Can the tomb blades ignor cover go onto the quad gun on an aegis line when it shoots? and I am a new player so idk where to find the quad gun rules where would i find them? Thanks!
Tomb Blades' Ignores Cover is a property of the model, it is conferred to whatever they shoot, including a quad-gun. The most current rules are in Stronghold Assault, which is still for sale directly from GW.
A) Tomb Blades could be doing something more useful
B) If the Flyer jinks it's usually about to die anyway. Also sometimes you just don't Jink
C) You can give the Quad gun much better "bonuses", like Canoness with Retributors (Adepta Sororitas):
BS5 and Rending for 2 Turns, or make it BS10 with other models. It has Twin-linked already...
Gravmyr wrote: The Tomb Blades' nebulascope States it affects its ranged weapons.
That part is correct.
Then you use this:
"Use the firing model’s Ballistic Skill and the line of sight of the weapon. All relevant special rules from the firing model and the weapon are used."
(Oh they changed it from the wording i was thinking of in 6th:
-From Stronghold Assault:
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting")
I think the intent of "instead of his own weapon" is the same, although the wording changed for 7th.
Im pretty sure it doesn't apply, It only applies to the tomb blade's ranged weapons. The quad-gun is a gun emplacement, not the tomb blade's weapon. Something similair is the vindicare assassin, where it specifically states "all SHOTS made by this model , have the ignores cover special rule".
It is one of the silliest things I can imagine and I would refuse to play somebody who did this. Not because he's breaking the rules, because he isn't, but because the idea is ridiculous.
I know, this probably comes across as dickish, and maybe it is, but I just wouldn't get any enjoyment out of a game where Tomb Blades (or Rippers, or Thuderwolves) were manning an emplaced gun.
Not that that answers the question, so I'll just shut up now.
This Act of Faith can be used in the Shooting phase. If successful, all weapons in the Retributors unit gain the Rending special rule until the end of the current phase.
So what about the above?
Because 99% of sisters players will have a Rending Quad Gun if the act is successful.....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
harkequin wrote: Something similair is the vindicare assassin, where it specifically states "all SHOTS made by this model , have the ignores cover special rule".
And to me, the rule you have quoted would indeed apply to the Quad gun.
The 4 shots from the quad gun are shots made by the Vindicaire model. It says so in "manual Fire".
Sisters Retributor i'm quite sure about, and Tomb blades not too sure... It's all in the wording.
"And to me, the rule you have quoted would indeed apply to the Quad gun"
Sorry, i meant that, the Vindicare was the exception, He is allowed to use ignores cover quad gun, because all shots made by him get it, whereas the tomblades only give it to their weapons.
The key words being Shots Vs. Weapons
"And to me, the rule you have quoted would indeed apply to the Quad gun"
Sorry, i meant that, the Vindicare was the exception, He is allowed to use ignores cover quad gun, because all shots made by him get it, whereas the tomblades only give it to their weapons.
The key words being Shots Vs. Weapons
Ah okay, got it. What about the Sisters of Battle wording then?
It does say "weapon":
This Act of Faith can be used in the Shooting phase. If successful, all weapons in the Retributors unit gain the Rending special rule until the end of the current phase.
This Act of Faith can be used in the Shooting phase. If successful, all weapons in the Retributors unit gain the Rending special rule until the end of the current phase.
Seems fairly straight forward, It doesn't say their weapons, or their shots, All weapons in their unit, the gun emplacement is not in their unit, they may fire it, but is is never actually a part of the retributors unit. So RAW you can't.
That being said, it really sounds hilarious to see a bunch of sisters on a quad gun eviscerating fliers through belief in the emporer. As the emporers fiery rending judgement smites them out of the sky. That would be awesome.
Grey Templar wrote:
All rules on the model apply to the Quad-gun. The model is the one who is shooting, and all special rules they have apply.
Not necessarily , most rules don't apply, if a model has fleshbane/armorbane the quad gun doesn't get it. For shooting, usually only the gun's rules apply. Tomb blade weapons have ignores cover, the quad gun does not. It is a gun emplacement, not their weapon "they may fire it INSTEAD of their ranged weapon"(which has ignores cover).
The Tomb Blades have ignore cover, not their weapon. It's a model special rule, not part of the weapon profile.
Firstly they don't actually have ignores cover, their weapons do, "They may give their ranged weapons ignores cover."
Secondly, afaik , Ignores cover only ever comes from the weapon or a rule affecting the shots.
"Cover saves cannot be taken against Wounds, glancing hits or penetrating hits caused by weapons with the Ignores Cover special rule."
taken from the BRB.
A model having "ignores cover" doesn't do anything, model rules like that only affect CC attacks, otherwise you use the rules of the weapon, same with fleshbane.
That's why ignores cover is always from either the shot or the gun, not the firer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
"The quad gun becomes one of the Tomb Blades ranged weapons and gets ignores cover. There is no conflict or gray area."
There is nowhere this is backed up. In the BRB it says models may fire an emplaced weapon instead of their ranged weapon, not as it.
Fragile wrote: Your conveniently skipping the rule that says "All relevant special rules from the firing model and the weapon are used."
The tomb blades are firing a quad gun. The tomb blades give their weapons ignore cover. The quad gun has ignore cover. Pretty basic.
Unless the quote given above is incorrect (I do not have Stronghold Assault on hand for the Quad Gun's rules) the full relevant line is:
"Use the firing model’s Ballistic Skill and the line of sight of the weapon. All relevant special rules from the firing model and the weapon are used."
'The weapon' refers to the Quad Gun in this case; not the Tomb Blade's weapon.
If you use the models' special rule granted by the Nebuloscope it still reads:
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
And the Quad Gun is still not one of the Tomb Blade's weapons; it is a Quad Gun.
Nebuloscope gives the model's ranged weapons 'ignores cover'. The quad gun is fired instead of the model's other weapons, as a normal shooting attack. As a normal shooting attack, the quad gun is a ranged weapon of the model firing it and gains bonuses from the model's special rules.
"A gun emplacement placed upon a building's battlements counts as an additional emplaced weapon. A gun emplacement placed elsewhere on the tabletop uses the normal rules for gun emplacements."
An Aegis Defence Line counts as 'Battlefield debris (defence lines)', so the Aegis Quad Gun bought for it is not an emplaced weapon on a building's battlements, but a gun emplacement.
It then says about gun emplacements:
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting"
The rules clearly distinguish between a model firing an Aegis Defence Line's Quad Gun and firing its own weapon, so quite clearly the Quad Gun is not the model's own weapon and therefore Tomb Blades do not convey their ranged weapons' Ignores Cover to the Quad Gun.
Fragile wrote: It is his weapon for the purposes of that shooting attack. The rule does not say the weapons listed in his wargear gain Ignore Cover.
Do you have rules to support that?
Gun emplacement rules state a gun emplacement is fired "instead of (the model's) own weapon", not "as if it were (the model's) own weapon".
The rules are in the BRB under "The Shooting Phase".
"Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with."
If the gun emplacement does not count as equipped by the model then the unit can't fire it using the rules for the shooting sequence and it cannot use the firing models BS. You can't cherry pick.
Fragile wrote: It is his weapon for the purposes of that shooting attack. The rule does not say the weapons listed in his wargear gain Ignore Cover.
Do you have rules to support that?
Gun emplacement rules state a gun emplacement is fired "instead of (the model's) own weapon", not "as if it were (the model's) own weapon".
The rules are in the BRB under "The Shooting Phase".
"Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with."
If the gun emplacement does not count as equipped by the model then the unit can't fire it using the rules for the shooting sequence and it cannot use the firing models BS. You can't cherry pick.
The rules for gun emplacements don't state a model is equipped with the gun emplacement. What they do state is that it may be fired instead of (the model's) own weapon, specifically modifying that step of the shooting process.
You accuse me of cherry picking when I am not; stop misrepresenting the rules yourself.
You cannot modify or override the shooting sequence without an entirely new shooting sequence that explains how to fire a weapon a model is not equipped with. The only working interpretation is for the gun emplacement to count as an equipped weapon for the shooting sequence.
Saying you can use the firing models BS but not its special rules is cherry picking.
The rules for gun emplacements don't say anything about using the firing model's ballistic skill, only that it may fire the weapon instead of its own, following the normal rules for shooting.
The normal rules for shooting tell you to choose a weapon the modern is equipped with, but we know the model is not equipped with a Quad Gun. The rules for gun emplacements however allow us to fire the weapon instead of the model's own weapon, so the model is allowed to fire in this case a Quad Gun instead.
That does not make the Quad Gun the model's weapon, though; it is explicitly fired "instead of (the model's) own weapon", not " as if it were the model's weapon ".
Mr. Shine wrote: In not saying that at all, but neither of those things are relevant.
Of course it is relevant. If a model fires a quad gun using its own BS and special rules then it is treating the quad gun as one of its ranged weapons. There is no other way to play it.
The rules for gun emplacements make no specific reference to the model's ballistic skill or special rules; you seem to be confused with the rules for emplaced weapons on battlements (hint: a Quad Gun on an Aegis Defence Line isn't an emplaced weapon on a building's battlements).
The issue is whether the Quad Gun is one of the model's weapons, and it is not. That is attempting to apply the model's special Nebuloscope special rule, which unfortunately does not apply.
Preferred Enemy has completely different wording and at a brief glance works fine when firing a Quad Gun.
You're taking your own assumption and opinion of how the rules should work and adopting that without properly referencing the rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And for the record I have zero vested interest in this rules argument; I have no Necron opponent and I'm simply arguing based on the rules.
Mr. Shine wrote: The rules for gun emplacements make no specific reference to the model's ballistic skill or special rules; you seem to be confused with the rules for emplaced weapons on battlements (hint: a Quad Gun on an Aegis Defence Line isn't an emplaced weapon on a building's battlements).
The issue is whether the Quad Gun is one of the model's weapons, and it is not. That is attempting to apply the model's special Nebuloscope special rule, which unfortunately does not apply.
Preferred Enemy has completely different wording and at a brief glance works fine when firing a Quad Gun.
You're taking your own assumption and opinion of how the rules should work and adopting that without properly referencing the rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And for the record I have zero vested interest in this rules argument; I have no Necron opponent and I'm simply arguing based on the rules.
I'm not confusing anything, I am perfectly well aware of the difference between gun emplacements and emplaced weapons. The reason I bring up BS is because the gun emplacement rules do not specifically allow the firing model to use its BS. Instead it only says "following the normal rules for shooting".
The normal rules for shooting mean the firing models fires the gun as one of its ranged weapons. There is no other way in the rules to fire it.
So it is fired using the firing models BS and all special rules, including nebuloscope. You have no rules basis for excluding nebuloscope but allowing every other special rule.
2. That you do not use the BS of the model firing it.
No one is arguing either of those points, and they're not relevant to the actual issue with the rules here.
If you think they're relevant to whether Tomb Blades firing a Quad Gun on an Aegis Defence Line convey Ignores Cover please explain how.
Do you feel these two statements accurately reflect what you are saying? If not explain then how a Model uses a ranged weapon without using it's ballistic skill, explain how you do not use the rules for ranged weapons for the Aegis Quad Gun.
Hollismason wrote: Do you feel these two statements accurately reflect what you are saying? If not explain then how a Model uses a ranged weapon without using it's ballistic skill, explain how you do not use the rules for ranged weapons for the Aegis Quad Gun.
The gun emplacement rules are clear on this. Follow the normal rules for shooting, with the exception granted to allow e model to fire the Quad Gun instead of its own weapon.
Hollismason wrote: Okay so it uses the models BS and it is a ranged weapon used by the model.
And? Nebulascope says it affects ranged weapons owned by the model, not ones used by them.
Actually it says "its ranged weapons", which would encompass all ranged weapons that it uses. It says nothing about "owned" or those listed in the wargear.
Hollismason wrote: Okay so it uses the models BS and it is a ranged weapon used by the model.
And? Nebulascope says it affects ranged weapons owned by the model, not ones used by them.
Actually it says "its ranged weapons", which would encompass all ranged weapons that it uses. It says nothing about "owned" or those listed in the wargear.
"Its" implies ownership. They don't own the quad gun
Tekron wrote: Actually it says "its ranged weapons", which would encompass all ranged weapons that it uses. It says nothing about "owned" or those listed in the wargear.
Exact, word for word quote from the Nebuloscope rules:
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope, all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
As CrownAxe says, it must be the model's weapon, not simply a weapon it fires.
If you had actually read the first page properly you would have seen this in my argument sooner
Hollismason wrote: Okay so it uses the models BS and it is a ranged weapon used by the model.
And? Nebulascope says it affects ranged weapons owned by the model, not ones used by them.
Actually it says "its ranged weapons", which would encompass all ranged weapons that it uses. It says nothing about "owned" or those listed in the wargear.
"Its" implies ownership. They don't own the quad gun
"Its" does not imply ownership, it implies belonging or association with something else.
Tekron wrote: Actually it says "its ranged weapons", which would encompass all ranged weapons that it uses. It says nothing about "owned" or those listed in the wargear.
Exact, word for word quote from the Nebuloscope rules:
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope, all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
As CrownAxe says, it must be the model's weapon, not simply a weapon it fires.
If you had actually read the first page properly you would have seen this in my argument sooner
I did read the first page and saw your initial argument before you shifted the goalposts and started arguing about the gun emplacements wording.
A weapon a model fires is one of its ranged weapons according to the English language. It does not need to own the ranged weapon, it must simply be associated with it for it to be its.
Tekron wrote: I did read the first page and saw your initial argument before you shifted the goalposts and started arguing about the gun emplacements wording.
No, I moved us to discussing the actual rules in question.
A weapon a model fires is one of its ranged weapons according to the English language. It does not need to own the ranged weapon, it must simply be associated with it for it to be its.
This is just plain wrong.
A weapon a model fires is a weapon a model fires, which may or may not be the model's weapon. In this case it is not the model's weapon. The rules even make this distinction - "fired instead of (the model's) weapon".
If I'm driving your car that does not mean it is my car.
Tekron wrote: "The tomb blade is going to fire its quad gun" works perfectly well. Possessive grammar does not imply ownership.
Tekron wrote: It means you are in possession of my car, and it is in possession of you as its driver.
I don't think you understand the concept of possession.
I'm going to count this as the point where I won this argument. That is obvious special pleading.
Run away, by all means. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting does not make you right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tekron wrote: The quad gun is one of "its ranged weapons", grammatically speaking. Argue with the dictionary definition of "its" all you like.
Prove it. The quad gun is fired instead of one of the model's weapons but it is never stated it becomes its, or even is fired as if it is its (the model's) weapons.
Tekron wrote: It means you are in possession of my car, and it is in possession of you as its driver.
I don't think you understand the concept of possession.
Irony! You are the one insisting that linguistic possession is the same thing as actual ownership. Do you not possess the car then? Are you not its driver?
The wording is vague enough to be argued either way, lets shift this to a HIWPI argument instead of trying to argue the definition of "its" as that will just go in circles.
This Act of Faith can be used in the Shooting phase. If successful, all weapons in the Retributors unit gain the Rending special rule until the end of the current phase.
We can agree that it does indeed get the bonus?
As the weapon is fired by a model in the Unit, it must be part of "all weapons in the Unit" right? (for that Turn)
As for the "its", i can also see both sides.
A) On the Turn that the Tomb blade is manning the Quad Gun, "its" weapon for that phase is the Quad gun.
B) The Nebulascope special rule says "its ranged weapons". The Quad Gun is not included in that list at the beginning of the game.
I'd HIWPI "A". Only because Retributors, Vindicaires and other can, it would seem unusual to not let the Tomblade rule apply.
This Act of Faith can be used in the Shooting phase. If successful, all weapons in the Retributors unit gain the Rending special rule until the end of the current phase
I wouldn't agree that the quad gun is in the unit though. They may make use of it, but it is still it's own unit and it never joins or otherwise becomes part of their unit. They are just allowed to fire it instead of one of the guns in their unit.
I can't see anywhere in the BRB that says the quad gun becomes part of the unit. So it stands that it is a seperate unit, that may provide a utility to those near it.
I'd HIWPI "A". Only because Retributors, Vindicaires and other can, it would seem unusual to not let the Tomblade rule apply
I don't think the vindicare should factor into this as it is the very clear exception. It is stated in his rules no matter what he fires, no matter if he is snap shooting, he still has ignores cover, on every single shot. It comes from his wargear and clearly states that every shot he makes get's ignores cover (doesn't mention weapons). Since it's not an option, the would have just given ignores cover to his weapons if they wanted to. He get's to be special because y'know, he's the mac daddy of all snipers.
I'd lean towards B for tomb blades, as it is done in list building, so pregame, Check tomb blades weapons, If it has nebuloscope, these now have ignores cover. You don't get to wait until you man something to give out the rule. As for retributors unless im missing something, RAW, the quad gun is never part of the unit, just fired due to a model in base contact not using their weapon.
So im not sold on them giving benefits to the quad guns.
This Act of Faith can be used in the Shooting phase. If successful, all weapons in the Retributors unit gain the Rending special rule until the end of the current phase
I wouldn't agree that the quad gun is in the unit though. They may make use of it, but it is still it's own unit and it never joins or otherwise becomes part of their unit. They are just allowed to fire it instead of one of the guns in their unit.
I can't see anywhere in the BRB that says the quad gun becomes part of the unit. So it stands that it is a seperate unit, that may provide a utility to those near it.
I'd HIWPI "A". Only because Retributors, Vindicaires and other can, it would seem unusual to not let the Tomblade rule apply
I don't think the vindicare should factor into this as it is the very clear exception. It is stated in his rules no matter what he fires, no matter if he is snap shooting, he still has ignores cover, on every single shot. It comes from his wargear and clearly states that every shot he makes get's ignores cover (doesn't mention weapons). Since it's not an option, the would have just given ignores cover to his weapons if they wanted to. He get's to be special because y'know, he's the mac daddy of all snipers.
I'd lean towards B for tomb blades, as it is done in list building, so pregame, Check tomb blades weapons, If it has nebuloscope, these now have ignores cover. You don't get to wait until you man something to give out the rule. As for retributors unless im missing something, RAW, the quad gun is never part of the unit, just fired due to a model in base contact not using their weapon.
So im not sold on them giving benefits to the quad guns.
The Quad gun is not a Unit in the first place. There is no such thing as a Unit: Gun Emplacement. Fortifications are blurry themselves.
As for firing the weapon that is the Quad Gun, there has been enough support for this on both sides:
Grey Templar wrote: All rules on the model apply to the Quad-gun. The model is the one who is shooting, and all special rules they have apply.
deviantduck wrote: The quad gun is fired instead of the model's other weapons, as a normal shooting attack. As a normal shooting attack, the quad gun is a ranged weapon of the model firing it and gains bonuses from the model's special rules.
Mr. Shine wrote: The rules for gun emplacements don't say anything about using the firing model's ballistic skill, only that it may fire the weapon instead of its own, following the normal rules for shooting.
The normal rules for shooting tell you to choose a weapon the modern is equipped with, but we know the model is not equipped with a Quad Gun. The rules for gun emplacements however allow us to fire the weapon instead of the model's own weapon, so the model is allowed to fire in this case a Quad Gun instead.
That does not make the Quad Gun the model's weapon, though; it is explicitly fired "instead of (the model's) own weapon", not " as if it were the model's weapon ".
Mr. Shine wrote: The gun emplacement rules are clear on this. Follow the normal rules for shooting, with the exception granted to allow e model to fire the Quad Gun instead of its own weapon.
The Quad gun is still selected in step 3. Select a Weapon. It may not be an "equipped" weapon (<- point of contention) but it is still "a weapon in the Unit" (how you define that is going to be completely arbitrary)
But i doubt you could use your Balistic Skill and fire the weapon if it was not "a weapon in the Unit".
The model [Sister of Battle] is firing (following the shooting sequence) with weapon [Quad Gun]
This Act of Faith can be used in the Shooting phase. If successful, all weapons in the Retributors unit gain the Rending special rule until the end of the current phase
The rule is clear upon which of the weapons fired in that Phase get the special rule.
Nebulascope rules might not be as clear, will need to check up on the RaW for a quote.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Okay, here we go:
If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope, all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule.
And in the end, the ambiguity of "its ranged weapons" is clear.
"its ranged weapons" as a one-time occurrence (say before the game starts). or "its ranged weapons" as a RaW constant: any weapons in "its" possession during the game will have the USR.
And secondly if the Quad Gun ever becomes part of "its ranged weapons" (Also unclear)
To argue the second point a bit further: Shrouded:"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover save as being 2 points better than normal."
Is that the Cover Save it had at the beginning of the game? Or would you agree that the definition of "Its" cover save applies to the cover save the model has at that specific time during the game?
Same example in "Skilled Rider" if your Jink save is modified. Same for Skyfire if your Normal BS is modified. etc
This thread is for Tomb blades using the Quad gun. If you want to look at all the interactions between SR's and gun emplacements please create a separate thread. Also please be mindful of how you say things not just what you say. You shouldn't be saying that someone else is stating anything unless you have a quote of them saying exactly that. Argue the points not the person, as soon as you start arguing the person you loose credibility.
If you are going to count a non squad weapon as part of the squads weapons, its off for a few reasons, one being that:
by that logic that the quad gun ignores cover for tomb guard,
it would also then ignore cover from an opponent using it.
this is wrong OFC, but it shows what follows when you call a weapon like the quad gun, which is not the units weapon, one of that units weapons.
yes this does mean sisters players generally are doing it wrong as well.
if special rules affect the units weapons, then they only effect the *Units* weapons, the model doesnt have the rule, so cannot confer it to the emplacement as that emplacement only gains benifits from the *models* special rules.
so vindicare can ignore cover and anything he shoots, because thats what the rules say.
sisters and necrons can only ignore cover/ect with their *units* weapons.
special rules that affect the models transfer to the quad gun. special rules that only effect the units weapons, only affect the units weapons.
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing its own weapons."
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
Assuming both quotes are correct, it's obvious that the Nebuloscope cannot apply. The Emplacement is fired "instead of firing its own weapons" and the nebuloscope applys to "all of its ranged weapons".
"its" in both sentences refers to the same thing (the firing model), so the Quad Gun is fired instead of the firing model's own weapons - and the firing model's own weapons are the ones the Nebuloscope works with.
rigeld2 wrote: "One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing its own weapons."
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
Assuming both quotes are correct, it's obvious that the Nebuloscope cannot apply. The Emplacement is fired "instead of firing its own weapons" and the nebuloscope applys to "all of its ranged weapons".
"its" in both sentences refers to the same thing (the firing model), so the Quad Gun is fired instead of the firing model's own weapons - and the firing model's own weapons are the ones the Nebuloscope works with.
rigeld2 has it, more succinctly put then I worded it too.
Basically the two clauses are actually incompatible.
after all, if the quad gun is a "squad weapon" how can it be fired "instead of (a squad) weapon" ?
If the people saying this isn't possible, then really any abilities that any models have to alter a shooting attack is moot.
A lot of Tau are cheaters I guess when they use a buffmander to give their crisis suits, drones unit ignore cover and re-roll to hit.
Speaking of which could a buffmander with a drone controller have his drone man the quad gun? BS5 with ignores cover?
On the subject of Tau, Marker lights "Scour: All weapons fired at the target as part of this Shooting attack gain the Ignores Cover special rule"
And , Multi-spectrum suite "all Shooting attacks made by other models in his unit gain the Ignores Cover special rule until the end of the current phase."
So my point still stands, A model having Ignores cover does literally nothing.
Black Talos:
The Quad gun is not a Unit in the first place. There is no such thing as a Unit: Gun Emplacement. Fortifications are blurry themselves.
You are absolutely 100% right, I had no idea. However you're still never given permission for the gun emplacement to be part of your unit, for all intents and purposes, it isnt a unit, nor is it part of a unit, it is a thing with a stat line and it can be charged/assaulted. It's interesting.
To argue the second point a bit further:
Shrouded:"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover save as being 2 points better than normal."
Is that the Cover Save it had at the beginning of the game?
Or would you agree that the definition of "Its" cover save applies to the cover save the model has at that specific time during the game?
Fair point, I was just remarking that since, the nebuloscope it purely part of list building, it's not necessarily analogous to shrouded, which is part of game play and continually interacted with throughout. Nebuloscope just gives the weapons ignores cover, the tomb blade weapons are listed on its data sheet.
As for the quad gun, It may be fired, instead of one of it's ranged weapons, meaning that the quad is not in fact a weapon of the squad. Otherwise, they would have written, "as one of it's ranged weapons", or "instead of another one of its ranged weapons"
No where in the game AFAIK are any models expressly given a new weapon, all the weapons they have are listed on their data sheet, You have to be given permission to count a new weapon as one of it's weapons.
I think I got everything, If i missed something, let me know.
I support which ever view clearly violates rai, because this game is already broken and sloppy and inconsistent. So I believe in the dick move that rule lawyers stretch the logic of rules so they can abuse a mechanic of the game because we need more of this to be exposed and to show everyone how cruddy this game really is. I want to see more people cheat and more people rage quit.
and as a forge the bull$ hit narrative point of view explanation, the necrons strap that cheapo nebuloscope to quadgun thereby confer its targeting ability to ignore cover.
Filch wrote: I support which ever view clearly violates rai, because this game is already broken and sloppy and inconsistent. So I believe in the dick move that rule lawyers stretch the logic of rules so they can abuse a mechanic of the game because we need more of this to be exposed and to show everyone how cruddy this game really is. I want to see more people cheat and more people rage quit.
and as a forge the bull$ hit narrative point of view explanation, the necrons strap that cheapo nebuloscope to quadgun thereby confer its targeting ability to ignore cover.
That really isn't a good thing - not in this thread, and not in real life either.
A more reasoned approach will always net you better results - both in this thread, and in real life.
rigeld2 wrote: "One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing its own weapons."
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
Assuming both quotes are correct, it's obvious that the Nebuloscope cannot apply. The Emplacement is fired "instead of firing its own weapons" and the nebuloscope applys to "all of its ranged weapons".
"its" in both sentences refers to the same thing (the firing model), so the Quad Gun is fired instead of the firing model's own weapons - and the firing model's own weapons are the ones the Nebuloscope works with.
Complete non-sequitur. The Nebuloscope rule does not say it applies to "all of its own ranged weapons", it says "all of its ranged weapons." You are inserting a concept of ownership into the rule that does not exist RAW.
When firing a quad gun, what is its ranged weapon for that shooting attack? Its ranged weapon is the quad gun.
It comes down to the definition of "its" which despite what all the anti-Necron people want to believe, does not require the Tomb Blade to own or otherwise be the proprietor of the quad gun. If it is using the quad gun, then it is perfectly grammatically valid to say its ranged weapon is the quad gun
rigeld2 wrote: So you're using different definitions of "its" for the two sentences?
Maybe you could support your stance with something other than "You're wrong." The quad gun is fired instead of its own weapons.
No, I'm using just one definition of "its". The possessive form of "it" where "it" is a pronoun for the tomb blade. Perfectly straightforward.
It is grammatically valid to say "its ranged weapon is the quad gun", because it is using the quad gun as its ranged weapon for that attack. If the quad gun is its ranged weapon, then it has the Ignores Cover special rule. The quad gun has a ranged weapon profile and is fired by the Tomb Blade, so there is no denying that it is its ranged weapon.
The quad gun is not "its own weapon" but that doesn't matter, because the nebuloscope does not require the "own" part of that phrase. Without the "own" it has explicit permission to apply Ignores Cover to all ranged weapons that it uses. It's worth noting the "all" in "all of its ranged weapons" because only Tomb Blades can take nebuloscopes, and they can only have one ranged weapon in their profile.
rigeld2 wrote: So you're using different definitions of "its" for the two sentences?
Maybe you could support your stance with something other than "You're wrong." The quad gun is fired instead of its own weapons.
No, I'm using just one definition of "its". The possessive form of "it" where "it" is a pronoun for the tomb blade. Perfectly straightforward.
If you're using the same definition for both, then they both refer to the same thing.
And the quad gun rules explicitly say that it (the tomb blade) fires them instead of its own weapons (where you have permission to apply Ignores Cover).
It is grammatically valid to say "its ranged weapon is the quad gun", because it is using the quad gun as its ranged weapon for that attack.
No, it's not. Its is, by definition, possessive. The Tomb Blade does not possess the quad gun but has permission to fire it.
If the quad gun is its ranged weapon, then it has the Ignores Cover special rule. The quad gun has a ranged weapon profile and is fired by the Tomb Blade, so there is no denying that it is its ranged weapon.
There is, actually. Since its is possessive and all.
The quad gun is not "its own weapon" but that doesn't matter, because the nebuloscope does not require the "own" part of that phrase. Without the "own" it has explicit permission to apply Ignores Cover to all ranged weapons that it uses. It's worth noting the "all" in "all of its ranged weapons" because only Tomb Blades can take nebuloscopes, and they can only have one ranged weapon in their profile.
It's actually not worth noting - GW words things like that all the time. For example, only Centurions can have Grav Cannons, which are Salvo. Centurions have Slow and Purposeful, so them being Salvo does literally nothing - they might as well be Assault.
rigeld2 wrote: So you're using different definitions of "its" for the two sentences?
Maybe you could support your stance with something other than "You're wrong." The quad gun is fired instead of its own weapons.
No, I'm using just one definition of "its". The possessive form of "it" where "it" is a pronoun for the tomb blade. Perfectly straightforward.
If you're using the same definition for both, then they both refer to the same thing.
And the quad gun rules explicitly say that it (the tomb blade) fires them instead of its own weapons (where you have permission to apply Ignores Cover).
It is grammatically valid to say "its ranged weapon is the quad gun", because it is using the quad gun as its ranged weapon for that attack.
No, it's not. Its is, by definition, possessive. The Tomb Blade does not possess the quad gun but has permission to fire it.
If the quad gun is its ranged weapon, then it has the Ignores Cover special rule. The quad gun has a ranged weapon profile and is fired by the Tomb Blade, so there is no denying that it is its ranged weapon.
There is, actually. Since its is possessive and all.
Another person who does not understand what possessive means in grammar. Using a possessive form does not require ownership in the sense you are describing, it only requires association. The Tomb Blade does possess the quad gun for the purpose of firing it. The Tomb Blade does not own it in the sense that it is listed on its wargear profile, but that is not required for a possessive relationship between the two.
Tekron wrote: You are inserting a concept of ownership into the rule that does not exist RAW.
Prove it does not - it is not incorrect. You are insisting only a specific grammatical concept is valid, which only works if you completely ignore the known context of the situation as well as the clear distinction the rules for firing an emplaced weapon states between a model's own weapons and in this case the Quad Gun.
When firing a quad gun, what is its ranged weapon for that shooting attack? Its ranged weapon is the quad gun.
It's just as (and in fact specifically more) correct to say this in terms of which weapon it is using for that shooting attack. In using "its" you are also implying possessive ownership while, yes, also being grammatically correct. The fact that using "its" in this way does that, combined with the fact we know the model is neither equipped with nor owns the Quad Gun, makes this incorrect.
It comes down to the definition of "its" which despite what all the anti-Necron people want to believe, does not require the Tomb Blade to own or otherwise be the proprietor of the quad gun. If it is using the quad gun, then it is perfectly grammatically valid to say its ranged weapon is the quad gun
Only if you do not know the Quad Gun is not actually owned or possessed by the model. Again, using the car example, if I were borrowing your car and a police officer asked me, "Step out of your car please" I would clarify that it is not mine. We however do know that the Quad Gun is not the model's, and is in fact (as explicitly stated) fired instead of the model's own weapons.
I understand your argument but you are ignoring the implication of that grammatical construct and the known context of the situation. I do not need to belittle you for a difference of opinion however, so would ask that you do not do the same to me, or others.
Filch wrote: I support which ever view clearly violates rai, because this game is already broken and sloppy and inconsistent. So I believe in the dick move that rule lawyers stretch the logic of rules so they can abuse a mechanic of the game because we need more of this to be exposed and to show everyone how cruddy this game really is. I want to see more people cheat and more people rage quit.
and as a forge the bull$ hit narrative point of view explanation, the necrons strap that cheapo nebuloscope to quadgun thereby confer its targeting ability to ignore cover.
That really isn't a good thing - not in this thread, and not in real life either.
A more reasoned approach will always net you better results - both in this thread, and in real life.
Have you seen what transpired after i wrote this? an argument over grammar and "its"
seriously, the rules are badly written and needs to be brought to GWs attention to errata.
Personally, i dont like necron but i support the gross exploitation of GWs beer and pretzel game rules. I hope many people buy tomb blades and quad gun to exploit this and then they errata this and it becomes invalid so these cheese players wasted their time and money.
Have you seen what transpired after i wrote this? an argument over grammar and "its"
seriously, the rules are badly written and needs to be brought to GWs attention to errata.
Personally, i dont like necron but i support the gross exploitation of GWs beer and pretzel game rules. I hope many people buy tomb blades and quad gun to exploit this and then they errata this and it becomes invalid so these cheese players wasted their time and money.
Please don't try and get this thread locked.
Thanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tekron wrote: Another person who does not understand what possessive means in grammar. Using a possessive form does not require ownership in the sense you are describing, it only requires association. The Tomb Blade does possess the quad gun for the purpose of firing it. The Tomb Blade does not own it in the sense that it is listed on its wargear profile, but that is not required for a possessive relationship between the two.
Asserting that "its" means any weapon you decide to associate with the Tomb Blade is irrelevant. We know, for a fact, that the Tomb Blade is not firing its own weapon. Since the rule only applies to its weapons, and it's not firing its own weapons, the weapon it is firing cannot benefit from a rule that benefits its weapons.
The Tomb Blade doesn't possess the Quad Gun in any fashion. At all. Ever. Prove otherwise.
Filch wrote: Have you seen what transpired after i wrote this? an argument over grammar and "its"
seriously, the rules are badly written and needs to be brought to GWs attention to errata.
Personally, i dont like necron but i support the gross exploitation of GWs beer and pretzel game rules. I hope many people buy tomb blades and quad gun to exploit this and then they errata this and it becomes invalid so these cheese players wasted their time and money.
This is a rules discussion forum. If you don't want to discuss the rules then I suggest you go elsewhere. I'm here for a robust discussion of what we can work with based on what the rules say but I don't however play games to have robust discussions like this.
Don't confuse a RAW discussion with GAP (games as played) or HIWPI.
Tekron wrote: You are inserting a concept of ownership into the rule that does not exist RAW.
Prove it does not - it is not incorrect. You are insisting only a specific grammatical concept is valid, which only works if you completely ignore the known context of the situation as well as the clear distinction the rules for firing an emplaced weapon states between a model's own weapons and in this case the Quad Gun.
You want me to prove there is no concept of ownership? Well here is the nebuloscope rule:
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
There. Proven. No concept of ownership whatsoever.
When firing a quad gun, what is its ranged weapon for that shooting attack? Its ranged weapon is the quad gun.
It's just as (and in fact specifically more) correct to say this in terms of which weapon it is using for that shooting attack. In using "its" you are also implying possessive ownership while, yes, also being grammatically correct. The fact that using "its" in this way does that, combined with the fact we know the model is neither equipped with nor owns the Quad Gun, makes this incorrect.
So you admit it is grammatically correct. Which it obviously is as the sentence works perfectly well. But even though I have drawn a clear chain of permission to apply the ignores cover rule using this grammatically correct sentence, you assert that it does not fulfil the non-existent requirement of "equipped" or "owned".
You are wishing for an extra word in the rule, but it doesn't exist.
It comes down to the definition of "its" which despite what all the anti-Necron people want to believe, does not require the Tomb Blade to own or otherwise be the proprietor of the quad gun. If it is using the quad gun, then it is perfectly grammatically valid to say its ranged weapon is the quad gun
Only if you do not know the Quad Gun is not actually owned or possessed by the model. Again, using the car example, if I were borrowing your car and a police officer asked me, "Step out of your car please" I would clarify that it is not mine. We however do know that the Quad Gun is not the model's, and is in fact (as explicitly stated) fired instead of the model's own weapons.
The quad gun is not owned by the model, but again, grammatically speaking it does possess it when using it. To deny this is to deny the basic reality of the English language. Possessive language applies based on association, it is not limited to ownership. Do I have to start constructing example sentences where possessive nouns are used without implied ownership for you to believe this?
I understand your argument but you are ignoring the implication of that grammatical construct and the known context of the situation. I do not need to belittle you for a difference of opinion however, so would ask that you do not do the same to me, or others.
I do not need to worry about context or implication when I have a clear chain of permission to use a special rule. You are trying to impose a limitation that does not explicitly exist. You even seem to admit it does not explicitly exist. So you are asking to impose the restriction from context and implication, which is firmly in RAI territory.
If you don't need to belittle me, then I'd suggest you cut out using the facepalm emoticon when presented with an argument that you disagree with.
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
The above can be re-written: "If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of [the models] ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
Do you agree with that modified quote? If not why?
Additionally,
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting"
THe above can be re-written: "One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [the gun emplacement] instead of firing [the model's] own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting"
Tekron wrote: You want me to prove there is no concept of ownership? Well here is the nebuloscope rule:
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
There. Proven. No concept of ownership whatsoever.
Except by using "its" you are implying (by common English language usage) ownership. We know the model is only using the Quad Gun and does not own it, therefore it is incorrect to say it is firing its Quad Gun and, as the rules for emplaced weapons say, it is correct to say it is firing the Quad Gun instead of its own weapons.
So you admit it is grammatically correct. Which it obviously is as the sentence works perfectly well. But even though I have drawn a clear chain of permission to apply the ignores cover rule using this grammatically correct sentence, you assert that it does not fulfil the non-existent requirement of "equipped" or "owned".
You are wishing for an extra word in the rule, but it doesn't exist.
It is grammatically correct in an entirely different context to the situation we are discussing. We know the Quad Gun is being fired instead of the model's own weapons. The rules tell us this. You are ignoring the context the rules provide and describing a model's Quad Gun shooting attack as if you have no knowedge it is fired "instead of (the model's) own weapons).
The quad gun is not owned by the model, but again, grammatically speaking it does possess it when using it. To deny this is to deny the basic reality of the English language. Possessive language applies based on association, it is not limited to ownership. Do I have to start constructing example sentences where possessive nouns are used without implied ownership for you to believe this?
You're ignoring basic reality of the English language. If I know the apple you just ate was actually Joe's apple I wouldn't say you just ate your apple for lunch. The rules tell us the Quad Gun is being "fired instead of (the model's) own weapon".
If you don't need to belittle me, then I'd suggest you cut out using the facepalm emoticon when presented with an argument that you disagree with.
I facepalmed because you were refusing to outright state your argument before finally stating an argument against something I had mentioned an entire page earlier. As I recall your original argument was based on an assumption that the model somehow must be equipped with the Quad Gun, so please don't try accusing me of looking for words in the rules that aren't there.
You're using a different definition of "its" in the two rules and haven't explained why (in fact, you said you aren't, but you definitely are).
The Quad Gun rule says you are firing it instead of weapons you possess. Meaning you do not, in fact, possess the Quad Gun.
Go ahead and tell me I don't understand English, or call my understanding of grammar into question again - until you can actually prove the possession (not just assert it) your stance is incorrect.
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
The above can be re-written: "If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of [the models] ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
Do you agree with that modified quote? If not why?
Additionally,
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting"
THe above can be re-written: "One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [the gun emplacement] instead of firing [the model's] own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting"
Again do you agree? If not, why?
Yes, I agree that replacing pronouns with nouns forms clunky but correct sentences.
The issue is, "all of [the models] ranged weapons" includes the quad gun when the model is firing it. The model is not required to own the ranged weapons in the sentence.
rigeld2 wrote: You're using a different definition of "its" in the two rules and haven't explained why (in fact, you said you aren't, but you definitely are).
Definitely not using two definitions of "its", as I am only aware of one.
The Quad Gun rule says you are firing it instead of weapons you possess. Meaning you do not, in fact, possess the Quad Gun.
No, the rule doesn't say "possess", and in this discussion "possess" refers to the linguistic concept, not ownership.
Go ahead and tell me I don't understand English, or call my understanding of grammar into question again - until you can actually prove the possession (not just assert it) your stance is incorrect.
If I can form a grammatically correct sentence using the possessive form of "it" then I prove possession. Yes or no?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote: So the Quad Gun is somehow the models weapon?
Care to actually cite a rule? That'd be nice to see from you for once.
Yes, the quad gun is the models weapon when it is firing that weapon.
I have already cited the only rule that matters multiple times:
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
rigeld2 wrote: You're using a different definition of "its" in the two rules and haven't explained why (in fact, you said you aren't, but you definitely are).
Definitely not using two definitions of "its", as I am only aware of one.
The Quad Gun rule says you are firing it instead of weapons you possess. Meaning you do not, in fact, possess the Quad Gun.
No, the rule doesn't say "possess", and in this discussion "possess" refers to the linguistic concept, not ownership.
How are, using your definition and argument, "instead of weapons you possess" and "instead of its own weapon" different?
Go ahead and tell me I don't understand English, or call my understanding of grammar into question again - until you can actually prove the possession (not just assert it) your stance is incorrect.
If I can form a grammatically correct sentence using the possessive form of "it" then I prove possession. Yes or no?
No. You have to do so using actual rules since, you know, this is a rules discussion.
rigeld2 wrote: So the Quad Gun is somehow the models weapon?
Care to actually cite a rule? That'd be nice to see from you for once.
Yes, the quad gun is the models weapon when it is firing that weapon.
I have already cited the only rule that matters multiple times:
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
The quoted rule does not prove the underlined statement.
Please, using rules, prove the underlined statement.
Happyjew wrote: "One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting"
THe above can be re-written: "One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [the gun emplacement] instead of firing [the model's] own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting"
Again do you agree? If not, why?
I agree to reading it in this same way. And:
Happyjew wrote: "If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
The above can be re-written: "If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of [the models] ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
Do you agree with that modified quote? If not why?
I also agree with this.
I can also see what Tekron is arguing and i can partially agree:
What can we conclude from the above?
[the model] is firing the Quad Gun instead of his weapon. Do you agree with this?
Now, on a Turn that the model is firing the Quad Gun (instead of his weapon), is the Quad Gun a ranged weapon that the tomb blade is using?
[the model] ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule.
The above can be validated: [the model] is firing the QG instead of it's own weapons. [the model] ranged weapons get Ignore Cover.
rigeld2 wrote: So the Quad Gun is somehow the models weapon?
Care to actually cite a rule? That'd be nice to see from you for once.
Yes, the quad gun is the models weapon when it is firing that weapon.
I have already cited the only rule that matters multiple times:
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
The quoted rule does not prove the underlined statement.
Please, using rules, prove the underlined statement.
It is a simple question:
What rules do you follow when a model fires the Quad Gun?
(I will not quote the entire shooting phase to prove the underlined statement)
When you follow said shooting phase, does the Quad Gun [model] follow the shooting phase? Or is it the Tomb Blade [model]?
If it is (in case you disagree) the Tomb Blade [model] that follows the shooting phase, which of it's weapons is it firing?
As such, i will quote this for support:
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting"
The RaW quoted is instructing you, verbatim, to "following the normal rules for shooting" while using the quad gun "instead" of your own weapon. What do you do when you follow the normal rules for shooting? You fire your weapon.
In which case, the nebuloscope's "all of its ranged weapons", at that point in time, will apply. As the Quad Gun is "its" range weapon for that phase.
Ultimately, if there is only one question i would like you to answer, it is this one:
What ranged weapon is the [model] shooting?
(Which would of course stem: Why is the ranged weapon shot by the [model] not "its" ranged weapon? )
Well I know which way I'll play it, and it's not the way that encourages people to have a gun emplacement manned by a fast jet-bike unit that is supposed to have its pilot slaved to the vehicle and doesn't appear to have movable hands. Because that would be ridiculous.
BlackTalos wrote: If it is (in case you disagree) the Tomb Blade [model] that follows the shooting phase, which of it's weapons is it firing?
None of them. It's firing the Quad Gun instead of its own weapons. As the rule you quoted states:
As such, i will quote this for support:
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting"
The RaW quoted is instructing you, verbatim, to "following the normal rules for shooting" while using the quad gun "instead" of your own weapon. What do you do when you follow the normal rules for shooting? You fire your weapon.
You cannot be firing your own weapon. You're firing the Quad Gun which the rules explicitly - and you even emphasized - say that you do instead of firing your own weapon. You cannot fire your weapon instead of firing your own weapon.
What ranged weapon is the [model] shooting?
(Which would of course stem: Why is the ranged weapon shot by the [model] not "its" ranged weapon? )
The Quad Gun.
Because the rules explicitly say it's not. You can tell because it says "instead of its own weapon".
BlackTalos wrote: If it is (in case you disagree) the Tomb Blade [model] that follows the shooting phase, which of it's weapons is it firing?
None of them. It's firing the Quad Gun instead of its own weapons. As the rule you quoted states: .
Which makes the Quad gun its weapon for the purposes of that shooting attack.
No, it can't be. Because then you're firing its weapon instead of its weapons. That sentence should make sense if you were correct, and it doesn't.
However that conclusion is grammatically correct when you try to define the term "ITS".
The Tomb Blade fire the Quad Gun instead of its weapons (Emplacement rules). The Quad Gun is never a weapon that the Tomb Blade is equipped with.
But when you check for the nebuloscope rules, the Tomb blade is undoubtedly firing "its" weapon. Because it is firing the Quad Gun "following the normal rules for shooting".
I really is down to the broad definition of "its".
A) "Its" being the weapons the model has when the game begins, an unmodifiable number of weapons found in the Tomb Blade's "equipment"
B) "Its" being the weapons the model fires during the course of the game. This may vary depending on the weapons being shot by the model.
I'd say "A" is probably the intended answer here, going by the wording of "Nebuloscope". If the wording RAI can ever be guessed.... I can understand the "general *its*", makes sense by RaW, but i would ask your opponent after he reads the rule.
As such, better left as "Decide before your game starts"
Your trying to play semantics over the definition of "its" this whole thread. Either the Quad gun is its weapon, or it cannot fire it.
Not so, and I'm not playing semantics.
The Quad Gun is not its weapon, as the model is not firing its weapons, it's firing the Quad Gun instead. Supported with actual rules.
Please include a relevant rules quote in your next post instead of throwing your toys out of the pram and saying "well it doesn't work so you're wrong." which is all I'm getting out of your recent posts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BlackTalos wrote: But when you check for the nebuloscope rules, the Tomb blade is undoubtedly firing "its" weapon. Because it is firing the Quad Gun "following the normal rules for shooting".
So you're asserting that the model is firing its weapon instead of its weapon?
BlackTalos wrote: But when you check for the nebuloscope rules, the Tomb blade is undoubtedly firing "its" weapon. Because it is firing the Quad Gun "following the normal rules for shooting".
So you're asserting that the model is firing its weapon instead of its weapon?
Are you sure about that?
Yes, because that is correct:
the model is firing its weapon [Quad Gun] instead of its weapons [Equipment].
" Can you get out of your car but get into your car? " This is still correct if you have 2+ cars.
I understand the usual need for "other", but the RaW still checks out: "the model is firing its weapon instead of its (*other*) weapons."
BlackTalos wrote: But when you check for the nebuloscope rules, the Tomb blade is undoubtedly firing "its" weapon. Because it is firing the Quad Gun "following the normal rules for shooting".
So you're asserting that the model is firing its weapon instead of its weapon?
Are you sure about that?
Yes, because that is correct:
the model is firing its weapon [Quad Gun] instead of its weapons [Equipment].
You're inserting a concept that isn't in the actual rules, unless you want to provide a quote.
I understand the usual need for "other", but the RaW still checks out:
"the model is firing its weapon instead of its (*other*) weapons."
Sure, if you add a word you change how the rule works. Big surprise that.
BlackTalos wrote: But when you check for the nebuloscope rules, the Tomb blade is undoubtedly firing "its" weapon. Because it is firing the Quad Gun "following the normal rules for shooting".
So you're asserting that the model is firing its weapon instead of its weapon?
Are you sure about that?
Yes, because that is correct:
the model is firing its weapon [Quad Gun] instead of its weapons [Equipment].
You're inserting a concept that isn't in the actual rules, unless you want to provide a quote.
I understand the usual need for "other", but the RaW still checks out:
"the model is firing its weapon instead of its (*other*) weapons."
Sure, if you add a word you change how the rule works. Big surprise that.
The point is, Nebuloscope gives a USR the the model's weapons.
It is either applied at one point: Start of game, or it applies as a constant.
The Quad Gun temporarily becomes the model's weapon, proven by "following the normal rules for shooting". During that shooting phase, the Quad Gun is fired as a weapon the model has, otherwise, as Fragile explains, the model would not be able to shoot it (LoS? Range? etc).
Whether Nebuloscope applies or not i believe is a point of contention. (and definition of "its")
The Quad gun being a weapon that the model has during that shooting phase, however, is not.
Your trying to play semantics over the definition of "its" this whole thread. Either the Quad gun is its weapon, or it cannot fire it.
Not so, and I'm not playing semantics.
The Quad Gun is not its weapon, as the model is not firing its weapons, it's firing the Quad Gun instead. Supported with actual rules.
Please include a relevant rules quote in your next post instead of throwing your toys out of the pram and saying "well it doesn't work so you're wrong." which is all I'm getting out of your recent posts.
The rules have long been cited in this thread. Your claim is that the Quad Gun is not ITS weapon for the purposes of that shooting attack. Your claim is proven wrong. You use the S and AP of the Quad Gun to determine wounding. Show permission to use those values if the Quad Gun is not ITS weapon. ITS weapon has Ignore Cover from the Nebloscope.
There is no RAW supports for ITS =means listed in wargear. Can you even find such a rule. As listed there are numerous examples where units gain Ignore Cover and can apply it to the Quad Gun. Its not like this is the first time that ability has ever been seen. Breaking out the dictionary to break down "its" to claim it cannot is silly at best.
BlackTalos wrote: The Quad Gun temporarily becomes the model's weapon, proven by "following the normal rules for shooting". During that shooting phase, the Quad Gun is fired as a weapon the model has, otherwise, as Fragile explains, the model would not be able to shoot it (LoS? Range? etc).
It wouldn't be able to except for the explicit permission to do so.
So yes, if you literally ignore rules it's not possible.
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting"
THe above can be re-written: "One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [the gun emplacement] instead of firing [the model's] own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting"
Again do you agree? If not, why?
Actually, where is this RaW from?
I've been quoting it to show an explanation, but the BrB does not have it so? And if it is from Stronghold Assault, then it would no longer apply?
GUN EMPLACEMENTS
(...)One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing its own weapons. A model that fires(...)
The meaning does not change (the model is firing the QG instead of his weapon, so the QG is "it's" weapon for that Turn. But the "following the normal rules for shooting" does not exist? (Although i really is redundant? )
Fragile wrote: Your claim is that the Quad Gun is not ITS weapon for the purposes of that shooting attack. Your claim is proven wrong. You use the S and AP of the Quad Gun to determine wounding. Show permission to use those values if the Quad Gun is not ITS weapon.
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing its own weapons."
What does that mean? It means we follow the shooting process.
Spoiler:
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot.
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines what it must roll in order to hit the target.
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
7. Select Another Weapon. After resolving all shots from the currently selected weapon, if the firing unit is equipped with differently named weapons that have yet to fire, select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6.
Step 1 is met.
Step 2 is again met.
Step 3 - the summary mentions "equipped with". Let's look at the full rule.
"First, select a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with." Okay, but we aren't firing a weapon we're equipped with. But we have explicit permission to fire this instead of our own weapons (equipped weapons) so we have permission to select the Quad Gun here.
Step 4 - we have permission to fire the selected weapon and nothing in step 4 telling us otherwise.
Step 5 - same here, we have hits we need to resolve.
Step 6 - repeat of above.
LoS and Range are measured from the firer, and as I've explained we have explicit permission to fire the weapon.
Please, in that process, prove me wrong using a rule. You've asserted that if the Quad Gun is not the model's weapon it cannot fire - prove it using actual rules instead of assertions. I've not seen a single rules quote proving that point, only statements that it's true.
There is no RAW supports for ITS =means listed in wargear. Can you even find such a rule.
I haven't asserted that so it's not relevant. That may be a consequence of the actual rules, but it's not a point I'm trying to prove.
As listed there are numerous examples where units gain Ignore Cover and can apply it to the Quad Gun. Its not like this is the first time that ability has ever been seen.
Also not relevant.
Breaking out the dictionary to break down "its" to claim it cannot is silly at best.
Yeah, making sure everyone is using the word correctly is totally silly.
I didn't break out the dictionary really - I just want to make sure the same definition is used consistently across the two relevant words. It has to be the same definition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BlackTalos wrote: The Quad Gun temporarily becomes the model's weapon, proven by "following the normal rules for shooting". During that shooting phase, the Quad Gun is fired as a weapon the model has, otherwise, as Fragile explains, the model would not be able to shoot it (LoS? Range? etc).
Again, this is absolutely incorrect. As in, there's no rules support for this stance.
Please cite rules supporting the stance as LoS, Range, and "etc" are solved using the normal shooting rules without the Quad Gun being the model's weapon.
The Quad gun being a weapon that the model has during that shooting phase, however, is not.
It obviously is because you keep asserting an incorrect fact that I've proven incorrect.
BlackTalos wrote: The Quad Gun temporarily becomes the model's weapon, proven by "following the normal rules for shooting". During that shooting phase, the Quad Gun is fired as a weapon the model has, otherwise, as Fragile explains, the model would not be able to shoot it (LoS? Range? etc).
It wouldn't be able to except for the explicit permission to do so.
So yes, if you literally ignore rules it's not possible.
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing its own weapons." is the RaW.
Please define "firing its own weapons", how, replaced by "fire it instead of", would work any differently than the model firing the weapon as "its" weapon.
Correct anything here but:
- Units perform shooting attacks.
- You select a weapon that is fired by a model.
- You follow steps 4 to 6 with that weapon.
RaW:"Typically, a model can only fire a single shooting weapon in the same phase, (...) Once a model has fired its maximum number of weapons, it cannot fire again that phase."
Has the Tomb Blade fired "its" weapon or not?
The above requires that the model fires "its" weapon, otherwise it could shoot with another.
To me, the above is clear: the Tomb Blade has fired "its" Quad Gun. The models has followed all the rules in order to shoot "its" weapon. Whether he has it next turn, or at the beginning of the game is irrelevant.
BlackTalos wrote: "One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing its own weapons." is the RaW.
Please define "firing its own weapons", how, replaced by "fire it instead of", would work any differently than the model firing the weapon as "its" weapon.
Correct anything here but:
- Units perform shooting attacks. - You select a weapon that is fired by a model. - You follow steps 4 to 6 with that weapon.
Please reword this - I have no idea what you're asking.
RaW:"Typically, a model can only fire a single shooting weapon in the same phase, (...) Once a model has fired its maximum number of weapons, it cannot fire again that phase."
Has the Tomb Blade fired "its" weapon or not? The above requires that the model fires "its" weapon, otherwise it could shoot with another.
To me, the above is clear: the Tomb Blade has fired "its" Quad Gun. The models has followed all the rules in order to shoot "its" weapon. Whether he has it next turn, or at the beginning of the game is irrelevant.
In the quoted rule, "its" is linked to "maximum number of weapons" not "its weapons". So since the model has fired a Quad Gun, it has fired 1 weapon - which is its maximum number of weapons.
easysauce wrote: fragile/black talos, you are a bit off on this one,
Rigel2d and others have provided a very clear and consise pair of rules on this one.
they are mutually exclusive,
You cannot both count the quad gun as one of its weapons while at the same time firing the quad gun *instead* of one of its weapons.
its an exclusive clause, no matter how you want to define what "it" means.
It's not exclusive at all. The emplacement rule includes the word "own". The nebuloscope rule does not. So if you define "its" to not require "own" implicitly, then the rules do not conflict.
As I have mentioned numerous times, the possessive form does not require ownership in English, so the quad gun is the tomb blades weapon, but not the tomb blades own weapon.
Tekron wrote: It's not exclusive at all. The emplacement rule includes the word "own". The nebuloscope rule does not. So if you define "its" to not require "own" implicitly, then the rules do not conflict.
As I have mentioned numerous times, the possessive form does not require ownership in English, so the quad gun is the tomb blades weapon, but not the tomb blades own weapon.
And you've utterly failed to provide rules support for your statement.
I've provided rules support showing that it is not the tomb blades weapon.
Tekron wrote: It's not exclusive at all. The emplacement rule includes the word "own". The nebuloscope rule does not. So if you define "its" to not require "own" implicitly, then the rules do not conflict.
As I have mentioned numerous times, the possessive form does not require ownership in English, so the quad gun is the tomb blades weapon, but not the tomb blades own weapon.
And you've utterly failed to provide rules support for your statement.
I've provided rules support showing that it is not the tomb blades weapon.
You havent. You simply show the permission for the unit to use the weapon for shooting instead of the weapons listed in the wargear. The QG becomes the Tomb Blades weapon for the purposes of the shooting attack.
Tekron wrote: As I have mentioned numerous times, the possessive form does not require ownership in English, so the quad gun is the tomb blades weapon, but not the tomb blades own weapon.
I think you are going to have to prove this with some grammar or linguistics to resolve this discussion. I think the onus is at least as much upon you to prove the wording does not specify ownership or being equipped (as ordinary English at a glance suggests) as it is for us to prove that it does.
Compare these two sentences:
"The Tomb Blade is firing its Gauss Blaster."
"The Tomb Blade is firing its Quad Gun."
I don't know about anyone else but the second sentence reads plain wrong to me, given what I know of how a Quad Gun is fired. What would be correct to say, given the known context of a model firing a Quad Gun, is:
"The Tomb Blade is firing the Quad Gun (instead of its own weapon)."
Tekron wrote: As I have mentioned numerous times, the possessive form does not require ownership in English, so the quad gun is the tomb blades weapon, but not the tomb blades own weapon.
I think you are going to have to prove this with some grammar or linguistics to resolve this discussion. I think the onus is at least as much upon you to prove the wording does not specify ownership or being equipped (as ordinary English at a glance suggests) as it is for us to prove that it does.
Compare these two sentences:
"The Tomb Blade is firing its Gauss Blaster."
"The Tomb Blade is firing its Quad Gun."
I don't know about anyone else but the second sentence reads plain wrong to me, given what I know of how a Quad Gun is fired. What would be correct to say, given the known context of a model firing a Quad Gun, is:
"The Tomb Blade is firing the Quad Gun (instead of its own weapon)."
And now, with support of the shooting phase i will not quote in its entirety:
When a Unit is selected for a Shooting attack, the models select their ("its") weapons for the shooting attack.
Or, as a simple question:
Which one of "its" weapon is the Unit firing?
(It has to be "its" weapon because the model is firing it, the Quad Gun does not fire itself)
Ie, i think the conclusion Fragile, Tekron and I are coming to(correct me here):
Per the RaW, a Unit may only ever fire "its" weapons. (Else you could have Unit A fire Unit B's weapons)
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing its own weapons."
The above does not modify the RaW that the Unit must fire "its" weapons, it only replaces which weapon it can fire. How does the Unit fire "its" own weapons? It fires the Quad gun in the same way (with the same rules: The rules for shooting, steps 4-6). If the quad gun fired itself, using Range, Los, and BS of any model close enough, then you would be correct. However in this case, it is the model (IE the Unit) which is performing the shooting. And their shooting weapons have Ignore Cover.
BlackTalos wrote: "One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing its own weapons." is the RaW.
Please define "firing its own weapons", how, replaced by "fire it instead of", would work any differently than the model firing the weapon as "its" weapon.
Please reword this - I have no idea what you're asking.
Correct anything here but:
- Units perform shooting attacks.
- You select a weapon that is fired by a model.
- You follow steps 4 to 6 with that weapon.RaW:"Typically, a model can only fire a single shooting weapon in the same phase, (...) Once a model has fired its maximum number of weapons, it cannot fire again that phase."
Has the Tomb Blade fired "its" weapon or not?
The above requires that the model fires "its" weapon, otherwise it could shoot with another.
To me, the above is clear: the Tomb Blade has fired "its" Quad Gun. The models has followed all the rules in order to shoot "its" weapon. Whether he has it next turn, or at the beginning of the game is irrelevant.
In the quoted rule, "its" is linked to "maximum number of weapons" not "its weapons". So since the model has fired a Quad Gun, it has fired 1 weapon - which is its maximum number of weapons.
No, the "its" above indeed refers to the model firing a weapon.
The answer to "Who has fired its maximum number of weapons?"
Is: [The model]
The phrase is: "Once a model has fired [The model]s maximum number of weapons, [The model] cannot fire again that phase."
I mean i though "its" was clear at this point but it seems not. What is "its"?
the possessive form of it (used as an attributive adjective)
What is "it" ? [The model]
So, the Raw:
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of [The model]s ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [a gun emplacement] instead of firing his own weapon"
"Once a model has fired [The model]s maximum number of weapons, [The model] cannot fire again that phase."
They all come down to the same thing in the end:
On a turn in which [The model] fires the Quad gun, instead of [The model]s own weapons, [The model] is still firing the quad gun.
Which can mean that [The model]s weapons have Ignore Cover, via Nebuloscope.
Unless you have a better definition for "IT"? One which does not mean [The model].
BlackTalos wrote: And now, with support of the shooting phase i will not quote in its entirety:
When a Unit is selected for a Shooting attack, the models select their ("its") weapons for the shooting attack.
This is not correct; weapon selection specifies "a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with."
The Quad Gun is fired instead of one of the model's own weapons, or alternatively stated as instead of one of the weapons the model is equipped with.
We are given permission then to fire a weapon other than the model's weapon, so how can the Quad Gun be the model's?
Again, I think this needs to wait for Tekron's grammatical or linguistic explanation because I'm failing to see the logical leap otherwise.
BlackTalos wrote: And now, with support of the shooting phase i will not quote in its entirety: When a Unit is selected for a Shooting attack, the models select their ("its") weapons for the shooting attack.
This is not correct; weapon selection specifies "a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with."
The Quad Gun is fired instead of one of the model's own weapons, or alternatively stated as instead of one of the weapons the model is equipped with.
We are given permission then to fire a weapon other than the model's weapon, so how can the Quad Gun be the model's?
Again, I think this needs to wait for Tekron's grammatical or linguistic explanation because I'm failing to see the logical leap otherwise.
You are given permission then to fire a weapon other than the model's weapon. How does that weapon fire? Does the Quad Gun shoot itself (using some of the model's characteristics)?
Or, does the model shoot the gun?
If it is the later, could you answer this: What weapon is it (the model) shooting?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, please say if the following statement is correct or incorrect, after the Tomb Blade has shot the Quad Gun:
--> The Tomb Blade model #3 has fired its weapon in this phase. It may not shoot again. <--
Tekron wrote: As I have mentioned numerous times, the possessive form does not require ownership in English, so the quad gun is the tomb blades weapon, but not the tomb blades own weapon.
I think you are going to have to prove this with some grammar or linguistics to resolve this discussion. I think the onus is at least as much upon you to prove the wording does not specify ownership or being equipped (as ordinary English at a glance suggests) as it is for us to prove that it does.
Compare these two sentences:
"The Tomb Blade is firing its Gauss Blaster."
"The Tomb Blade is firing its Quad Gun."
I don't know about anyone else but the second sentence reads plain wrong to me, given what I know of how a Quad Gun is fired. What would be correct to say, given the known context of a model firing a Quad Gun, is:
"The Tomb Blade is firing the Quad Gun (instead of its own weapon)."
Well the problem with your example is that they are both correct, well formed sentences. It may feel wrong to you but grammatically it is fine.
Now for the linguistics, fair enough, I will make an attempt to back up my position.
You'll have to forgive me for using wikipedia here, but I don't have time to start thinking up too many examples.
The relationship expressed by possessive determiners and similar forms is not necessarily one of possession in the strict sense of ownership. The "possessor" may be, for example:
the person or thing to which the "possessed" stands in the designated relationship (my mother, his wife, your subordinates, our boss);
the person or thing of which the "possessed" is a part (my leg, the building's walls);
a person or thing affiliated with or identifying with the "possessed" (his country, our class, my people);
the performer, or sometimes the undergoer, of an action (his arrival, the government's overthrow)
the creator, supervisor, user, etc. of the "possessed" (Prince's album, the Irish jockey's horse).
These are just a few examples where possession exists linguistically without any sense of ownership. To create one more on point, we could say:
"The gunner fires his artillery piece" which is analogous to the quad gun situation for obvious reasons. We could use "its" or "their" instead of "his" to remain gender neutral, but that doesn't sound as natural. The gunner is unlikely to own the artillery piece of course, because mostly they are owned by the government that created the military the gunner is a part of. But there is still a possessive relationship between the gunner and the gun. It is his gun for the purpose of firing it, and he is the guns gunner.
"The artillery piece fires its shell a long distance" is a case where an inanimate object has a relationship with another object, neither of which can be considered to own the other, but nevertheless are described with possessive language.
"The shell is kept stable in its flight by spinning" is an example of an inanimate object possessing the action which it is undergoing. The shell does not own its flight, it simply experiences it.
We know that the nebuloscope rule does not explicitely specify ownership as a requirement for its application, so we just need to create a possessive relationship between the tomb blade and the quad gun, which is done by firing the gun instead of its own weapon.
the grammer you are trying to use as proof, is not correct grammar wise as you may think it to be.
its also akin to breaking this tenant, as you are putting your interpretation of "correct" grammer over actual *rules* that rigel, I , and others have brought to your attention.
Come up with a *rules* bases argument, not a subjective grammar based one, with inherent flaws in it.
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.
BlackTalos wrote:You are given permission then to fire a weapon other than the model's weapon. How does that weapon fire? Does the Quad Gun shoot itself (using some of the model's characteristics)?
Or, does the model shoot the gun?
If it is the later, could you answer this:
What weapon is it (the model) shooting?
It is shooting the Quad Gun, clearly, however that does not prove the Quad Gun is the model's weapon, merely that it is shooting or shot the Quad Gun.
Also, please say if the following statement is correct or incorrect, after the Tomb Blade has shot the Quad Gun:
--> The Tomb Blade model #3 has fired its weapon in this phase. It may not shoot again. <--
Is this statement True or False?
In context it is incorrect; we know the Quad Gun is not the model's weapon but is in fact a Quad Gun and per the rules for Quad Guns is actually no model's weapon. If we were in a situation where we did not know any better then absolutely correct.
Tekron wrote:Well the problem with your example is that they are both correct, well formed sentences. It may feel wrong to you but grammatically it is fine.
I could say "The Tomb Blade is firing its Power Sword" and it would be grammatically correct, but rules require correct context beyond mere grammatical correctness.
"The gunner fires his artillery piece" which is analogous to the quad gun situation for obvious reasons. We could use "its" or "their" instead of "his" to remain gender neutral, but that doesn't sound as natural. The gunner is unlikely to own the artillery piece of course, because mostly they are owned by the government that created the military the gunner is a part of. But there is still a possessive relationship between the gunner and the gun. It is his gun for the purpose of firing it, and he is the guns gunner.
Except this is not analogous to this situation. A gunner has an assignment to an artillery piece and has a recognised, contextually permanent relationship with it. Additionally an artillery piece is exactly what an artillery gunner (almost) always exclusively is expected to fire. If an artillery gunner borrowed Joe's flamethrower you would not say he shot his flamethrower because he is an artillery gunner and does not have a flamethrower; the flamethrower is Joe's. Unless Joe were dead maybe, but that brings the "borrowing" into question
A Tomb Blade is not a Quad Gun gunner and is not assigned to a Quad Gun, nor does it have any other permanent relationship in the context of the game to which the possessive can be correctly applied in this way.
In context it is incorrect to describe the Quad Gun as the Tomb Blade's.
We know that the nebuloscope rule does not explicitely specify ownership as a requirement for its application, so we just need to create a possessive relationship between the tomb blade and the quad gun, which is done by firing the gun instead of its own weapon.
Given that the Quad Gun cannot correctly be described as the Tomb Blade's I don't think this is relevant, but I don't think you've actually proven the Nebuloscope does not require ownership.
Tekron wrote: As I have mentioned numerous times, the possessive form does not require ownership in English, so the quad gun is the tomb blades weapon, but not the tomb blades own weapon.
Assuming this is always true, and its not (context dictates ownership), there is nothing in the 3 or 4 rules relevant to this discussion to state the Quad Gun is ever possessed by the tomb blade. The rules provide a framework to allow the quad gun to be fired by the tomb blade, but there is nothing to support that in the moment the quad gun is fired the tomb blade has gained possession of it.
I wonder if perhaps some of the confusion is over the Quad Gun (clearly) being the Tomb Blade's weapon fired versus it (not) being the Tomb Blade's weapon?
easysauce wrote: the grammer you are trying to use as proof, is not correct grammar wise as you may think it to be.
its also akin to breaking this tenant, as you are putting your interpretation of "correct" grammer over actual *rules* that rigel, I , and others have brought to your attention.
Come up with a *rules* bases argument, not a subjective grammar based one, with inherent flaws in it.
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.
This actually goes both ways, "its" will always have a vague meaning unless it is defined in the rules.
The definitive versions of the rule would have been written something like this:
- If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its equipped ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule. (not Quad Gun)
or
- If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its shots with ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule. (yes Quad Gun)
Both of these examples express which ranged weapons are defined, however the original rule does not. This is why I recommended we move to a HIWPI argument since both interpretations of "its" are grammatically correct.
Tekron wrote: It's not exclusive at all. The emplacement rule includes the word "own". The nebuloscope rule does not. So if you define "its" to not require "own" implicitly, then the rules do not conflict.
As I have mentioned numerous times, the possessive form does not require ownership in English, so the quad gun is the tomb blades weapon, but not the tomb blades own weapon.
And you've utterly failed to provide rules support for your statement.
I've provided rules support showing that it is not the tomb blades weapon.
You havent. You simply show the permission for the unit to use the weapon for shooting instead of the weapons listed in the wargear. The QG becomes the Tomb Blades weapon for the purposes of the shooting attack.
And you've cited rules to prove that? I certainly haven't seen any - just repeated assertions with literally zero support.
No, the "its" above indeed refers to the model firing a weapon.
The answer to "Who has fired its maximum number of weapons?"
Is: [The model]
The phrase is: "Once a model has fired [The model]s maximum number of weapons, [The model] cannot fire again that phase."
So you've deduced that your previous statement about the model being able to fire the quad gun and it's own weapon in the same turn is incorrect? Good, we agree
What is "it" ? [The model]
Sometimes.
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of [The model]s ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [a gun emplacement] instead of firing his own weapon"
"Once a model has fired [The model]s maximum number of weapons, [The model] cannot fire again that phase."
Slight misquote in the underlined. It should be "it's" referring to "the model's".
They all come down to the same thing in the end:
On a turn in which [The model] fires the Quad gun, instead of [The model]s own weapons, [The model] is still firing the quad gun.
<LEAP OF LOGIC HERE>
Which can mean that [The model]s weapons have Ignore Cover, via Nebuloscope.
Please quote rules support for the leap that firing a weapon means the model possesses it. I've shown that's not required (despite repeated assurances that the rules break without that being true) and have seen nary a single quote in support of it.
easysauce wrote: the grammer you are trying to use as proof, is not correct grammar wise as you may think it to be.
its also akin to breaking this tenant, as you are putting your interpretation of "correct" grammer over actual *rules* that rigel, I , and others have brought to your attention.
Come up with a *rules* bases argument, not a subjective grammar based one, with inherent flaws in it.
No. Claiming my grammar is incorrect and my argument is inherently flawed without actually making an argument is not going to earn you my attention.
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.
Saying the possessive form requires ownership is very obviously wrong, so it seems perfectly valid to me to point it out.
rigel and myself have quoted the rules already, without needing to change the wording of them, that support our arguments.
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing *its* own weapons."
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of *its* ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
the rules say a quad gun is fired *instead* of its own weapons. they also say *its* weapon ignores cover.
the weapon being fired is instead of *its* weapons, therefore we know its not one of *its* weapons. The grammar of its being a possessive term doesn't change this fact, and in reality, supports that the quad gun is not one of *its* weapons, as its literally being fired instead of one of *its* weapons.
Your only argument is changing the wording or trying to play around with the definition/grammar of "its" which has no rules basis, and no grammar basis either.
I've been following this thread and you guys are pretty good rule lawyers.
Do you all argue this hard about this stuff when you play?
For what its worth, I sure the model gets the upgrade, not the gun.
In simple terms:
I'd look at the model and say the necron is on a jetbike.
The bike got a targeting scope upgrade.
He "jacked" the bike Rd2d style, into the quadgun's fire controls and is targeting enemy units from the bike.
The quadgun shots are ignoring cover because of he is shooting (using his ballistics skill) while looking through his scope on his bike
Most rule fights should be broken down into what's realistic and practical if you can't agree.
the actual rules are very clear, you are welcome to house rule anything you want, but whats "reaslistic" to you, might not be to another person, and might not be enough justification to play against the rules. In a game where different areas of the world have their own house-rules, dont expect every other player to accept your own personal house-rules, especially in instances where RAW is actually clear.
Its odd to see people claim that a model firing a "weapon instead of its own weapons" is still firing a its own weapon...
raw is clear, if you dont like it personally, thats fine, but dont claim you have a RAW based arguement.
Calling people names like rules lawyers, is against the forum tenants, as it is insulting, and not a proper argument.
Especially when people are just pointing out *what the rules actually say* doesnt support your personal interpretation of how reality should affect the game.
after all, blast weapons should hit flyers in "reality" after all, thats what FLAKK Is after all, there fore despite what the rules say, im going to shoot your fliers with my blast weapons now. Oh you have a rule that says otherwise? who cares mr rules lawyer! those are all just suggestions!
easysauce wrote: the actual rules are very clear, you are welcome to house rule anything you want, but whats "reaslistic" to you, might not be to another person, and might not be enough justification to play against the rules. In a game where different areas of the world have their own house-rules, dont expect every other player to accept your own personal house-rules, especially in instances where RAW is actually clear.
Its odd to see people claim that a model firing a "weapon instead of its own weapons" is still firing a its own weapon...
raw is clear, if you dont like it personally, thats fine, but dont claim you have a RAW based arguement.
Calling people names like rules lawyers, is against the forum tenants, as it is insulting, and not a proper argument.
Especially when people are just pointing out *what the rules actually say* doesnt support your personal interpretation of how reality should affect the game.
after all, blast weapons should hit flyers in "reality" after all, thats what FLAKK Is after all, there fore despite what the rules say, im going to shoot your fliers with my blast weapons now. Oh you have a rule that says otherwise? who cares mr rules lawyer! those are all just suggestions!
The thread has basically expanded to 5 pages of arguments about the definition and implied meaning of "its".
Court is adjourned.
No, the "its" above indeed refers to the model firing a weapon.
The answer to "Who has fired its maximum number of weapons?"
Is: [The model]
The phrase is: "Once a model has fired [The model]s maximum number of weapons, [The model] cannot fire again that phase."
So you've deduced that your previous statement about the model being able to fire the quad gun and it's own weapon in the same turn is incorrect? Good, we agree
Only if "Its" refers to [The model], making your previous statement incorrect:
rigeld2 wrote: In the quoted rule, "its" is linked to "maximum number of weapons" not "its weapons". So since the model has fired a Quad Gun, it has fired 1 weapon - which is its maximum number of weapons.
Its is linked to [The model] firing "Its" weapons.
And "Its" weapons get Ignores Cover.
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of [The model]s ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [a gun emplacement] instead of firing his own weapon"
"Once a model has fired [The model]s maximum number of weapons, [The model] cannot fire again that phase."
Slight misquote in the underlined. It should be "it's" referring to "the model's".
I use other's quotes, as having to find te passage read 5 times in the rulebook is tiring. Indeed:
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [a gun emplacement] instead of firing [The model]s own weapon"
It does not exclude the statement "The Tomb Blade fires its Quad Gun".
On a turn in which [The model] fires the Quad gun, instead of [The model]s own weapons, [The model] is still firing the quad gun.
<LEAP OF LOGIC HERE>
Which can mean that [The model]s weapons have Ignore Cover, via Nebuloscope.
Please quote rules support for the leap that firing a weapon means the model possesses it. I've shown that's not required (despite repeated assurances that the rules break without that being true) and have seen nary a single quote in support of it.
Firing a weapon means that you possess it.
You need a rule to explain that very simple statement? I though this was exactly what the entire thread was about. Tekron has your answer:
Tekron wrote: You'll have to forgive me for using wikipedia here, but I don't have time to start thinking up too many examples.
The relationship expressed by possessive determiners and similar forms is not necessarily one of possession in the strict sense of ownership. The "possessor" may be, for example:
the person or thing to which the "possessed" stands in the designated relationship (my mother, his wife, your subordinates, our boss);
the person or thing of which the "possessed" is a part (my leg, the building's walls);
a person or thing affiliated with or identifying with the "possessed" (his country, our class, my people);
the performer, or sometimes the undergoer, of an action (his arrival, the government's overthrow)
the creator, supervisor, user, etc. of the "possessed" (Prince's album, the Irish jockey's horse).
These are just a few examples where possession exists linguistically without any sense of ownership. To create one more on point, we could say:
"The gunner fires his artillery piece" which is analogous to the quad gun situation for obvious reasons. We could use "its" or "their" instead of "his" to remain gender neutral, but that doesn't sound as natural. The gunner is unlikely to own the artillery piece of course, because mostly they are owned by the government that created the military the gunner is a part of. But there is still a possessive relationship between the gunner and the gun. It is his gun for the purpose of firing it, and he is the guns gunner.
"The artillery piece fires its shell a long distance" is a case where an inanimate object has a relationship with another object, neither of which can be considered to own the other, but nevertheless are described with possessive language.
"The shell is kept stable in its flight by spinning" is an example of an inanimate object possessing the action which it is undergoing. The shell does not own its flight, it simply experiences it.
We know that the nebuloscope rule does not explicitely specify ownership as a requirement for its application, so we just need to create a possessive relationship between the tomb blade and the quad gun, which is done by firing the gun instead of its own weapon.
If you need a rule in the rulebook as allowance to explain that firing a weapon means you possess it (albeit temporarily), i am surprised you don't need specific permission to allow you to touch your models when you are moving them. After all, the term "move" never specifically states that you can do so with your hands.... (I hope that you can read the sarcasm and futility of this).
If a model fires a Weapon, using the Shooting Sequence, he is in possession of the weapon to make the shot.
A good conclusion:
Nilok wrote: The definitive versions of the rule would have been written something like this:
- If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its equipped ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule. (not Quad Gun)
or
- If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its shots with ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule. (yes Quad Gun)
Both of these examples express which ranged weapons are defined, however the original rule does not. This is why I recommended we move to a HIWPI argument since both interpretations of "its" are grammatically correct.
Please quote rules support for the leap that firing a weapon means the model possesses it. I've shown that's not required (despite repeated assurances that the rules break without that being true) and have seen nary a single quote in support of it.
Firing a weapon means that you possess it.
You need a rule to explain that very simple statement?
Well, yes. I require a rule to prove an assertion that you're following the rules.
I though this was exactly what the entire thread was about. Tekron has your answer:
I'm not trying to require ownership. At all. Stop with the red herring.
If a model fires a Weapon, using the Shooting Sequence, he is in possession of the weapon to make the shot.
That's never a requirement using actual rules - you're making it up. In fact, literally the only reason to say that is to try and support your argument, but it's a leap of logic with absolutely no support.
There's no requirement for it to be in the model's possession, and since the actual rule says you fire the Quad Gun instead of your own weapons, you're reading the sentence as follows:
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [its weapon] instead of firing [The model]s own weapons"
which makes no grammatical sense. There's no grammatical difference between "its" and "its own".
Unless you're pretending "own" means ownership? Because it can mean "To have control over" - IE, simple possession.
You're trying to fire your weapon instead of your weapons. Please disagree with that statement and explain why.
BlackTalos wrote: It does not exclude the statement "The Tomb Blade fires its Quad Gun".
Except in the context of the situation we know it's not the model's Quad Gun; the model is simply using it.
I borrow your car. The sentence, "Mr. Shine is driving his car" is factually incorrect when we know that in fact the sentence, "Mr. Shine is driging BlackTalos' car" is correct. The former sentence would only be correct if I either had some contextually permanent connection with the car (e.g. I were assigned to it or similar) or if we didn't know that it was in fact your, BlackTalos', car.
Firing a weapon means that you possess it.
You need a rule to explain that very simple statement? I though this was exactly what the entire thread was about. Tekron has your answer:
He really doesn't, because he conveniently completely ignores the context of the situation and the examples he provides are not equivalent to the situation, as I've just explained in this post above also. Grammatical correctness is no substitute for contextual correctness, paticularly in the case of rules (I earlier gave the example of, "The model fires its Power Sword" which is grammatically correct but contextually not).
BlackTalos wrote: It does not exclude the statement "The Tomb Blade fires its Quad Gun".
Except in the context of the situation we know it's not the model's Quad Gun; the model is simply using it.
I borrow your car. The sentence, "Mr. Shine is driving his car" is factually incorrect when we know that in fact the sentence, "Mr. Shine is driging BlackTalos' car" is correct. The former sentence would only be correct if I either had some contextually permanent connection with the car (e.g. I were assigned to it or similar) or if we didn't know that it was in fact your, BlackTalos', car.
No, "Mr. Shine is driving his car" is only incorrect if you try to apply some form of timing issue:
It had to be my car before you got in it and drove it.
If you ask anyone on the street: "Look, that's Mr. Shine". "Is Mr. Shine driving his car to town?" Answer is yes, because that person, at that point in time, has no idea who's car it actually is, but Mr. Shine is in the car, and he's driving it. That simple fact makes "Mr. Shine is driving his car" a correct statement.
Same for the Tomb Blade: On Turn 4, Shooting phase, the Tomb Blade is shooting the Quad Gun. The statement "The Tomb Blade is shooting its Quad Gun" is correct for any passer-by who look at the game at that time. Which is what i said many many posts ago:
And in the end, the ambiguity of "its ranged weapons" is clear.
"its ranged weapons" as a one-time occurrence (say before the game starts). or "its ranged weapons" as a RaW constant: any weapons in "its" possession during the game will have the USR.
And secondly if the Quad Gun ever becomes part of "its ranged weapons" (Also unclear)
To argue the second point a bit further: Shrouded:"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover save as being 2 points better than normal."
Is that the Cover Save it had at the beginning of the game? Or would you agree that the definition of "Its" cover save applies to the cover save the model has at that specific time during the game?
Same example in "Skilled Rider" if your Jink save is modified. Same for Skyfire if your Normal BS is modified. etc
Please quote rules support for the leap that firing a weapon means the model possesses it. I've shown that's not required (despite repeated assurances that the rules break without that being true) and have seen nary a single quote in support of it.
Firing a weapon means that you possess it.
You need a rule to explain that very simple statement?
Well, yes. I require a rule to prove an assertion that you're following the rules.
I though this was exactly what the entire thread was about. Tekron has your answer:
I'm not trying to require ownership. At all. Stop with the red herring.
If a model fires a Weapon, using the Shooting Sequence, he is in possession of the weapon to make the shot.
That's never a requirement using actual rules - you're making it up. In fact, literally the only reason to say that is to try and support your argument, but it's a leap of logic with absolutely no support. There's no requirement for it to be in the model's possession, and since the actual rule says you fire the Quad Gun instead of your own weapons, you're reading the sentence as follows:
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [its weapon] instead of firing [The model]s own weapons" which makes no grammatical sense. There's no grammatical difference between "its" and "its own". Unless you're pretending "own" means ownership? Because it can mean "To have control over" - IE, simple possession.
You're trying to fire your weapon instead of your weapons. Please disagree with that statement and explain why.
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [its weapon] instead of firing [The model]s own weapons"
Makes no grammatical sense to you because you do not understand what Tekron explained quite well: "possession exists linguistically without any sense of ownership"
There is a difference between "its" and "its own". "its" could be any weapon the model is currently in possession of (firing a weapon - Quad Gun), whereas "its own" has to be weapons that were in the model's equipment during the game (cannot be any weapon he shoots - Quad Gun).
Unless you're pretending "own" means ownership? Because it can mean "To have control over" - IE, simple possession.
Success! You have found the exact ambiguity everyone is trying to discuss. "possession exists linguistically without any sense of ownership"
As per the example for Mr Shine: It cannot be denied as interpretation that the model Tomb Blade has possession of the Quad Gun during the Turn's Shooting phase.
I feel like we are at the "it IS", "it IS NOT" stage of the discussion.
If a model fires a Weapon, using the Shooting Sequence, he is in possession of the weapon to make the shot.
That statement might be wrong by your definition of "Its" and sense of ownership and possession, but it is correct by RaW if you follow the definition of possession we have used. Which is why, again, i would say that Nilok has pretty much nailed the concluding statement
Nilok wrote: This actually goes both ways, "its" will always have a vague meaning unless it is defined in the rules.
The definitive versions of the rule would have been written something like this: - If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its equipped ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule. (not Quad Gun) or - If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope all of its shots with ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule. (yes Quad Gun)
Both of these examples express which ranged weapons are defined, however the original rule does not. This is why I recommended we move to a HIWPI argument since both interpretations of "its" are grammatically correct.
When you say: " I require a rule to prove an assertion that you're following the rules. ", take note of the emphasis above.
If you ask anyone on the street: "Look, that's Mr. Shine". "Is Mr. Shine driving his car to town?" Answer is yes, because that person, at that point in time, has no idea who's car it actually is, but Mr. Shine is in the car, and he's driving it.
That simple fact makes "Mr. Shine is driving his car" a correct statement.
Okay, aside from the fact that someone would say, "He's driving A car, i don't know if it's his" it's still someone elses. If you ask someone what colour it is. Just because they say its orange. Doesn't mean it they're right if in fact it is actually a different colour.
It's just silly.
Back to the argument at hand, "instead" Literally none of these grammar schenanigans matter. Instead, means it's mutually exclusive. It's a pointless arguement at this stage.
Raw is quite clear, it's been quoted several times.
Now it's devolved into, basically (forgive the exaggeration) the equivalent of,
"where does it say i can't fire my gun twice"
"here (quote)"
"okay, but where does it say it?"
"here (same quote)"
"okay, but where does it say it?"
...
Unless you have a quote (from the BRB) that specifically says the quad gun is the tomb blades weapon, we have to go by the rules the others have quoted.
They have RAW support at the moment. And all these semantics are irrelevant to it, For RAW purposes we need a quote from the BRB to support your stance that overrides the word instead.
I note that it was mentioned "follow the normal rules for shooting" supports you, it does not. The model is given express permission to over ride the "fire a weapon you are equipped with" part of it. The rest just deals with ranges/dice/shots etc.
Apologies for the long post. And you can disregard the Car paragraph, i just found it funny.
BlackTalos wrote: "One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire [its weapon] instead of firing [The model]s own weapons"
Makes no grammatical sense to you because you do not understand what Tekron explained quite well: "possession exists linguistically without any sense of ownership"
No, really, I understand that quite well. I even said as much multiple times. Please stop pretending I don't understand that.
There is a difference between "its" and "its own". "its" could be any weapon the model is currently in possession of (firing a weapon - Quad Gun), whereas "its own" has to be weapons that were in the model's equipment during the game (cannot be any weapon he shoots - Quad Gun).
Unless you're pretending "own" means ownership? Because it can mean "To have control over" - IE, simple possession.
Success! You have found the exact ambiguity everyone is trying to discuss.
"possession exists linguistically without any sense of ownership"
... which is exactly what I said? And yet you are saying I don't understand that? "its" and "its own" can mean the same thing (possession) and yet you're refusing to define them the same... just to make your point correct?
I pointed out that they mean the same thing way back when, and have based my argument around that fact. Could you supply me with anything, anywhere that supports the underlined statement? That'd be great.
It cannot be denied as interpretation that the model Tomb Blade has possession of the Quad Gun during the Turn's Shooting phase.
Yes, it can. You have no basis in fact for that assertion - just a "NUH UH! IT TOTES IS". I've denied the Tomb Blade is in possession of the Quad Gun, you've asserted otherwise without evidence. The burden of proof is on you.
I feel like we are at the "it IS", "it IS NOT" stage of the discussion.
Well sure - because you're making claims without backing them up.
You've asserted - repeatedly - that the Tomb Blade is in possession of the Quad Gun. AT first you said it must be this way or the shooting rules didn't work.
I proved that incorrect. Now you just assert it without any supporting fact.
If a model fires a Weapon, using the Shooting Sequence, he is in possession of the weapon to make the shot.
That statement might be wrong by your definition of "Its" and sense of ownership and possession, but it is correct by RaW if you follow the definition of possession we have used.
Cite the rule for once. Right there you've asserted that it's correct by RaW but you've utterly failed to actually support that statement.
When you say: " I require a rule to prove an assertion that you're following the rules. ", take note of the emphasis above.
So really what you're saying is "I have absolutely no idea what the rule says, but I want it to read that Tomb Blades are awesome Quad Gunners."?
No what i am saying is that the RaW support for "Tomb Blades have Ignore cover on a Quad Gun" is this:
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing its own weapons. A model that fires..."
Found in Gun Emplacements.
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope, all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
Found in the Necron Codex.
The Tomb Blade fires the Gun emplacement instead of its own weapons. Its weapons have have the Ignores Cover special rule. The Tomb blade firing the Quad Gun has the Ignores Cover special rule.
Unfortunately, you disagree because of a definition of "its" and the possession referred by "its" and "its own".
rigeld2 wrote: ... which is exactly what I said? And yet you are saying I don't understand that? "its" and "its own" can mean the same thing (possession) and yet you're refusing to define them the same... just to make your point correct?
I never said your statement was incorrect. "its" and "its own" can mean the same thing (possession). They also can NOT mean the same thing. I am glad we are agreed upon the ambiguity. I lean to one side, you lean to the other, but both exists, unless (it seems anyway) you want only "your side" to exist and the other to be entirely incorrect. And i am saying it is not.
BlackTalos wrote: No what i am saying is that the RaW support for "Tomb Blades have Ignore cover on a Quad Gun" is this:
"One non-vehicle model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of firing its own weapons. A model that fires..."
Found in Gun Emplacements.
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope, all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
Found in the Necron Codex.
The Tomb Blade fires the Gun emplacement instead of its own weapons.
Its weapons have have the Ignores Cover special rule.
The Tomb blade firing the Quad Gun has the Ignores Cover special rule.
Unfortunately, you disagree because of a definition of "its" and the possession referred by "its" and "its own".
rigeld2 wrote: ... which is exactly what I said? And yet you are saying I don't understand that? "its" and "its own" can mean the same thing (possession) and yet you're refusing to define them the same... just to make your point correct?
I never said your statement was incorrect. "its" and "its own" can mean the same thing (possession). They also can NOT mean the same thing. I am glad we are agreed upon the ambiguity.
I lean to one side, you lean to the other, but both exists, unless (it seems anyway) you want only "your side" to exist and the other to be entirely incorrect.
And i am saying it is not.
So you have literally nothing to support possession other than your assertion? Anywhere? Just you saying "It's this way."
There's no ambiguity other than what you're inserting then. When you have to make things up your argument has failed and is incorrect.
I'm sorry but you keep ignoring the word Instead which is mutually exclusive.
All of the tomb blades weapons have ignores cover. It does not fire it's weapon, it fires the quad-gun instead.
The word "its" never comes into it. Semantically you can argue all you like, but "instead" makes it exclusive. If you are trying to argue that GW deliberately put in the distinction between "its" and "its own" as some way to diffrentiate, then that's RAI territory.
Right now, "its" and "its own" are functionally the same. Suggesting otherwise is moving from RAW and into personal interpretations.
Also, no way GW does something that specific deliberately, if they were that careful these things wouldn't come up.
harkequin wrote: Unless you have a quote (from the BRB) that specifically says the quad gun is the tomb blades weapon, we have to go by the rules the others have quoted.
They have RAW support at the moment. And all these semantics are irrelevant to it, For RAW purposes we need a quote from the BRB to support your stance that overrides the word instead.
The "the rules the others have quoted" are the exact same rules everyone is quoting.
There is disagreement upon the meaning of the rules, not that one side has support while the other does not.
There would be no argument if that was the case.
harkequin wrote: I'm sorry but you keep ignoring the word Instead which is mutually exclusive.
All of the tomb blades weapons have ignores cover. It does not fire it's weapon, it fires the quad-gun instead.
The word "its" never comes into it. Semantically you can argue all you like, but "instead" makes it exclusive. If you are trying to argue that GW deliberately put in the distinction between "its" and "its own" as some way to diffrentiate, then that's RAI territory.
How does "instead" mutually exclude the possession of the weapon? It mutually excludes the weapons mentioned in that rule: The Emplacement V the weapons the model has equipped.
I am also not arguing that there is a distinction between "its" and "its own".
They are both the model's weapons ("its weapons"). Only the Quad Gun is part of those for Nebuloscope, but not part of them for its own "Gun Emplacement" rules.
"The model fires its weapon"
That statement is true whether firing the Quad Gun or the model's equipped weapon. "Instead" just substitutes A for B.
BlackTalos wrote: "The model fires its weapon"
That statement is true whether firing the Quad Gun or the model's equipped weapon. "Instead" just substitutes A for B.
No, it's not true when it fires the Quad Gun. You've failed to support that statement at any time when challenged - instead you just assert its truth.
The model fires the Quad Gun. That does not mean the model possesses the Quad Gun at any time. That's what you have to prove. Simply firing it does not mean you possess it.
How does "instead" mutually exclude the possession of the weapon? It mutually excludes the weapons mentioned in that rule: The Emplacement V the weapons the model has equipped.
It clearly does, The model fires the quad-gun instead of its weapons. Therefore It is not firing it's weapons. it can't simultaneously both fire and not fire it's weapons. The use of instead makes it basically read. "the model fires the quad-gun and does not fire it's weapons" since it is not firing it's weapons , the quad-gun is not it's weapon.
Again, the quote "the model fire the quad-gun instead of it's weapon" proves the quad gun is not it's weapon.
To dispute that you have to put forward a quote that says it is the models weapon. As it stands, the quote proves that the quad-gun isn't it's weapon, unless you can provide an actual quote backing up your point , we have to go by the quote that says it is (very clearly) not the models weapon.
It mutually excludes it because the weapon cannot both be and not be the models weapon, Firing the quad-gun prevents you firing your weapons, so either firing the quad gun prevents you firing the quad gun (don't take it seriously , it's hyperbole) or, firing the quad gun means it isn't your weapon.
BlackTalos wrote: "The model fires its weapon"
That statement is true whether firing the Quad Gun or the model's equipped weapon. "Instead" just substitutes A for B.
No, it's not true when it fires the Quad Gun. You've failed to support that statement at any time when challenged - instead you just assert its truth.
The model fires the Quad Gun. That does not mean the model possesses the Quad Gun at any time. That's what you have to prove. Simply firing it does not mean you possess it.
Just as you have. Maybe we're both asserting things from the same RaW? It would explain the circular arguments.
The model fires the Quad Gun. Simply firing it does not mean you possess it. That's what you have to prove.
When you can prove that firing a weapon does not imply possession, I will prove to you that firing a weapon does imply possession.
BlackTalos wrote: "The model fires its weapon"
That statement is true whether firing the Quad Gun or the model's equipped weapon. "Instead" just substitutes A for B.
No, it's not true when it fires the Quad Gun. You've failed to support that statement at any time when challenged - instead you just assert its truth.
The model fires the Quad Gun. That does not mean the model possesses the Quad Gun at any time. That's what you have to prove. Simply firing it does not mean you possess it.
Just as you have. Maybe we're both asserting things from the same RaW? It would explain the circular arguments.
The model fires the Quad Gun. Simply firing it does not mean you possess it. That's what you have to prove.
When you can prove that firing a weapon does not imply possession, I will prove to you that firing a weapon does imply possession.
... No. The burden is on you to prove possession as you're the one asserting it exists.
The rules don't require it. The gun can be fired without possession just fine. You're asserting something beyond simply firing the quad gun, so you have to prove it works.
I've proven that firing a weapon does not require possession. For the Tomb Blade rule to apply, possession must exist. Therefore you must prove it does to apply the Tomb Blade rule.
BlackTalos wrote: No, "Mr. Shine is driving his car" is only incorrect if you try to apply some form of timing issue:
It had to be my car before you got in it and drove it.
If you ask anyone on the street: "Look, that's Mr. Shine". "Is Mr. Shine driving his car to town?" Answer is yes, because that person, at that point in time, has no idea who's car it actually is, but Mr. Shine is in the car, and he's driving it.
That simple fact makes "Mr. Shine is driving his car" a correct statement.
This is simply incorrect for this rules discussion because you're ignoring context and by extension you're ignoring the known nature of the relationship between driver and car, or in this case model and Quad Gun.
We're not a random passerby who does not know the car is not mine. We are not your mother looking at us playing our game and saying, "Oh look, he's firing his little Quad Bazooka!"
We are players who know the Quad Gun is being fired instead of the model's (own) weapon and that there is no relationship between Quad Gun and Tomb Blade except that the Tomb Blade is firing the Quad Gun. As was pointed out to you earlier it cannot be firing [its weapon] instead of its own weapon. That is both a grammatical and contextually incorrect statement.
Hell, the failure of your argument is self-evident from this discussion, in your last post (emphasis mine):
Just as you have. Maybe we're both asserting things from the same RaW? It would explain the circular arguments.
The model fires the Quad Gun. Simply firing it does not mean you possess it. That's what you have to prove.
When you can prove that firing a weapon does not imply possession, I will prove to you that firing a weapon does imply possession.
Why are you calling it "the Quad Gun" when you're insisting it's correctly "the model's Quad Gun"?
Mr. Shine wrote: Why are you calling it "the Quad Gun" when you're insisting it's correctly "the model's Quad Gun"?
To be fair, I think that was a copy/paste or something he meant to edit after copying from my post. Because it seems out of place without edits in his post.
Mr. Shine wrote: Why are you calling it "the Quad Gun" when you're insisting it's correctly "the model's Quad Gun"?
To be fair, I think that was a copy/paste or something he meant to edit after copying from my post. Because it seems out of place without edits in his post.
Yeah, that was only one quoted part but he's constantly referred to it as the Quad Gun and only "its Quad Gun" generally in his bizarre/out of context grammatical constructs.
If it were contextually correct he would constantly have been stating arguments like, "But when the model fires its Quad Gun it possesses it..."
Fragile wrote: Except that it is it's weapon when it's shooting it.
Seriously how much farther is this thread going with the definition of its.
No ones debating the definition of "its".
Except you?
It is related to the definition of "its". The one highlighted below, which, by definition of "its" and the concept of possession, include the Quad Gun being fired:
"If a model is equipped with a nebuloscope, all of its ranged weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule."
Quoting the Gun Emplacement rules does not support your claim that "the model firing the Quad Gun is not in possession of it". So you need a RaW quote or the model, firing the weapon, is by default in possession of the weapon being fired. (Simple logical step, as explained by Tekron)
The action of shooting a weapon creates a state of possession. Simple grammatical form. 6 pages and you still cannot recognise that fact.
uoting the Gun Emplacement rules does not support your claim that "the model firing the Quad Gun is not in possession of it". So you need a RaW quote or the model, firing the weapon, is by default in possession of the weapon being fired. (Simple logical step, as explained by Tekron) The action of shooting a weapon creates a state of possession. Simple grammatical form. 6 pages and you still cannot recognise that fact.
It literally does. It's on you to prove (via a quote), that it is your gun, no semantics, and dancing around language. The rule states. "instead". you fire the quad gun instead of your weapon, = you fire the quad gun and not your weapon, = you are not firing your weapon= the quad gun is not your weapon.
It is clearly written RAW, you can argue about possession, but it is expressly denied by the rule. INSTEAD, you fire it instead of your weapon, that literally means you are not firing your weapon, so the quad-gun is not your weapon.
Seriously, this quote 100% backs up the position, refusing it is not a matter of interpretation, it's saying "i don't like this rule" , thats fine, but not in a RAW discussion.
Point to the quote in the rulebook that states " If a model fire a wepon, for all intents and purposes it is considered it's weapon, even if it fires this weapon instead of it's weapon" or as close as you can.
If you cannot do that, you are trying to force your interpretation on a rule that is very cut and dry, still trying to argue the value of "its" is just semantics.
In a rules discussion, when a rule states one thing, it shouldn't be denied, by deliberately dissecting the english language to find a loop-hole.
The word "instead", is what makes this rule clear, unless you have a counter quote, you have no RAW arguement.
6 pages and you still havent refuted the word "instead" ... anything else is just opinion.
It literally does. It's on you to prove (via a quote), that it is your gun, no semantics, and dancing around language. The rule states. "instead". you fire the quad gun instead of your weapon, = you fire the quad gun and not your weapon, = you are not firing your weapon=[Logical Leap] the quad gun is not your weapon.
I have highlighted above where you make an assumption with no rules support. The Quad gun is not your weapon, no, as it is not part of your Wargear. But how are you jumping to the conclusion that this means you are not allowed temporary possession of the Gun?
I agreed as early as page 3 that the Quad Gun was "not included in that list at the beginning of the game." (List of Wargear).
The Quad Gun is your weapon, because you are firing a weapon in the shooting phase. When you fire a weapon, does it mean that weapon belongs to you? (is listed in your wargear?) No Are you in possession of it while you make the shot? Yes
The model is in possession of the Quad Gun as it is using it to perform a shooting attack. If the Quad Gun was the model making the shooting attack, with a friendly model in base contact to enable this, then you would be entirely correct.
But the Quad gun is not the model making the shot. It is the model [Tomb Blade], shooting the Weapon [Gun Emplacement]. As such, the model is firing "its" weapon.
Provide the RaW that states that if you fire a Weapon instead of your own, you have no possession of the weapon while following the shooting sequence.
Looking over how Ignore Cover has changed for 7e, it only applies to weapons, not only does this break several armies' rules, but it looks like the way this is written is the only way it can work really.
If the con side is right, Ignore Cover can never apply to fortification weapons that come from any book unless it is on the weapon itself.
BlackTalos wrote: Are you in possession of it while you make the shot?
Yes
No. The model is in base contact with the Quad Gun and is simply given permission to fire it instead of its own weapon.
The only time the rules care about whose weapon is being fired is when we are told to select a weapon the model is equipped with, but the Quad Gun allows us to bypass this without any requirement for or statement of possession for the Quad Gun.
We are never told the model possesses the Quad Gun and the rules don't require it for the purposes of firing it.
If you think this is incorrect then support your assertion with the rules and where we are told the model possesses it rather than simply fires it from base contact.
Provide the RaW that states that if you fire a Weapon instead of your own, you have no possession of the weapon while following the shooting sequence.
Right here. "instead of firing its own weapon"
I have quoted this numerous times and you still ignore it.
INSTEAD. It means that you are not firing your weapons. No matter what mental gymnastic you do, you come out with 2 options.
a. the rule works, the quad gun is fired despite the fact that is is not your weapon. no issues.
b. The quad gun is your weapon because you are firing it, but because of the quoted rule you cannot fire your weapon, so you cannot fire the quad-gun.
Instead means, you can fire the quad gun , but not your weapons. If the quad-gun is your weapon, you may not fire it, as the rule specifically prevents you from firing your weapon.
RAW there is no way for you to legally fire the quad gun if it is your weapon, as if you try to fire it, it prevents you firing your weapons... which it apparently is.
Again, i have provided a quote, "instead", as it is written. proves that it is not your weapon. there is no arguement to that. unless you find a quote that over rules that, it still stands.
Does that quad gun take your faction or stop being able to be attacked by your units? Without that there isn't a rules based argument for it to become anyone's, even through possession. Assuming that it is counted as the model's weapon is also a logical leap which you want to avoid. If they wanted all of the Tomb Blades' attacks to be Denying Cover wouldn't they have used shooting attacks instead of its weapons like they do for preferred enemy?
Looking over how Ignore Cover has changed for 7e, it only applies to weapons, not only does this break several armies' rules, but it looks like the way this is written is the only way it can work really.
If the con side is right, Ignore Cover can never apply to fortification weapons that come from any book unless it is on the weapon itself.
I wonder how many rules GW broke with this...
Practically none im sure, have you ever seen a model with "ignors cover" , it's always on a weapon/rule that gives it to weapons/shots. Model rules generally only apple to cc attacks eg.fleshbane/poisoned. I checked all the Tau stuff, and they're all in the clear for their ignores cover.
Fragile wrote: Except that it is it's weapon when it's shooting it.
Seriously how much farther is this thread going with the definition of its.
No ones debating the definition of "its".
Except you?
It is related to the definition of "its". The one highlighted below, which, by definition of "its" and the concept of possession, include the Quad Gun being fired:
But no one is saying that the definition is wrong.
Quoting the Gun Emplacement rules does not support your claim that "the model firing the Quad Gun is not in possession of it". So you need a RaW quote or the model, firing the weapon, is by default in possession of the weapon being fired. (Simple logical step, as explained by Tekron)
The action of shooting a weapon creates a state of possession. Simple grammatical form. 6 pages and you still cannot recognise that fact.
I need a RAW quote saying that a model firing a weapon is in possession of it? I haven't claimed that.
No, the act of shooting a weapon does not create a state of possession. In real life it does. 40k isn't real life.
It literally does.
It's on you to prove (via a quote), that it is your gun, no semantics, and dancing around language. The rule states. "instead". you fire the quad gun instead of your weapon, = you fire the quad gun and not your weapon, = you are not firing your weapon=[Logical Leap] the quad gun is not your weapon.
I have highlighted above where you make an assumption with no rules support. The Quad gun is not your weapon, no, as it is not part of your Wargear.
If it's not yours (even temporarily) how do you have possession of it?
But how are you jumping to the conclusion that this means you are not allowed temporary possession of the Gun?
I agreed as early as page 3 that the Quad Gun was "not included in that list at the beginning of the game." (List of Wargear).
Yes, because you made an arbitrary distinction with no rules support.
The Quad Gun is your weapon, because you are firing a weapon in the shooting phase. When you fire a weapon, does it mean that weapon belongs to you? (is listed in your wargear?)
No
Are you in possession of it while you make the shot?
Yes
You keep asserting that with no evidence to support that fact. I've shown that - using rules - it's not required. Why do you keep asserting it's true?
The model is in possession of the Quad Gun as it is using it to perform a shooting attack.
Where is that link defined? Could you show me?
But the Quad gun is not the model making the shot.
It is the model [Tomb Blade], shooting the Weapon [Gun Emplacement]. As such, the model is firing "its" weapon.
It's firing its weapon instead of its weapon. Yup. That makes complete sense - if you ignore the word "instead".
Provide the RaW that states that if you fire a Weapon instead of your own, you have no possession of the weapon while following the shooting sequence.
Again, wrong way around. You're asserting that you have possession of something. Attempting to prove a negative is rarely possible. Prove your positive. I've shown how it isn't required. You're making up a fact that it is.
