Salvo.

Bolded the important word. How many Types are weapons allowed to have with permission to otherwise do so?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

No you dont, as mine is the H0 in this instance. The default position. Replacement has to be H1. Without proof of H1 (or evidence disproving H0) , you are not moved from

Your position is not the H0. The H0 is that their is no connection between the Salvo banner and bolters. Your position is H2.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

grendel083 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The onus on proving the loss of something (rapid fire) should surely be on your side? You have yet to do so.

I'd say it's on both. Even if you can completely disprove my view, you still have to prove yours is correct.

No you dont, as mine is the H0 in this instance. The default position. Replacement has to be H1. Without proof of H1 (or evidence disproving H0) , you are not moved from H0

What exactly makes your position default? I suggest yours is H1. And still hasn't been proven

grendel083 wrote:
Because it can't be both, as types are mutually exclusive.

You keep asserting this falsehood. Please stop

There is no rule stating this. If you disagree, page and para would be useful.

Very Well, they don't FUNCTION as both. Does not work. No rule allows it. I simply didn't wish to write out the whole thing ever time, much like a previously established abreviation. And there is a rule on this anyway.

Rigeld - show that it is exhaustive. Exactly one. You are assuming a qualifier that does not exist in the text. You can suggest it is implied, but it is not currently present.

Grendel - you prove H1, not H0. Why is it the default? Because addition of a type isnt destructive. Replacement is. Which action is the simpler?

I agree they cannot function with both types. I even said this a few times, and posited ways around this issue. I just disagree that there is a rule stating they are mutually exclusive. That is nto the same as a previously agreed shorthand, especially given it was never agreed upon.

Anyway, personally I see this going nowhere, and could care less how it plays in person (I would let my opponent use it as a functional RF if they wished) so will bow out.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Grendel - you prove H1, not H0. Why is it the default? Because addition of a type isnt destructive. Replacement is. Which action is the simpler?

Simpler makes no difference. You still need to prove your side.
As shown a weapon has one type. You would need an specific rule to add a type, correct?
Does the banner say to add a type?

 grendel083 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Grendel - you prove H1, not H0. Why is it the default? Because addition of a type isnt destructive. Replacement is. Which action is the simpler?

Simpler makes no difference. You still need to prove your side.
As shown a weapon has one type. You would need an specific rule to add a type, correct?
Does the banner say to add a type?

me wrote:Anyway, personally I see this going nowhere, and could care less how it plays in person (I would let my opponent use it as a functional RF if they wished) so will bow out.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - show that it is exhaustive. Exactly one. You are assuming a qualifier that does not exist in the text. You can suggest it is implied, but it is not currently present.

It's in that sentence - You're allowed one type. Are you allowed two types?
Using one of your favorite examples,

You're allowed to swap a bolter for one heavy weapon. If you swap another bolter for another heavy weapon, have you broken a rule? Literally every thread you've posted in with a situation like this you've said that yes, that would be breaking a rule.

Are you changing your position?

We are suffering from unprecise rulewriting here.
"Treat X as Y" is always a delicate thing, as it means "Pretend X to be Y".

If they wrote "Treat all boltguns as salvo 2/4 instead of rapid fire" all would be clear.
If they wrote "Treat all boltguns as salvo 2/4 in addition to rapid fire. Choose one of each type before firing." all would be clear as well.

But they didn't. If I am told to treat a Trygon as a Grot, I have to use all rules for a Grot although I know it is a Trygon.
My problem with this rule is, that it doesn't specify which aspect of the boltgun I have to treat as salvo. It does not give me permission to keep the old profile. Neither does it provide me with a new one.

My strict interpretation would be:

Outside 6" a boltgun is 24" (insert the full profile here). Within 6" it is just salvo 2/4. No strength, no range, no ap.

So we would have a non-functional weapon.

So I think we can all agree that salvo 2/4 refers to the weapon type. And although the weapon should keep the rapid fire type the rule fails to give me permission to use it. It has told me to pretend it to be a salvo 2/4 weapon (contextual implication: rather than a rapid fire weapon). If I could choose between both types, they would have told me so.