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.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 04/17/2007 7:53 PM
So, by your interpretation, what is happening? Are they tossing the weapon platform about in the squad?

Maybe they are. There's precedent in the rules for such behaviour. We are specifically told that the reason that heavy weapons are typically the last models to be removed is that the heavy weapons are picked up and used by somebody else in the squad.

This leads to the assumption that only one Guardian can use the weapon at a time.

Which is still just your assumption.

Furthermore, point out to me where is explicitly allows you to use the "conga line" tactic and I'll concede the point.

The rules specifically state that a model must be in coherency with with the platform. They don't apply any other conditions for firing.

When RAW is ambiguous, always err on the side of "less advantageous.

And when it's not ambiguous, such as this case, you follow the rules as they are written.

There is one major flaw in using the "casualty removal and weapons" bit of the shooting rules as reference.

Even though it is stated that other models in the unit may be assumed to "pick up the weapon" note that nowhere in the shooting section do they indicate that you should "move" the weapon to the "survivor." Quite to the contrary, the rules seem to indicate that we can choose casualties from "around" the gun model, assuming that his buddies "took his place."

So no, the rules do not set a precedent regarding being able to move weapons around or have different squad members use them at any given time. The weapon model is assumed to stay where it is until it moves, and for good reason.

So, just by the shooting rules, following your line of logic, would it be legal to assume that you can replace a casualty chosen at your discretion with the actual heavy weapon model anywhere in the unit? Example:

OXOOO      O=Space Marine w/ Bolter  X=Space Marine w/ Las Cannon
So you suffer a casualty. You take the casualty on the las cannon gunner, but since "others pick up the weapon" as described in the rules, that you can actually then replace a normal marine model with the las cannon model, ending up with a squad that looks like this

O_OOX      _= blank space left by dead marine

That is very, very similar to what you are trying to do with Guardian LOS, and note that neither rules section makes a specific prohibition against doing this. And yet nobody assumes that you can get "free movement" from a las cannon by suffering a casualty on the las cannon gunner, and having another "regular" marine pick it up...

Posted By Buoyancy on 04/17/2007 8:37 PM

Posted By ColonelEllios on 04/17/2007 7:53 PM
Furthermore, point out to me where is explicitly allows you to use the "conga line" tactic and I'll concede the point.

This leads to the assumption that only one Guardian can use the weapon at a time.

Which is still just your assumption. The rules specifically state that a model must be in coherency with with the platform. They don't apply any other conditions for firing.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 04/18/2007 7:49 AM
P2: Just for arguments sake, let's say that you're forced to take a casualty on the guardian in coherency with the gun during an assault, but then the assault ends after the first round, leaving you with an un-crewed gun on one end of the line, and a gunless crewman on the other.

Then you can't fire the weapon because you don't have a crewman in coherency with it.

C2: A gun platform crewman out of coherency with the gun platform CAN NOT "use" the gun platform, and CAN NOT be considered "armed" with it.

This is still just your assumption. The rules do not state this.

C3: In a normal situation, any crew member not in coherency with the gun can not make use of it.

Once again, the rules don't state this. Please don't try and pretend that your made up rules are what's actually written. The behaviour that the rules produce does not have to "make sense", it just has to follow what the rules state is legal.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 04/17/2007 9:23 PM
Even though it is stated that other models in the unit may be assumed to "pick up the weapon" note that nowhere in the shooting section do they indicate that you should "move" the weapon to the "survivor."

Well, then it's a good thing I didn't make any claims that the weapon moved, or that you could move the model to a different location. I was merely pointing out that the rulebook specifically states that even in a situation where a weapon has clearly moved "in the real world" (ie. the person carrying it dies and somebody else picks it up), the weapon has not moved for the purposes of firing.

That is very, very similar to what you are trying to do with Guardian LOS, and note that neither rules section makes a specific prohibition against doing this. And yet nobody assumes that you can get "free movement" from a las cannon by suffering a casualty on the las cannon gunner, and having another "regular" marine pick it up...

Which isn't what I said, but then, you clearly have reading comprehension issues. The rules for the weapon platform only require that one of the crewmembers be in coherency in order for either crewmember to fire the weapon. Adding any other qualifiers is nothing more than you inventing rules. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but has no bearing on determining what the rules actually state.

Posted By Buoyancy on 04/18/2007 8:15 AM

Posted By ColonelEllios on 04/17/2007 9:23 PM
Even though it is stated that other models in the unit may be assumed to "pick up the weapon" note that nowhere in the shooting section do they indicate that you should "move" the weapon to the "survivor."

Well, then it's a good thing I didn't make any claims that the weapon moved, or that you could move the model to a different location. I was merely pointing out that the rulebook specifically states that even in a situation where a weapon has clearly moved "in the real world" (ie. the person carrying it dies and somebody else picks it up), the weapon has not moved for the purposes of firing.

Granted, the weapon isn't "moving" but you are exploiting a rule to get multiple lines of sight, which is unfounded in this game and by the RAW.

That is very, very similar to what you are trying to do with Guardian LOS, and note that neither rules section makes a specific prohibition against doing this. And yet nobody assumes that you can get "free movement" from a las cannon by suffering a casualty on the las cannon gunner, and having another "regular" marine pick it up...

Which isn't what I said, but then, you clearly have reading comprehension issues. The rules for the weapon platform only require that one of the crewmembers be in coherency in order for either crewmember to fire the weapon. Adding any other qualifiers is nothing more than you inventing rules. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but has no bearing on determining what the rules actually state.

Apparently you are the one with reading comprehension issues. Paraphrasing from the RAW (as I don't have exact reference right now):
 --at least one crewmember must be in coherency in order to use the weapon--

The rules DO NOT state what you say they do, to quote from above "one must be in coherency for either to use the weapon." This is an assumption, plain and simple.

You are assuming that you get to fire the weapon with a crewman out of coherency. Nowhere do the rules indicate that you can do this, and the burden of proof is still on you. You just get to make use of the weapon if you meet the criteria in the RAW.

Which of course means that you should use the normal shooting procedure, with none of this multiple LOS nonsense, because they are the only RAW to fall back on. This is reinforced by the statement in the grav platform entry about the model "being considered to be armed with the weapon."

Nowhere else in 40k do you have two separate models that determine LOS for a single weapon. Nowhere do two separate models count as "armed" with a single weapon.

Imperial Guard Heavy Weapon teams.

I really am getting tired of the 'the rules don't mean what they say' arguments. If you like to argue that way, why don't you head over to Warseer where it's common.

I think you should take your own advice and stop trolling rules debates, and head over to Warseer where they make unfounded assertions on a regular basis.

"Imperial Guard Heavy Weapons Teams" adds nothing to the debate. You've proven nothing with this, and furthermore you haven't explained yourself or attacked my argument. You have done nothing to contribute to this discussion.

Quote from a book and present some logic, otherwise you don't belong here as  you're expressing an opinion and not dealing with the subject at hand: what the rules actually say.

I accidentally butchered the platform rules myself.

Buoyancy was correct in that I wasn't discussing the RAW.


The rules actually state:
"the platform and at least one crew must maintain coherency"

"the platform is ignored in all cases"

"the crew actually firing the weapon is assumed to be armed with it"

So we have one direct contradiction and one assumption laid out for us in the RAW.

"...must maintain coherency" and "platform ignored in all cases" are contradictory because how do you maintain coherency with a non-model? Why was it even important to mention this, if the gun model is in fact "ignored in all cases?"

My argument rides pretty much on the point of "the crew actually firing the weapon is assumed to be armed with it." This leads me to believe that you should actually treat one of the two crew as "carrying" the weapon, following all the rules that pertain to any sort of normal model armed with a special weapon. But this is my conclusion, not what the rules actually say.

The counter-argument rests on some made-up B.S. about "one crew needing to be in coherency to fire." The rules actually mention nothing about "firing" the weapon, except that you treat one of the crew as being armed with the weapon.

So we've established that "teleporting" is illegal, due to the "coherency" restriction. But there are cases in which "coherency" will be impossible to maintain, especially considering the "conga line" abuse that you're trying to pull off.

The rules are a big black hole regarding what happens when the gun model is forced to break coherency. All they state is that "the model must maintain coherency."

This leaves me with a big ???

The problem is that everybody is telling you what the rules say, and you refuse to believe it becuase "it's unprecedented" or "it just doesn't feel right. Here are the rules:

"It has two Gaurdians as crew and must maintain coherency with at least one of the crew"

It is refering to the marker, not the crewmen. The marker has to maintain coherancy, unlike your arguement where you say the crew has to maintian coherency.

Nowhere in the rules does it say that a crewman has to be within coherency of the marker to fire it.

All it says is that the Heavy Weapon Platform is a marker that maintains coherancey with at least one crewman. Both crewman can fire the weapon and for all intents and purposes, the weapon counts as coming from the crewman that wishes to fire. The weapon itself is just a marker.

Any fictional rational you want to try and justify your position has no bearing on what the RAW is. The rules are very clear how fireing the platform gun works. Does it lead to the "congo line" tactic, yes, but no rule is broken when doing it.

I've been approaching this from the assumption that the marker has to maintain coherency with a crew member...

The problem is that the model is "ignored." So then how can it be said to be maintaining coherency? What happens if some situation forces the crew member in coherency to be taken as a casualty, leaving another crew member out of coherency?

You can't assume that, if this happens, you "can't fire the weapon," because that's not what the rules say.

So basically we're back to the teleporting platform argument.

And the rules do tell us that "the guardian (singular) firing the weapon is assumed to be armed with it." Because of the shooting rules, we must assume from this statement that one guardian needs to be nominated as "armed" with the gun. There is nothing in the shooting rules that lead to the assumption that you can from this point forward "choose" the gunner at your discretion, because you can't claim that a "normal" member of a normal squad picks up said special weapon after removing the actual weapon-bearing model as a casualty...

<<  EDIT: to clarify this last paragraph: Normally, when you "upgrade" a squad with a weapon, that weapon is assigned to a model who is then assumed to be "armed" with that weapon and carries that weapon throughout the game. "Flavor text" aside, by the normal rule set you can't "switch models" in order to change the location of a weapon without physically moving the model with said weapon as per the movement rules. In relation to the guardian platform entry, isn't it logical to assume that once a guardian is "armed" with the weapon, that he effectively can't drop it? Since there are two crew and only one weapon, and one is considered "armed" with said weapon, why can the other fire the weapon?
    I reiterate: nowhere in the platform entry or shooting rules does the game indicate you can fire one weapon with more than the model armed with it. Furthermore, the rule actually seems to indicate that one guardian is "armed" with the platform weapon, and the other "armed" with his catapult. Since the other guardian is "armed" with a weapon already, he has to use that weapon doesn't he? The platform rule only overrides "normal play" where specifically mentioned. You can't use any rule outside of the context of the main rules. The platform rules don't say "either crewman can fire the weapon at any time." Instead they state specific exceptions to the normal way of doing things. Nothing indicates that the rule: "one crewman can fire the weapon and the other his catapult" is temporary and subject to change turn-by-turn. Rather, the rule states that if one gunner is removed as a casualty, that the other can then operate the gun.  >>

It is because of this "assumed to be armed" caveat that I assume you can't "switch gunners" on a turn-to-turn basis. Once one crewman fires the gun, he is considered to be "armed" with it and therefore must be treated like any other model armed with a unique weapon in a squad.

Granted, specific overrides general, but only where the specific rules states that it does. You can't throw all of the shooting rules out the window because platforms are "special."

And this still doesn't resolve the "must maintain coherency" bit. Why is maintaining coherency even important? Why did they mention it? Apparently the gun model is not "always ignored" as the rules tell us.

EDIT: I have to add:
is an assumption. Rather, the rules tell us that if a crewman is removed as a casualty, that the other crewman can then operate the gun.

Look, the rules don't work. We may disagree on what the affect is, but they are not consistent.

1) The entry says to *always* ignore the platform model. But it says it *must* be in coherency. We have an explicit discrepancy.

2) Lets assume 'conga line', with crewmen L and R. R has the platform, and dies. What happens? If you allow for the weapons teleportation, then it makes the 'must maintain coherency' ruling non-sensical. The *only* explicit restriction the model has is being in coherency with at least 1 crewmember. teleportation makes that restriction moot. Why even mention coherency if teleportation is allowed?

Since there is an explicit discrepancy, we need to determine what would negate that discrepancy. But no matter what we do, we need to either break, ignore, or add a rule to do this. One of the least intrusive would be to infer that they meant "Always ignore, except for coherency"


Now, to add something to 2). When R dies, the platform is not in coherency, as it is required to be. There is nothing in the rules allowing for teleportation, yet they platfrom *has* to be in coherency. What happens if it is not?
When a unit is not in coherency, they can't move or assault. Perhaps that is what should happen to the (platform/unit?) until the crew and/or platform can move into coherency.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 04/18/2007 11:20 AM

"Imperial Guard Heavy Weapons Teams" adds nothing to the debate. You've proven nothing with this, and furthermore you haven't explained yourself or attacked my argument. You have done nothing to contribute to this discussion.

 

That was in response to your statement of

 "Nowhere else in 40k do you have two separate models that determine LOS for a single weapon. Nowhere do two separate models count as "armed" with a single weapon."

Which I just proved to be false.

You've proven nothing.

There's an incredible precedent set in that...oooh...low and behold Imperial Weapons Teams consist of:
1 Gunner
1 "Loader" also armed with a Las Rifle

And LOS is taken from the gunner, the guy actually holding the weapon. Nobody assumes that an autocannon can "hop" back and forth between gunner and loader in an imperial squad, just because the rules don't explicitly say that you can't do that. 40k uses a permissive rules system.

You're not making any sense. Please back up what you assert with actual rules skyth.

'Two Guardsmen form a single heavy weapon crew. A heavy weapon crew must be armed with one of the weapons from the following list"

Funny, no mention of a gunner or a loader. The crew (IE both models) are armed with the heavy weapon. Thus either can shoot it, and LOS is drawn from the model shooting the weapon.

But please, continue to invent rules that don't exist. It allows us to point and laugh.

Don't quote rules out of context to try and prove a point Skyth.

There are more to the imperial heavy weapons team rules than that one sentence. Regardless, even they are not exempt from one model being armed with the weapon, and the other his basic equipment. They can't switch equipment as you see fit in the middle of the game. The gunner model is the gunner model, and his "buddy" can't do anything other than fire his rifle until the gunner dies. And if/when he somehow dies, the weapon is not allowed to magically teleport to the other crewman, so there would never be any reason to suffer a casualty on the gunner first, because once you remove the gun model it's gone, someone else still on the board can't "pick it up" or else abilities like Mind War would be entirely pointless.

Posted By Mahu on 04/18/2007 11:48 AM

The problem is that everybody is telling you what the rules say, and you refuse to believe it becuase "it's unprecedented" or "it just doesn't feel right. Here are the rules:

Generally when you think a rule might break a precedent that is reinforced throughout the system, you are probably making a bad assumption. The rules are very, very clear in nearly every case when something is in exception to the norm.

"It has two Gaurdians as crew and must maintain coherency with at least one of the crew"

It is refering to the marker, not the crewmen. The marker has to maintain coherancy, unlike your arguement where you say the crew has to maintian coherency.

Nowhere in the rules does it say that a crewman has to be within coherency of the marker to fire it.

All it says is that the Heavy Weapon Platform is a marker that maintains coherancey with at least one crewman.

You're exactly right. But the rules don't tell us how to "maintain coherency" with an "ignored" model. "Ignored' means that it is ignored completely within the context of the normal rules, but the "maintain coherency" and "counts as armed" rules suggest otherwise. Since these two rules contradict each other, any interpretation you draw is "made up." How is a weapon that does not exist and does not have a listed movement value maintain coherency?

Both crewman can fire the weapon and for all intents and purposes,

Agreed, but with a stipulation in the rules that "the model firing the weapon counts as armed with it."

the weapon counts as coming from the crewman that wishes to fire. The weapon itself is just a marker.

This is not stated in the rules. The rules state that you draw line of sight from the model using the weapon. Only one model can use one weapon, set as precedent by the shooting, weapon, and casualty removal rules.

Does it lead to the "congo line" tactic, yes, but no rule is broken when doing it.

Except, of course, for nearly the entire body of the main rules... :(

Have you read the rules that where posted on this very thread?

The crewman that fires is assumed to be armed with it. Each time you go to fire the weapon, you choose which crewman fires it, from there on he is assume to be carrying the weapon.

The Heavy Weapon is a marker, you are inventing a rule that says it is not a model , it is. But the impetuous is on the Gun to maintain coherency, not the crew men.

So let's go over this again.

The Gun is a marker that must maintain coherency with at least one crew men.

There are two crew men in a squad.

They are not forced to maintain coherency with each other, there fore they can be on both sides of a squad per the standard 40k rules.

The Eldar player chooses which crew men are to fire. It is at that point the gun is to be counted as being held by the gunner for the purposes of LOS, Range, etc.

Next turn the process happens all over again.

That is what the rules say per RAW, any other argument is based on providing limits to the unit where there is none.

No, not correct. I have to ask, have you read them?

The assumption that you have a choice is an assumption, and an unfounded one at that.

The rules explicitly state:

"ONE crewman may fire the weapon instead of his shuriken catapult.."

So ONE crewman acts as "gunner," for lack of a better term

"the other can shoot his weapon [shuricat] freely..."

So you do in fact have a choice in which crewman you choose to fire the weapon. The rules do not state that you can change this choice later on.

The second quote reinforces the idea that the other gunner has absolutely nothing to do but fire his weapon, not the special weapon, since ONE crewman fires the weapon.

Assuming that you get to "choose" this gunner at each shooting phase is unfounded, unprecedented, and a very poor assumption to make. A quick reading of the main rules will firmly establish the rules regarding "models" and "weapons", and how "models with weapons" are treated.

Furthermore, the caveat about the model firing the weapon being counted as "armed" with that weapon reinforces the fact that only that model can use that weapon. As I've stated before, you can't state in the middle of game "oh, my terminator sergeant hands his thunder hammer and storm shield to my Captain, so that he has a better chance of taking on your dreadnaught," so why assume that Guardians can do the same when the rules don't say so?

Nothing about the "conga line" argument is supported by the main rules.

You are wrong, the rules tell you exactly what to do with it. I must maintain coherency but for all other purposes it's ignored. Those are not two contradictory statements.



You right, but only the model firing it, which stated in the rules can change from turn to two. Every time you fire the weapon you pick a crewman, from that point he is considered armed with that weapon when firing it.



Only one model may fire the weapon each turn but the specific Guardian rules override the general. Precedent bears no context to a solidly worded rule. Essentially is the rule tells you how it works, that's how it works.



Specific overrides the general. Guardians Weapon Platform rules are very specific how they work. You are trying to provide additional restrictions where there is none. Until the rule is FAQed that's how they work, like it or not.

Any crewman may fire the weapon, the fact that they are a crewman allows them to fire the weapon. The rule dos not restrict one Guardian to be armed with the weapon thought the game. They only count as armed with it when they fire it. But both crewmen have the same capability to fire it.

Posted By Mahu on 04/18/2007 4:59 PM

You're exactly right. But the rules don't tell us how to "maintain coherency" with an "ignored" model. "Ignored' means that it is ignored completely within the context of the normal rules, but the "maintain coherency" and "counts as armed" rules suggest otherwise. Since these two rules contradict each other, any interpretation you draw is "made up." How is a weapon that does not exist and does not have a listed movement value maintain coherency?

You are wrong, the rules tell you exactly what to do with it. I must maintain coherency but for all other purposes it's ignored. Those are not two contradictory statements.

How do you maintain coherency with a model that is ignored for all purposes except for maintaining coherency? By this rule, the model has no movement value, no classification as a "type," no nothing. Nothing in the rules tells us how to deal with this model, except a rather useless and unintelligible stipulation that it "maintain coherency" (with it's nonexistent movement)

Agreed, but with a stipulation in the rules that "the model firing the weapon counts as armed with it."

You right, but only the model firing it, which stated in the rules can change from turn to two. Every time you fire the weapon you pick a crewman, from that point he is considered armed with that weapon when firing it.

STOP ASSUMING that you can designate "who fires" each turn. The rules do not state this, and there is no reason to assume so. The rules tell us that "the firer counts as armed with..." which means that once a gunner fires the gun, that model counts as armed with that gun. By the main rulebook, you can't then switch that gun off that model, but you CAN avoid taking casualties on that model.

This is not stated in the rules. The rules state that you draw line of sight from the model using the weapon. Only one model can use one weapon, set as precedent by the shooting, weapon, and casualty removal rules.

Only one model may fire the weapon each turn but the specific Guardian rules override the general. Precedent bears no context to a solidly worded rule. Essentially is the rule tells you how it works, that's how it works.

No, you are purposely interpreting this rule out of context of the main rules. This is not how rules in 40k work. Only what the specific rule states applies--any other main rule as laid out int he main rulebook still applies, otherwise we would have an unworkable system.

Except, of course, for nearly the entire body of the main rules...

Specific overrides the general. Guardians Weapon Platform rules are very specific how they work. You are trying to provide additional restrictions where there is none. Until the rule is FAQed that's how they work, like it or not.

The Guardian rules are not comprehensive. Anything they don't explicitly state or except as deviation from the norm is still applicable.

Posted By Mahu on 04/18/2007 5:06 PM

So you do in fact have a choice in which crewman you choose to fire the weapon. The rules do not state that you can change this choice later on.

Any crewman may fire the weapon, the fact that they are a crewman allows them to fire the weapon. The rule dos not restrict one Guardian to be armed with the weapon thought the game. They only count as armed with it when they fire it. But both crewmen have the same capability to fire it.

You're right--the guardian platform rule does not restrict either gunner to the platform weapon the entire game.

That's because the guardian rules aren't comprehensive.

The main rules dictate that a model retains its equipment throughout the game. Once a model is "considered armed" as per the raw all of the main rules regarding weapons, shooting, and casualty removal apply.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 04/18/2007 4:23 PM
Don't quote rules out of context to try and prove a point Skyth.

There are more to the imperial heavy weapons team rules than that one sentence. Regardless, even they are not exempt from one model being armed with the weapon, and the other his basic equipment. They can't switch equipment as you see fit in the middle of the game. The gunner model is the gunner model, and his "buddy" can't do anything other than fire his rifle until the gunner dies. And if/when he somehow dies, the weapon is not allowed to magically teleport to the other crewman, so there would never be any reason to suffer a casualty on the gunner first, because once you remove the gun model it's gone, someone else still on the board can't "pick it up" or else abilities like Mind War would be entirely pointless.

So provide the content of the rules that are out of context.

The entry CLEARLY states that both models are armed with the weapon.  Remember, the specific overides the general, so any restrictions you invent from the main book have no bearing.

ColonelEllios, if you want to continue to believe your argument, then why even respond in this thread anymore. It is quite obvious that you are unsatisfied with the correct logical explanation, even though everybody else is telling you and explaining you per logic and per RAW why you are wrong.

I will counter you arguments then leave this thread, its not worth my time, to argue to the deaf.

First point, the platform is a marker that must maintain coherency with at least one crewman, that's it. Stop trying to add restrictions to it, like is it a model etc. Obviously the Guardian rule tells you how to treat it, anything beyond that is assumption and conjecture.

Second point, you will have to prove where a crewman is counted as being armed with that weapon for the rest of the game. You can't use the main rule book rules because neither crewmen are armed with that weapon in there basic profile. In the army list section, it just says two Guardians are updgraded to a weapons team. Furthermore, let's look at the rules:

"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 are killed the platform is removed. The platform model itself is always ignored, including when measuring ranges to the unit. It is essentially a marker; assume that the gun is actually carried by the crew member that is firing it."

The rule gives precedent that either crewmen can operate it by the line "If one crewman is killed the platform is operated as normal by the other crewman".

The rule never says that the firing crewman is "armed" with the weapon, just that you assume he is carrying it when you fire the gun.

Furthermore, there is no restriction in the rule that says only one specific crewman can fire it through out the game. You choose one crewman to fire the weapon, next turn you still choose one crewman to fire the weapon, whether it was the same one previous or not.

Stop mis-quoting the rule especially now that it has been dictated to you twice. There is no "armed with the weapon Guardians", no "you must maintain coherency to fire it" or whatever invented reason you have that makes the rules operated the way you feel is "right".

With that I exit this thread.

Posted By skyth on 04/18/2007 5:48 PM

Posted By ColonelEllios on 04/18/2007 4:23 PM
Don't quote rules out of context to try and prove a point Skyth.

There are more to the imperial heavy weapons team rules than that one sentence. Regardless, even they are not exempt from one model being armed with the weapon, and the other his basic equipment. They can't switch equipment as you see fit in the middle of the game. The gunner model is the gunner model, and his "buddy" can't do anything other than fire his rifle until the gunner dies. And if/when he somehow dies, the weapon is not allowed to magically teleport to the other crewman, so there would never be any reason to suffer a casualty on the gunner first, because once you remove the gun model it's gone, someone else still on the board can't "pick it up" or else abilities like Mind War would be entirely pointless.

So provide the content of the rules that are out of context.

What rules? You--specifically--have not mentioned a single rule by wrote from any written source.

Other objections I've heard are based upon an incomplete understanding of all the rules written.

The entry CLEARLY states that both models are armed with the weapon.

Oh does it now? Who's making stuff up now?

Remember, the specific overides the general, so any restrictions you invent from the main book have no bearing.

So does that mean that I can tank shock into a close combat or pile wounds on an IC to avoid casualties? No. Even though the specific rules mention no restrictions in these cases, the rest of the rules do (or set a clear precedent disallowing such behavior).

Once again, you cannot view the Guardian Gun Platform rules entirely out of context of the game system, because it creates unworkable and indefensible rules.

What part of the statement "specific overrides general specifically (not generally)" do you not understand?

--- From Mahu:---

Only one model may fire the weapon each turn but the specific Guardian rules override the general. Precedent bears no context to a solidly worded rule. Essentially is the rule tells you how it works, that's how it works.

Oh really? So because my wraithlord with a brightlance uses the highly specific and "solidly written" Lance rule, can I then assume that he can shoot into close combat, because the lance rule doesn't prohibit me from doing so?

Please. Stop being ridiculous.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 04/18/2007 8:38 PM

What rules? You--specifically--have not mentioned a single rule by wrote from any written source.
Please. Stop being ridiculous.

Actually, I have.  So either this is complete proof that you totally ignore anything said, are a compulsive liar, or are just a troll.

So please take your own advice.

Posted By Mahu on 04/18/2007 7:01 PM
ColonelEllios, if you want to continue to believe your argument, then why even respond in this thread anymore. It is quite obvious that you are unsatisfied with the correct logical explanation, even though everybody else is telling you and explaining you per logic and per RAW why you are wrong.

Not everyone.

I will counter you arguments then leave this thread, its not worth my time, to argue to the deaf.

First point, the platform is a marker that must maintain coherency with at least one crewman, that's it. Stop trying to add restrictions to it, like is it a model etc. Obviously the Guardian rule tells you how to treat it, anything beyond that is assumption and conjecture.

By RAW, what happens when it breaks coherency?

Second point, you will have to prove where a crewman is counted as being armed with that weapon for the rest of the game. You can't use the main rule book rules because neither crewmen are armed with that weapon in there basic profile. In the army list section, it just says two Guardians are updgraded to a weapons team. Furthermore, let's look at the rules:

I will cover this is a second...

"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 are killed the platform is removed. The platform model itself is always ignored, including when measuring ranges to the unit. It is essentially a marker; assume that the gun is actually carried by the crew member that is firing it."

I've changed the emphasis on your last bold point above. That is because, right there in black and white, the rule tells us that someone who fires the weapon is armed with it. By the main rules, a model armed with a weapon can not then "hand off" that weapon to another model. I've already explained this in detail--I suggest you check the body of the main rules, since you're obviously exempting them.

The rule gives precedent that either crewmen can operate it by the line "If one crewman is killed the platform is operated as normal by the other crewman".

The rule never says that the firing crewman is "armed" with the weapon, just that you assume he is carrying it when you fire the gun.

Um...do you read your own posts?

Furthermore, there is no restriction in the rule that says only one specific crewman can fire it through out the game. You choose one crewman to fire the weapon, next turn you still choose one crewman to fire the weapon, whether it was the same one previous or not.

And again I state...THE MAIN RULES ARE STILL APPLICABLE. You have not addressed my arguments where I present this line of logic as a falsehood.

Stop mis-quoting the rule especially now that it has been dictated to you twice. There is no "armed with the weapon Guardians", no "you must maintain coherency to fire it" or whatever invented reason you have that makes the rules operated the way you feel is "right".

You and skyth are both dictating your own version of the rule. Neither of you is referencing what the rules actually tell us, within the confines of GW's policy for rules interpretation. If you choose to be deaf to GW, then so be it.

With that I exit this thread.

...without proving a damn thing...

Just lock this thread. CE doesn't want to hear what the rules actually say. He just wants to keep on repeating the same made-up junk ad naseum.

Thanks for stating another useless opinion of yours Skyth.

You may want to look up a particular psychological principle known as "projection..."