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.

There is no "Lasgun-grouping".

In the cases where we need a grouping, we are given one.

In the case of Psybolts we are given a grouping, that aplies to that particular situation.
In the case of Gauss we are given a grouping that applies in that particular situation.

We are not given a grouping in the situation concerning the FRFSRF.

It is important to note that the groupings given only applies to the situation they are specified to apply to. Those grouping have zero relevance outside of the specific sets of circumstances described.

one way to look at it would be that in the SM codex Lysander's Bolter Drill states each type of bolter weapon that it affects. in the sternguard listing special ammunition also specifically states that you can use it in a combi weapon, so i would think that it would need to be expicitly stated to work with each weapon.

That is a horrible simple minded approach to the matter.......it is no wonder that debates end with no resolution on these matters...... the point to these conversations is to present every possible angle and viewpoint to a problem and see what makes the most sense.

^^ That is ridiculous.

The point ive been making is the only logical RAW approach.

There is no category of weapons named "lasguns" including anything with lasgun in the name.

There is a weapon entry in the back of your codex under "Lasgun"

The plural of "Lasgun" is "Lasguns"

A "Lasgun" is 24" s3 ap- rapid fire

A "Hotshot Lasgun" is 18" s3 ap3 rapid fire.

They are obviously Two entirely seperate weapons, FRFSRF would have to specifically say "hotshot" lasguns.

This is a game of ISIC and not IDSIC.

wait, if you're excluding Hotshot Lasguns just because they are "hotshot"(and have different statlines)

then can you also exclude Assault Terminators from any rules references to Terminators just because they have "Assault"?

Lacross wrote:wait, if you're excluding Hotshot Lasguns just because they are "hotshot"(and have different statlines)

then can you also exclude Assault Terminators from any rules references to Terminators just because they have "Assault"?

kirsanth wrote:So, the rules for "Terminator armor" refer to "terminators"(as many times as they refer to models in terminator armor).

Do the rules for FRFSRF refer to Hellguns or Hot Shot Lasguns? (Specifically.)

Terminators and assault terminator units are both made up of terminator models (see the stat line)

Lasgun and hotshot lasguns are two different guns because they don't share the same name. For the rule to work it would have to include hotshot lasguns.

Tri wrote:Terminators and assault terminator units are both made up of terminator models (see the stat line)

ah, but the names are different. One has Assault in front of it.
and yet the rules for terminators include assault terminators AND any other terminator armor wearer (ex: Chaplain) with different stat-lines.

Tri wrote:Lasgun and hotshot lasguns are two different guns because they don't share the same name. For the rule to work it would have to include hotshot lasguns.

the name argument thus does not work

huh, so the summary is that the rule is actually referencing a specific item/weapon rather than a item/weapon type?

and yet the rule doesn't seem to state it.

so this all appears to be assumptions made by both sides.

The writer for thinking that the readers would know.

and the readers for interpreting the writer's intent.

NO.

Sniper-las are called long-las. jeez.

They should benefit, because Storm Troopers are overpriced as hell with them.

Tacobake wrote:NO.

Sniper-las are called long-las. jeez.

huh? what?
Clarify?

DJ Illuminati wrote:
If it is a purely adversarial system, then let us all respond with a single blunt yes or no to the question and to hell with being open to understanding the other persons perspective. Shall I limit my thinking to simply assuming you are compleatly wrong if you dont agree with my first knee-jerk response to a rule, and nothing short of a new codex will change my mind. If that is the case then why bother to have a forum to discuss the issue at all. Lets just all wait for the next codex to come out as no matter what stance you or I take we are both wrong in each others eyes.

Wrong. We must consolidate our arguments and counter the other person's proof. Usually this gets done by page three, and it continues for another ten pages with each side restating their points, getting further and further away from the main point.

I have considered your views, I just consider mine to be the true ones. You consider mine to be wrong. It's how the argument works. We are trying to make our opinions understood to the opponent, and get them to agree with us.

DJ Illuminati wrote:
Adversarial systems are one of the fastest ways to turn a simple debate into a flame war.

Correct. However you aren't going to change it in this thread. May I recommend trying to change it slightly higher up? Even if this thread plays out with the flame defused, others will erupt. Take this issue to the top. But I'm getting off the topic.

DJ Illuminati wrote:
I would like to see every possible aspect of the rule pondered and reviewed to the point that we have left no stone unturned........

You present your ideas, I present mine. You shoot mine down, I shoot yours down. Assuming we have competent debaters on both sides, we should reach this conclusion.

DJ Illuminati wrote:
Do I believe that GW changed the name for a reason.....Yes

Well we're getting into RAI here, but even so, I think it could have been to avoid confusion in the WH/DH codices. Or they simply liked the name. Either way, there are conclusions other than that they wanted to clarify for FRFSRF. And let's face it: Surely they'd do something a tad less subtle if they wanted us to know that HSLG could be used for FRFSRF?

DJ Illuminati wrote:
Do I think the HS Lasgun is the same as a Lasgun...... no

Agreed here.

DJ Illuminati wrote:
Do I think it is possible that GW ment to have the term "lasgun" refer to multiple forms of guns (ie Bolt weapons).......yes

Ah, but here is your mistake. The bolt weapons you use as your primary example have been ruled in the opposite direction. Despite Storm Bolters and Bolters both being Bolters, one cannot fire special ammo. I agree with your point here. They meant for "Lasgun" to refer to multiple weapons, in the same way "Bolter" does: Without effects carrying over.

DJ Illuminati wrote:
Do I think that RAW has gotten so ridiculous to the point that I could make the "Leman Russ" argument at a Tounament and expect to see my view upheld......yes

Well to be fair, that's mostly in a rules forum where people love to argue about pointless things that will never come up. We had a person argue for twelve pages about sweeping advance Terminator Librarians. Was he justified? Sure. Would he try to play it in a game? I doubt it very much. Despite how it looks, this forum still possesses common sense when in a tabletop environment. (At least, I really hope that guy wasn't planning on arguing it in a game...)

DJ Illuminati wrote:
Where I get hung up on this rule is if Lasgun is a single weapon, or ment to be a group of simular weapons......much like a Leman Russ is a general term for all variations of the same tank. Many of the reasons that I have seen from bothsides of the debate refferance a common link between rules such as Stat profiles on the back page, or over analytical definitions of wording.

That's where the main point of contention lies. We don't know whether HSLG counts as a LG for FRFSRF. If we examine it in a vacuum, I'd agree to sit back and wait for an F.A.Q. But we did that with the Space Marine codex with Storm Bolters. We know the precedent. We can use the methods used there and apply them to this identical situation.

DJ Illuminati wrote:
Yet many Codexs have rules that show that RAI may hold more credability than a poorly written rule that left a slight loophole.

Unfortunately if we open up the RAI floodgates, we will be swept away and drown. RAI is all very well if it's bleedin' obvious (sweeping advance Librarians in Termie armour), but in cases where people genuinely get confused and decent RAI can be made for both sides, we have to go to RAW.

DJ Illuminati wrote:
Why would the call it a HS lasgun when Hellgun would be sufficient, or even to avoid confusion they could have called them Laser rifles, or Purgatus Carbines, or Blast Rifles, or some other name that has no relation to anything else in the codex. The fact that the name changed in the first place is what hold the most weight for me in my position.

It's GW. They change designs and names all the time. We don't have to assume it means something. Also, surely they would make it clearer? I've already covered alternatives for why they might do this in another paragraph.

DJ Illuminati wrote:
as you can see an adversarial system is not effecient when the reasons for viewpoints are more complicated than a simple "No they cant" or "yes they can"
Maby through my long rant I may have shown someone a reason to believe what I see, or even to help others to explain to me better what it is that I am missing and why I am wrong.

By adversarial, I don't mean sides which dissolve into yelling at each other. I mean opposite sides which calmly present arguments to each other and counter them. (A bit of an idealistic dream, I know.) I strive to open your eyes to my way of thinking, as you do to mine.

DJ Illuminati wrote:
I am just a simple RAI guy with RAW tendencies..........I am not saying you are wrong, just asking you to explain better why you are right........

Same here. But I feel that in this case, RAI and RAW rule against FRFSRF for HSLG, while you don't. So we must fight.

Lacross wrote:

Tri wrote:Terminators and assault terminator units are both made up of terminator models (see the stat line)

ah, but the names are different. One has Assault in front of it.
and yet the rules for terminators include assault terminators AND any other terminator armor wearer (ex: Chaplain) with different stat-lines.

Tri wrote:Lasgun and hotshot lasguns are two different guns because they don't share the same name. For the rule to work it would have to include hotshot lasguns.

the name argument thus does not work

huh, so the summary is that the rule is actually referencing a specific item/weapon rather than a item/weapon type?

and yet the rule doesn't seem to state it.

so this all appears to be assumptions made by both sides.

The writer for thinking that the readers would know.

and the readers for interpreting the writer's intent.

You Have Failed. StatLine reads ...

TERMINATOR SQUAD
Terminator Sergeant WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A2 Ld9 Sv2+
Terminator ---------- WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A2 Ld9 Sv2+

TERMINATOR ASSAULT SQUAD
Terminator Sergeant WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A2 Ld9 Sv2+
Terminator ---------- WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A2 Ld9 Sv2+

Both units are made up of Terminators (models) have terminator armour but have different Weapons layouts in the different Terminator units.

Ah, thanks. Now I understand. Even though the squads have different names, they're the same models in them.

The difference comes in the squad, and what weapons they may take due to the squad. But the actual marines in both squads are exactly the same, right down to the last letter in the last name.

Thanks Tri, that clears that misconception up. Now we're on the home straight.

Tri wrote:

You Have Failed. StatLine reads ...

TERMINATOR SQUAD
Terminator Sergeant WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A2 Ld9 Sv2+
Terminator ---------- WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A2 Ld9 Sv2+

TERMINATOR ASSAULT SQUAD
Terminator Sergeant WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A2 Ld9 Sv2+
Terminator ---------- WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A2 Ld9 Sv2+

Both units are made up of Terminators (models) have terminator armour but have different Weapons layouts in the different Terminator units.

well,since the wargear for both of them also reads that they have terminator armor the names and statlines are then irrelevant when considering the rules for terminator armor.

now, comparing to FRFSRF, the internal interchanging of the terms between uses of the word terminators and models in terminator armor(as clarified in a previous thread) would support the argument that "hotshot" LG are also LGs.

(and since we're nitpicking exact rules wordings)
in addition the Lumbering Behemoth Rule(pg.48 IG) also contains similar wording in comparison to FRFSRF. In which the rule applies to some Generic Name(Leman Russ) but you are then presented with a multitude of differently named vehicles with different statlines yet also sharing the same name.

Pika_power wrote:
Same here. But I feel that in this case, RAI and RAW rule against FRFSRF for HSLG, while you don't. So we must fight.

It is too bad we must......it seems like we would get along quite well....lol.

Lacross wrote:now, comparing to FRFSRF, the internal interchanging of the terms between uses of the word terminators and models in terminator armor(as clarified in a previous thread) would support the argument that "hotshot" LG are also LGs.

Except, as I have requoted myself saying, the actual "Terminator armor" rules refer to the wearer as "terminators" (as often as they are refered to as "models in terminator armor").

Do the "Lasgun" rules refer to or apply to "Hotshot Lasguns"? Or perhaps the "Hotshot Lasgun" rules refer to or apply to "Lasguns"?

As I read it, they do not.

I am really not understanding the comparison.

the example is reversed in the case of Terminators

how it applies is the usage of naming conventions to apply Terminator Qualities to a unit and thus the unit includes Terminator in its name.

FRFSRF refrences lasguns.

Hot-Shot Lasguns have Lasgun in its name.

regular lasguns also do not state FRFSRF rules although most people would understand that FRFSRF applies.

Compare Lumbering Behemoth as affecting all Leman Russes that are named Leman Russ *(some name)

FRFSRF thus affects Hot-Shot LG given that no equipment has lasgun as a type.

But the rules for "Terminator armor" itself use "models in terminator armor" and "terminators" synonymously.

Do the rules for either gun explain that they are in fact the other gun, or that the names can be used interchangably?

That is what I missed.

both assault and regular terminators wear terminator armor, and thus follow all rules for terminators.

Special CCWs are still CCWs by the rules, and thus follow the basic rules for CCWs (mainly gaining +1 attack in pairs).

Hot Shot Lasguns, aside from the name, share no characteristics with lasguns. They aren't part of a common group. Absent a CCW style stating that Hotshots follow all the rules for basic lasguns, or some shared base like terminators, those comparisons simply aren't accurate.

Rather, hotshot lasguns are more like storm bolters: in the fluff they are related, but the rules never conflate the two.

The Angry Commissar wrote:i think they can because why would GW change their name from hellguns (sounds cool) to hot-shot lasguns (not so cool) if they were not supposed to be able to utilize that order. also according to lore; hot-shot lasguns are Sniper variant lasguns with greater stopping power and range.

Lacross wrote:

Tacobake wrote:NO.

Sniper-las are called long-las. jeez.

huh? what?
Clarify?

hot-shot Lasguns have nothing in common with Lasguns and Storm Troopers have nothing in common with Infantry Platoons. hot-shot lasguns are not Sniper variants, Sniper variants are called "long-las" because they are still not ballistic, they are comparable to Tau Pulse Rifles if anything.

Also, from now on, whatever it is I just agree with Polonius unless he is complementing my lousy painting.

Terminators from a Terminator squad and Terminators from a Terminator assault are identical, right down to the names. So when one is talked about being affected, both are.

To put it in the context of Orks, it's the same as if there were a rule in the Ork codex saying Ork Nobs get +5 strength on the turn of a waargh. The Nobs in a nob mob and the nobs in the Boyz mob would both get it. Contrast how the Meganobs wouldn't get it, because they are different. You are arguing that the Terminator situation is the Meganob one, when really it is the normal nob one.

Ok this is getting ridiculous. I think everything that actually added anything useful to this conversation was already said long ago. Y'all just beating a dead horse now.

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:Ok this is getting ridiculous. I think everything that actually added anything useful to this conversation was already said long ago. Y'all just beating a dead horse now.

Well some people breath life into the idea again and we must make sure its firmly beaten out.

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:Ok this is getting ridiculous. I think everything that actually added anything useful to this conversation was already said long ago. Y'all just beating a dead horse now.

Hey, you're ahead of schedule. We've got the lock-summoners written in for page seven onwards. For the next two pages, we're sticking to company policy of throwing the same ideas back and forth until something interesting happens.

Either way, we haven't reached a proper conclusion yet, and the other side hasn't yet responded to the terminator issue that we shut-down.

Oh ok... didn't know that everything is going according to plan! I'll check back when this post gets a few more pages

Well as to the RAI arguement, the Author of the codex was asked about FRFSRF and HSL.
He said "no they don't"

So RAW says no, and RAI says no.
I'd say that people shouldn't hold their breath on a FAQ granting it.

Can you confirm this? Is it written somewhere or did you just recall it on a whim?

RaW: No
RaI: No

"A heavy bolter is not a bolter, therefore a hot-shot las gun is not a lasgun" is pretty much the end of that :3


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:Can you confirm this? Is it written somewhere or did you just recall it on a whim?

Does it honestly matter? RaW says no, so it is no. If we played RaI (aka Fluff) My Space Marine should be able to kill 9001 Guardsmen and my Inquisitor Should be able to just call Exterminatus Turn 1

Ah! Prodigal Gwar! returns. I trust his judgement. End of discussion eh?

Well I'd like to hear a reply from the affirming side to see if they've got anything to say. Give it another day.