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

FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.



The Guardian Heavy Weapon Platform rules (on page 39 of the Eldar codex) say: "A heavy weapon mounted on a platorm. . .has two Guardians as crew and must stay in coherency with at least one of the crew. Each Crewman is armed with a shuriken catapult.

One crewman may fire the platform instead of his shuriken catapult, the other may shoot with his own weapon freely. Line of sight and range are always drawn from the firing crew member. If one crewman is killed the platform is operated as normal by the other crewman; if both crew are killed the platform is removed. The platform model itself is always ignored, including when measuring ranges to the unit, and when counting the number of models in the unit. It is essentially a marker, assume that the gun is actually carried by the crew member that is firing it."



QUESTION: How do you play that the Guardian two crew interact with their Heavy Weapon platform?



OPTION A. The two crew can be placed anywhere in the unit. When the player fires with the unit he nominates which model is firing the weapon and the weapon essentially 'jumps' to that firing model. This allows the two crew to potentially be set up on either side of a piece of terrain and, after seeing what other Eldar units accomplish in the shooting phase, the player can then decide which crew member may fire the heavy weapon on either side of the terrain.


OPTION B. The two crew can be placed anywhere in the unit. However, at the start of the game one crew member is nominated as the "firing crew member" and he is the only crew member that may fire the heavy weapon unless he dies, at which point the other crew member takes over firing the heavy weapon.


OPTION C. The two crew can be placed anywhere in the unit. At the end of each movement phase the owning player has to place the gun model in coherency of at least one of the crew members and then in the subsequent shooting phase either crew member within coherency of the gun (within 2" of it) is then allowed to fire it. In other words, the gun model can be 'jumped around' between the crew members, but it has to be done in the movement phase before any other friendly units start to fire.


OPTION D. The two crew members have to remain within 2" of each other whenever possible within the unit. Either crew model is then allowed to fire the heavy weapon each shooting phase.


OPTION E. Something else entirely: reply exactly what it is below.

Option E.

As an old school player from 2nd, I got used to the idea that the platform + gunner + 'spotter' was a subunit of the unit.
It just makes sense, to me, that they move together. One fires the weapon, the other fires his SC.

Plus, I have those 'gunner' and 'loader' figs with the leather jackets.

On reflection, after voting, maybe I should have picked 'D'

C seems to me to be the most fair and does not seem to be abusive.

Darrian

D is what I do.

oic the gun is just a marker now, that's kind of meh. D is still what I do, altho if I joined a new group I could be convinced that A is the way to play it, it would seem to be the RAW. It does say only "at least one".

They should have just put both crewmen on the base, like the guard do.

Tacobake wrote:They should have just put both crewmen on the base, like the guard do.

Yeah, because we don't have enough arguments about multi-basing as things currently stand...

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Tacobake wrote:They should have just put both crewmen on the base, like the guard do.

Yeah, because we don't have enough arguments about multi-basing as things currently stand...

hrm, I'm not going to ask.

it sounds better than 'pretend the crewman is holding it', which is lame.

third ed: LoS from crewman, LoS and range from gun. Shazaam. It's not hard, but maybe big Phil was being fancy.

A: Rules say to just treat the weapon as behing held by the model and the gun model is just a marker so that's how I play it. Either crew man can fire it so its like you got 2 guys in a squad and at any given moment one of them (and only one) has a heavy weapon.

I don't play Eldar right now.
I WILL... but I DON'T.

When I DO, however, I will play it as "C."
This seems to make the most sense.

Since the models don't have to be modeled on the base with the weapon, and you only need to nominate 2 crew, AND there is an actual model to represent the gun (I don't care what the text says... no Eldar if going to CARRY a heavy weapons platform), there should be no problem "jumping" the weapon around.

Eric

"C" makes the most sense by far.

It's option A per the RAW.

It's how Phil Kelly plays.

B, C, D are made-up rules and thus are pointless.

Please back up your assertion. With page references.

Thnx.

KiMonarrez wrote:Please back up your assertion. With page references.

This is old ground that's been beaten to death in the past.

There is no requirement in the rules for the HW team for the gunners to remain in any sort of coherency. Either of them can fire the weapon, without having to be within any set distance of the other (outside the normal rules for coherency in a unit) or the weapon.

So A is indeed the RAW.


I play D, just because it seems a little less silly.

Oh, I have the book, I just wanted to hear the rational for it moving (jumping) after the movement phase.

The crew don't have to remain in coherency, but the weapon model must remain in coherency with one of them at all times.

Sooooooo, what allows this model (gun platform) to move around willy nilly after the movement phase is complete?

I play by 'D'. Anything else is a bit cheezy/advantageous in my opinion, no RAW/RAI mumbo-jumbo.

Near as I see it,

A is cheese,
B is generating a rule out of whole clothe
C is fairly common sense
D is unnecessarily restrictive

But that's just me.

KiMonarrez wrote:The crew don't have to remain in coherency, but the weapon model must remain in coherency with one of them at all times.

So far as the rules are concerned, the 'weapon' doesn't exist as a model at all.

Jumping it to the model firing it is a convenience, nothing more. The weapon is just a marker, to show what weapon the gunners are carrying. It plays no part whatsoever in the actual game.

So what allows it to move around willy nilly is the simple fact that the physical placement of it matters not a jot. LOS and measurement happen to and from the crew, regardless of whether the weapon is right beside them, at the other end of the squad, or sitting on the next table across.

Stelek wrote:It's option A per the RAW.

It's how Phil Kelly plays.

B, C, D are made-up rules and thus are pointless.

The poll isn't about RAW, it's about how you play. From what you've posted, you don't even use weapon platforms, so your comment is pointless.

Since this is just about how people play, rather than about playing by the rules, I'd be more interested to hear about why people deviate from the rules.

In my case, it's because the rules are patently absurd.

If the Guardians are both firing the same weapon, there's no way they should be able to do so from opposite ends of a squad.

Teleporting weapon platforms just feels wrong to me, so I play C.

Teleporting weapons feels wrong, so you chose one of the options that allows it...?


Call me confused.

I don't play Eldar, but we have an Eldar player in our group, and the RAW option (A) seems fine to us. It's a bit abstract, but we can handle it.

insaniak: How is that 'patently absurd'?

2 models, standing 12" apart, who can each fire a weapon that can be 12" away from either of them without LOS to anything.

That doesn't seem at least slightly ridiculous?

No, because the gun is never 12" away from either of them. It is in the same position as the crew member firing it.

The gun isn't a model. It can be anywhere on the board and it won't make a lick of difference.

But even if you have it sitting beside one crewmember, it shouldn't be able to magically teleport to the other crewmember just because he wants a turn.

frenrik wrote:

Stelek wrote:It's option A per the RAW.

It's how Phil Kelly plays.

B, C, D are made-up rules and thus are pointless.

The poll isn't about RAW, it's about how you play. From what you've posted, you don't even use weapon platforms, so your comment is pointless.

Sadly, you don't know me so your insult is lost in the warp.

I have many models to choose from in most of my armies.

The fact that I've playtested the hell out of many variations and arrived at the army lists I choose to run, does not mean I don't have a particular unit nor am I inexperienced in it.

Given the fact that Yak is making game rulings based on polls he runs (you know, the adepticon faq?), and the RAW is very clear--I think it's entirely about RAW, and very little to do with how people play if how people play is different from the RAW not because it's unclear but because they think it's "cheap", "cheesy", or straight up doesn't suit their fancy.

This is the stuff that gets to players. Maybe not everybody, but I know quite a few that don't seem to like where these polls seem to be going.

You do realize how odd it will be to go to a GW event, and not be able to separate your gunners in an Eldar army despite the fact that the guy who wrote the Codex plays that way? I witnessed it in 3 games, so I don't think it was unintended given the clarity of said rule.

Maybe I see things that don't exist. As I don't see any follow up questions about how you'd play if you chose anything but A, like if you suffer casaulties and one gunner dies...yeah, before you saw 'why it's obvious what happens', under B, C, and D it actually isn't clear because the gun is no longer treated as RAW states so a SECOND faq question would need to be added to take care of those situations.

It doesn't matter if players feel something is cheap. You can't put a happy face on 40K tourneys by trying to rule away contentious situations, ya know. At some point, someone is gonna lose. The inevitable will occur, and either the rules or rulings made upon them will be blamed and no matter how many people you ask or how in-depth the research or FAQ is, the truth is 40K is a very flawed game and the asshats will always try to gain advantage.

Especially here in the US, where every male is raised to be a winner--to be #1 at all costs. Can I see the FAQ on that one?

insaniak wrote:The gun isn't a model. It can be anywhere on the board and it won't make a lick of difference.

But even if you have it sitting beside one crewmember, it shouldn't be able to magically teleport to the other crewmember just because he wants a turn.

Shouldn't, maybe maybe not.

Can according to the rules? Sure can.

Despite you not wanting the Eldar to have this flexibility, Phil Kelly gave it to them.

Yes, they have move and fire weapons that rarely do anything given their poor BS and the entire army list having so many better choices for guide than stupid guardian units.

Gee, it's not like they don't pay through the nose for a decent anti-tank weapon. Smurfs would be up in arms if they had to pay 30 points for a semi-lascannon on a BS3 model with 6" less range, but grant a Xenos army something marines can't get and oh boy...

Stelek wrote:Despite you not wanting the Eldar to have this flexibility, Phil Kelly gave it to them.

Er... yes... That would be why I agreed earlier that it was the RAW. It's just not the way I prefer to play it. You know, that being the topic of the thread and all...

Sorry, forgot you said that.