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.

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


Call me confused.

Well, maybe I misread C.

Basically, I move the platform at the same rate as the guardians. Not just warp it to the other one.

To tell the truth, when I walked over and watched Phil play, I really didn't play close enough attention to what he was doing with his guardians, and the only intent question I had for him was if he meant the Avatar to be scoring (he did).

I would say D but with a twist.

I would play it so that each of the two crew must try to stay in coherency with the weapon at all times if possible and only a crew member in coherency with the gun would be allowed to fire it in the shooting phase.

I just cant understand why eldar would sudenly get a teleporting grav platform.
I meen there is a model to represent the gun with, why not use it.

Stelek-

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

Sigged for classy Self Defence.

RAW doesn't mean that you ignore the main rulebook where a specific codex-based rule doesn't specify its own rules in exception to the normal set.

Therefore, B is closest to the raw. I'm curious why Stelek thinks that it is A.

Option A means that the qualifier at the end of the platform entry is redundant--the phrase that allows the "other" guardian to operate the weapon if one dies is entirely unnecessary if "either" guardian can fire the platform at any time.

Secondly, allowing the guardians to "juggle" the gun like this violates the precedent set in the "models" and "torrent of fire" rules, where it is made fairly clear that individual models carry individual wargear, and this wargear cannot be "switched" later on to other models. Option A breaks "torrent of fire," because it's assuming without rules to back it up that models can freely switch the wargear they are assumed to be armed with. The guardian platform entry doesn't explicitly allow juggling the weapon model like this, because it specifies "one" crewman, and never states that that "one" can be changed except if a crewman is removed as a casualty.

EDIT: To add, I chose option B, if you didn't assume that already. I'm surprised that the majority went with D so far, as it's furthest from the rule and depends on making up your own restrictions. I'm surprised that the majority of players here at Dakka are so willing to deviate so far from the wrote of the rules. Perhaps it's due to the "old editionism" so often found among long-time veterans.

It's pretty sad that we can't even agree on what the term "RAW" means/implies/includes...

EDIT 2: I need to add that GW staff, especially games developers, playing a rule a certain way doesn't mean diddly unless they release a statement as a studio that that's how it should be played (a FAQ). There are countless instances of GW staff, both games designers and others, having essentially no clue what the actual rulebooks say, or what the RAW actually means.

ColonelEllios wrote:Secondly, allowing the guardians to "juggle" the gun like this violates the precedent set in the "models" and "torrent of fire" rules, where it is made fairly clear that individual models carry individual wargear,

Both the Eldar Codex and the Guard Codex grant heavy weapons to two models. That's no more 'violating a precedent' than any other codex-specific rule. It's simply an army specific rule that makes their heavy weapons a little more durable.

I'm surprised that the majority of players here at Dakka are so willing to deviate so far from the wrote of the rules. Perhaps it's due to the "old editionism" so often found among long-time veterans.

Or perhaps it's simply because most players, regardless of how they argue RAW on discussion boards, prefer their games to actually make some sort of sense.

I kind of think they should all be modeled on one base like IG heavy weapons, but then I don't like much of anything about the Eldar grav platform rules as I have seen them. The crew being in coherency with the gun, which is what LOS is drawn to and from just makes so much sense, and is so easy, I don't know why they didn't just make it that.

insaniak wrote:Both the Eldar Codex and the Guard Codex grant heavy weapons to two models. That's no more 'violating a precedent' than any other codex-specific rule. It's simply an army specific rule that makes their heavy weapons a little more durable.

If we're discussing the RAW, you're only partially correct. The Guard Codex, through the use of slipshod grammar, grants two models a heavy weapon. The Eldar codex does not. While it's true that the two Guardians form a weapon crew, we are told to "assume that the guardian firing the weapon is carrying it." To continue to beat a dead horse, since "one" guardian may fire the gun (leaving the other to fire his catapult) and is carrying it, we officially have one crewman who is armed with both a catapult and the heavy weapon, who cannot except upon pain of death switch said heavy (or assault) weapon to any other model. This "one" guardian armed with two weapons is for all intents and purposes treated like any normal model from any other codex that allows individual models to purchase upgrades.

ColonelEllios wrote:While it's true that the two Guardians form a weapon crew, we are told to "assume that the guardian firing the weapon is carrying it."

But we're not told that the same crewman carries it the entire game. Instead, it simply tells us that one of them fires the heavy weapon, and the other can fire his shuricat. There is no requirement for the one or the other to be the same Guardian each turn.

Shooting phase 1: One of the two can fire the heavy weapon, the other may fire his shuricat.
Shooting phase 2: One of the two can fire the heavy weapon, the other may fire his shuricat.
Rinse and repeat.

This is indeed different from the normal rules, which have one weapon and one model. The codex gives us two models with the weapon, and allows one of them to fire the heavy weapon each turn.

Same situation as the Guard HW team, but better written, since the Eldar codex actually goes to the trouble of explaining that only one of them can fire the weapon each turn.

Claiming that the one model keeps the weapon until he dies is adding a rule that doesn't actually exist. The way the entry is written, you can choose who has it every turn.

colonelellios wrote:RAW doesn't mean that you ignore the main rulebook where a specific codex-based rule doesn't specify its own rules in exception to the normal set.

I'm afraid your interpretation isn't backed up by any rules Insaniak. Because a rule doesn't specifically disallow something doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want. 40k relies upon a permissive rule set. The platform entry says that "one" guardian may fire (and carry) the heavy weapon. Nothing indicates that that "one" is subject to change. If what you say is true, the caveat that the "other" gunner can use the weapon if one dies is redundant. Did you even read my post, or are you just responding to one thing that you disagree with out of context? Taking the guardian platform rule out of context of the rest of the game system is exactly what your interpretation requires, and that, sir, is bullox.

You're essentially claiming that "it doesn't say I can't..." which is never a defensible position when interpreting a rule set. It shows a distinct lack of understanding of how to apply rules to the game.

insaniak wrote:This is indeed different from the normal rules, which have one weapon and one model. The codex gives us two models with the weapon, and allows one of them to fire the heavy weapon each turn.

We must not be reading the same codex. I responded to this point earlier. Absolutely nothing about the platform entry gives any indication that the "firing model" is subject to change from turn to turn, and the main rulebook backs this assertion up. Just like any model that buys specific wargear, the crewman "carrying" the heavy weapon is indeed stuck with it until the end of the game, or until he is slain and the "if one crewman is slain" caveat comes into play.

If only that's how the Eldar rules were written, Ellios.

If only the main rulebook's rules weren't always trumped by Codex rules, Ellios.

Those two facts alone invalidate your very wordy arguments.

The fact that you're writing hundreds of words to describe how you feel a very short rule should be re-interpreted is usually also what I like to call "a sign".

ColonelEllios wrote:The platform entry says that "one" guardian may fire (and carry) the heavy weapon. Nothing indicates that that "one" is subject to change.

Dude, you just argued "it doesn't say I can't".

You're essentially claiming that "it doesn't say I can't..." which is never a defensible position when interpreting a rule set. It shows a distinct lack of understanding of how to apply rules to the game.

And you're essentially creating a restriction that isn't supported by the rules under any common interpretation.

The platform rules are specific to a firing phrase, and don't have a game-level persistence.

If you were right (and you're not), the rule would be worded more like this:

"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 (specify this crewman at the start of the game); if the one crewman is killed, the platform is operated as normal by the other crewman; if both crew are killed the platform is removed.

Line of sight and range are always drawn from the firing crew member. 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."

But that's not what the rule says, and you inserting rules that don't exist doesn't change the actual wording.

ColonelEllios wrote: You're essentially claiming that "it doesn't say I can't..."

Nonsense. What I'm claiming is that the rules tell us that one model may fire the heavy weapon, while the other fires his shuricat... which is what the rules actually say.

What you're claiming is that one model may fire the heavy weapon for the entire game, while the other fires his shuricat for the entire game... and this is not actually backed up by rules at all.

I responded to this point earlier.

That doesn't make you right...

Stelek wrote:If only that's how the Eldar rules were written, Ellios.

Where have I differed from the rule? I'd appreciate you pointing it out.

stelek wrote:If only the main rulebook's rules weren't always trumped by Codex rules, Ellios.

According to GW's RAW policy, Codex-specific rules trump the main rules where specifically noted. The guardian platform entry gives us a handful of rules that retain significance only in the context of the main rule set. That is to say, the main rules apply in all areas that the specific codex rule doesn't cover. Swapping weapons between phases or turns is one of these areas. This nonsense held up as "RAW" that seems to indicate that RAW means that you choose between rulebooks is entirely wrong. All of the rules exist in an interlacing matrix, and overlap here and there. You couldn't play a game of 40k with just your codexes.

insaniak wrote:Nonsense. What I'm claiming is that the rules tell us that one model may fire the heavy weapon, while the other fires his shuricat... which is what the rules actually say.

That's all they say. Where is your justification for allowing the "firing" crew member to be changed? "one crewman may fire" does not equal "either crewman may fire." I hope this is clear to you. To put it in other words, if we label the crewmen crewman A and crewman B, then by the rules we must choose "one" crewman to "fire" and thus "carry" the weapon. Assuming that crewman A can pass said weapon to crewman B--with the sole exception in the event of casualty--is a farse, not supported by any rules anywhere.

insaniak wrote:What you're claiming is that one model may fire the heavy weapon for the entire game, while the other fires his shuricat for the entire game... and this is not actually backed up by rules at all.

Actually, I'm not claiming that. The main rulebook indicates that this is so. You can prove it to yourself, because were it not so, rules that target individual models in order to remove their wargear (like torrent of fire) would cease to work. A model has a weapon, and that weapon cannot be "given" to another model. This is a basic tenet of the game. Otherwise we'd have space marines swapping missile launchers and lascannons around turn by turn to get the best LOS from the area occupied by every member of the unit (since any member could fire the weapon, under your interpretation.) I just don't see the justification in the text for allowing this for Guardians.

Re: JohnHWang: Sorry if my responses are too wordy for you. I've discussed this before, and only absolutely explicit explanations prevent muddying the waters further.

ColonelEllios wrote:That's all they say. Where is your justification for allowing the "firing" crew member to be changed?

He's not changed. He's selected each firing phase.

Once again:

Shooting phase 1: One of the two can fire the heavy weapon, the other may fire his shuricat.
Shooting phase 2: One of the two can fire the heavy weapon, the other may fire his shuricat.
Rinse and repeat.

That's the rules as actually presented, without anything extra added by creative imagination.

A model has a weapon, and that weapon cannot be "given" to another model.

...except in the case of Guard and Eldar heavy weapons, who have two-model 'teams' who share a weapon.


Once again, the codex over-rides the rulebook. No matter how many times you insist that the rulebook somehow magically trumps the codex in this situation, that simple fact won't change.

insaniak wrote:
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.

I disagree. I interpret the rule that LOS and range is worked out from the firer due the limits of the targeting equipment as shown on the model itself. I have no problem believing that an army replete with grav units that can move 24" per turn has a grav sled that can move to the necessary firing point to affect the shot on each and every turn.

I voted option A btw.

insaniak wrote:

ColonelEllios wrote:That's all they say. Where is your justification for allowing the "firing" crew member to be changed?

He's not changed. He's selected each firing phase.

Absolutely no basis in the written rules. I've already proven this, I won't cover it again. You, sir, are the one "adding extra."

insaniak wrote:What you're claiming is that one model may fire the heavy weapon for the entire game, while the other fires his shuricat for the entire game...

And how is this wrong? Isn't this the case with every other model in the game? Why would you assume that the Eldar codex breaks this precedent that applies to all other armies save IG? The platform rule doesn't explicitly allow it, therefore your only reasonable course of action is to apply the normal rules for a model upgraded with a heavy weapon.

A model has a weapon, and that weapon cannot be "given" to another model.

...except in the case of Guard and Eldar heavy weapons, who have two-model 'teams' who share a weapon.


Once again, the codex over-rides the rulebook. No matter how many times you insist that the rulebook somehow magically trumps the codex in this situation, that simple fact won't change.

No matter how many times you insist that your fabricated rules apply to this situation, the fact that the rules don't say what you say won't change.

As I've already stated:
1) The eldar codex does not grant a weapon to two models simultaneously. The Guard codex does, and it's an entirely different issue from a different codex.
2) I have justified my assertions with rules. All you've done is shout your assertions at the rest of us, without referencing any rules that support you.

ColonelEllios wrote:The main rulebook indicates that this is so. You can prove it to yourself, because were it not so, rules that target individual models in order to remove their wargear (like torrent of fire) would cease to work. A model has a weapon, and that weapon cannot be "given" to another model. This is a basic tenet of the game. Otherwise we'd have space marines swapping missile launchers and lascannons around turn by turn to get the best LOS from the area occupied by every member of the unit (since any member could fire the weapon, under your interpretation.) I just don't see the justification in the text for allowing this for Guardians.

Re: JohnHWang: Sorry if my responses are too wordy for you. I've discussed this before, and only absolutely explicit explanations prevent muddying the waters further.

Your argument is that the Rulebook takes precedence even when the Codex specifically states otherwise?

That isn't supported by the rules at all, because the current 40k Rulebook specifically states that rules in Codices override the Rulebook.

The issue with SM Lascannons not shifting owners is because the SM Codex doesn't say that you can.

On the other hand, the Eldar Codex specifically says that the crewmen share the AGP and that either crewman can fire the weapon, so that is the new rule. What the main rulebook says about sharing weapons is not relevant because the Codex overrides the Rulebook.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

ColonelEllios wrote:The main rulebook indicates that this is so. You can prove it to yourself, because were it not so, rules that target individual models in order to remove their wargear (like torrent of fire) would cease to work. A model has a weapon, and that weapon cannot be "given" to another model. This is a basic tenet of the game. Otherwise we'd have space marines swapping missile launchers and lascannons around turn by turn to get the best LOS from the area occupied by every member of the unit (since any member could fire the weapon, under your interpretation.) I just don't see the justification in the text for allowing this for Guardians.

Re: JohnHWang: Sorry if my responses are too wordy for you. I've discussed this before, and only absolutely explicit explanations prevent muddying the waters further.

Your argument is that the Rulebook takes precedence even when the Codex specifically states otherwise?

That isn't supported by the rules at all, because the current 40k Rulebook specifically states that rules in Codices override the Rulebook.

The issue with SM Lascannons not shifting owners is because the SM Codex doesn't say that you can.

On the other hand, the Eldar Codex specifically says that the crewmen share the AGP and that either crewman can fire the weapon, so that is the new rule. What the main rulebook says about sharing weapons is not relevant because the Codex overrides the Rulebook.

This is a blatant failure of reading comprehension, for all the reasons and all the rules I've already referenced.
1) The codex doesn't state "either."
2) The codex DOES NOT give you permission to switch the "firing crewmember" at any time, except for casualty, but rather clearly designates ONE crewman as the "firing" model, subject to change only upon death.

Taking codex rules out of context, in isolation from the normal rule set where the codex rule doesn't specifically state that you should, is a blatant failure to understand the RAW policy.

ColonelEllios wrote:You, sir, are the one "adding extra."

The codex says:
"One crewman may fire the platform instead of his shuriken catapult, the other may shoot with his own weapon freely"

Insaniak says:
"One of the two can fire the heavy weapon, the other may fire his shuricat. "


So, sorry, what have I added, exactly?

I'm insisting that when the codex says 'one model' it means 'one model'... while you're insisting that 'one model' means 'the same model each turn, because the rulebook over-rides the codex...'

And I'm the one fabricating rules...?

Isn't this the case with every other model in the game?

No.

Why would you assume that the Eldar codex breaks this precedent that applies to all other armies save IG?

Er... because that's what codexes are for...

The platform rule doesn't explicitly allow it

Yes it does. By specifying only 'one model' instead of 'the same model each turn'

If either model is firing the platform and the other is firing their shuricat, then one model is firing the platform and the other is firing his shuricat.

2) I have justified my assertions with rules. All you've done is shout your assertions at the rest of us, without referencing any rules that support you.

No, you've justified your assertion by claiming that the rulebook over-rides the codex, while I've referenced the codex and assumed that what it says is what it actually means.

But this is getting tedious. We can go on each insisting that the other is fabricating rules all week, and ultimately it won't change the way either of us play it... which is what the thread was actually about.

ColonelEllios wrote:This is a blatant failure of reading comprehension,

That is a nice admission on your part.

1) The codex doesn't state "either."
2) The codex DOES NOT give you permission to switch the "firing crewmember" at any time, except for casualty, but rather clearly designates ONE crewman as the "firing" model, subject to change only upon death.

1. The Codex states "one", for which the most relevant scope is (when firing). It does not state that "one crewman must be nominated at the start of the game for the entirety of the game". If you can show where this is stated, then I'd agree with you.

2. The Codex says you pick one crewman at the time you fire. There is no restriction as you suggest, and therefore no permission would ever be needed. There is no notion of turn-to-turn designation of which crewman this is - that is something that you're pulling out of thin air.

The only reason GW has the whole "one may fire..." bit is so that you don't have retards trying to have each crewman individually fire the heavy weapon for a total of 2 usages per firing phase. The Eldar rule specifically prohibits dual usage of the heavy weapon. Or have you forgotten *that* whole argument?

JohnHwangDD wrote:The only reason GW has the whole "one may fire..." bit is so that you don't have retards trying to have each crewman individually fire the heavy weapon for a total of 2 usages per firing phase. The Eldar rule specifically prohibits dual usage of the heavy weapon. Or have you forgotten *that* whole argument?

That's an argument relevant only to the IG codex. The "one may fire" is not subject to change on a turn-to-turn basis. Why would you assume that it is?

insaniak wrote:So, sorry, what have I added, exactly?

I'm insisting that when the codex says 'one model' it means 'one model'... while you're insisting that 'one model' means 'the same model each turn, because the rulebook over-rides the codex...'

And I'm the one fabricating rules...?

"One model" means, by definition, one model for the entire game. The rule doesn't have to say "at the start of the game, nominate a model..." It's intrinsic to the rule itself. As I said before, if we're going to label your crewmen A and B, and you fire with A on turn one, there is nothing in the Eldar codex which indicates that B can then fire the weapon at any other time, unless A is killed. This is because of, and only because of, the forced assumption that the "crewman firing the weapon is assumed to be carrying it." That single phrase is what gives my argument weight, and indicates that we should be using the BGB in conjunction with the platform rule itself to really figure out how it all works. Which is exactly the process that you use in pretty much every codex and every entry. RAW doesn't exempt you from that.

This is why and where the rulebook takes precedent. What you've quoted above is entirely correct; where you make your mistake is in assuming that the "firing model" is conditional on a turn-by-turn basis. This simply isn't defensible, because the model is said to be "carrying" the weapon. Since GW included the caveat of "the other crewman may fire if one is killed," we can only assume that until one crewman is killed, that one and only one of them may fire the weapon. This has the effect of, if neither crewman is killed during the course of a game, forcing one model to carry the weapon until the game ends. The only instance, by the RAW, where you are allowed to switch which crewman is the "one" "firing" and "carrying" the weapon is in the case of death. Why on earth would you assume otherwise? By your logic, according to the RAW, Imperial Guard weapon teams apparently get two weapons for one point cost, since "both" crew are armed with "the weapon." But, thanks to the main rulebook, we see that the wargear actually represented on the physical model is important. In this way, by using the main body of rules, you can reach a reasonable and just interpretation of an otherwise ambiguous codex rule.

I'll say it again because it doesn't seem to be getting through: RAW means nothing if taken out of context of the main rules. The fact that a codex rule "takes precedent" over a rule from the BGB doesn't mean that you ignore the BGB. The BGB still applies in every single way that the codex rule doesn't explicitly state as being in some way unique or "in exception to" the main rules. While the Guardian Platform entry is in fact unique, it is not somehow exempt from the rules that I've referenced, because it does not explicitly say so; it even goes on to specify that a model is assumed to be "carrying" the weapon, which indicates that all the normal rules for models carrying specific wargear applies--the codex rule itself is telling us to reference the BGB. (the rules asserting that a model carries the weapon, in addition to the whole casualty caveat, lose all meaning if we're not applying the BGB rules in any way (which therefore wouldn't be interpreting the RAW))

Edited for clarity...

ColonelEllios wrote:"One model" means, by definition, one model for the entire game.

By which definition?

That's the part you're fabricating. There is no such definition.

'One model may fire' means, very simply, 'one model may fire'

There is no other definition provided by the rules.

As I said before, if we're going to label your crewmen A and B, and you fire with A on turn one, there is nothing in the Eldar codex which indicates that B can then fire the weapon at any other time,

...except for the fact that the platform entry says 'one model' rather than 'model A'

This is because of, and only because of, the forced assumption that the "crewman firing the weapon is assumed to be carrying it." That single phrase is what gives my argument weight

Not a lot of it.

The crewman firing the gun is assumed to be carrying it. So if 'A' fires it this turn, he's assumed to be carrying it this turn. If 'B' fires it next turn, he's assumed to be carrying it next turn. If he dies, 'A' can still fire it, at which point he is considered to be carrying it.

Nowhere does it suggest that 'A' has to carry it for the entire game if he fires it once.

Since GW included the caveat of "the other crewman may fire if one is killed," we can only assume that until one crewman is killed, that one and only one of them may fire the weapon.

Or, we could simply assume that when they said that the other model can fire it if the model carrying it is killed, they simply meant that the other model may fire it if the one carrying it is killed.

Nothing in that statement limits the weapon to only being carried by one of them for the entire game.

By this logic, according to the RAW, Imperial Guard weapon teams apparently get two weapons for one point cost, since "both" crew are armed with "the weapon."

Well of course they do.

The fact that your version makes more sense in that situation doesn't make it RAW.

I'll say it again because it doesn't seem to be getting through: RAW means nothing taken out of context of the main rules.

And I'll say it, because it also doesn't seem to have sunk in yet: Making up rules doesn't make them RAW.

ColonelEllios wrote:"One model" means, by definition, one model for the entire game.

Nope. "One model" means "one indvidual model, as opposed to two (or more) separate models".

Ya know... after reading ColonelEllios' argument, I find myself swayed by his argument.

It all depends on how a person wants to interpret the word "one" when they use it in the rule.

Let's make the assumption (for argument's sake) that "one" refers to crewman A, who will be firing the weapon. Now let's start fisking.

"One crewman may fire the platform instead of his shuriken catapult" (so crewman A has a choice)
"the other may shoot with his own weapon freely" (so he can't fire the weapon, nor is he prohibitted from firing his shuri-cat if the platform is firing)
"Line of sight and range are always drawn from the firing crew member." (The firing crew member was determined to be "one" by the assumed definition... specifically, crewman A)
"If one crewman is killed" (assumed to be crewman A) "the platform is operated as normal by the other crewman;" (So now you can switch)
"if both crew are killed the platform is removed" (well, duh)
"The platform model itself is always ignored.. etc..." (this part really isn't germain to the argument, and I don't feel like typing it)
"It is essentially a marker; assume that the gun is actually carried by the crew member that is firing it." (which we assumed meant crewman A).

If you make that 100% completely correct assumption of the usage of the word "one" from common English vernacular.... then Option B is the correct one.

Now before you other guys jump on me... it's also 100% correct, using common English vernacular, for "one crewman" to mean "1 of 2, non-specific", at which time Option A is the correct one.

So, once again, GW's rules leave some ambiguity. It all depends on just how restrictive you feel "one" is.

I still think C is the most common sense option though.

*edited to add pretty colors*

EDIT: I wanted to add that even the usage of "one; non-explicit" would still require you to choose one of two. Not ever "either." While this is indeed one of the meanings of the word "one," either usage of it is irrelevant once you realize that one of the models is "assumed to be carrying" a weapon, and is therefore treated just like any other model with unique wargear in a squad; weapon crew or no.
---continue original post---
To elaborate, the two crew in a weapon team are two different models. They are not interchangeable, and rhetorically labeling them A or B is entirely sound. The two models, as packaged in the blister, are in fact even different looking.

So, being that the proper interpretation of a rule is always that which breaketh no precedent and desists from allowing wacky things to happen (such as heavy weapons being tossed between models), the conservative choice is often the correct one.

johnhwangDD wrote:"One model" means "one indvidual model, as opposed to two (or more) separate models"

Didn't that just prove my point? One, as opposed to two. Since they are indeed different models, we must choose. "One for the rest of the game" is implicit as one potential outcome of said RAW, and therefore, by definition in the execution of these rules, means exactly what I said.

Because we have two different crew models, and we are instructed that "one" is indeed "carrying" said weapon, and the platform entry fails to specify that said "one" model is somehow exempt from the normal rules for single models with unique wargear, and there you have the proper interpretation based on the contiguous RAW, as applicable considering all relevant texts.

No, it didn't, because you are wrong.

It is very simple:

If GW intended the player to specify which model it was, unique to the Eldar, then they would have told the player to do so.

If GW intended the crewmen to be interchangeable then there is no need to specify.

Whether the models are the same or not makes no difference.

And the "assume carrying" is scoped only toward the LOS bit.

To try and create things that don't exist is nonsense.

And with that, I'm done with this.

insaniak wrote:

ColonelEllios wrote:"One model" means, by definition, one model for the entire game.

By which definition?

That's the part you're fabricating. There is no such definition.

'One model may fire' means, very simply, 'one model may fire'

There is no other definition provided by the rules.

I'll try and do this quickly, to fairly address your points. I'm sorry my first statement was too obtuse for you. In the execution of the RAW regarding guardian platforms, "one model" means, in practice, one model for the entire game, unless the caveat clause takes effect.

insaniak wrote:

As I said before, if we're going to label your crewmen A and B, and you fire with A on turn one, there is nothing in the Eldar codex which indicates that B can then fire the weapon at any other time,

...except for the fact that the platform entry says 'one model' rather than 'model A'

I'm not sure I want to touch this one, but I'll give it a go. The two models are different, for the crewman, if you've ever examined an eldar platform blister pack. This should give you an indication that labeling them "model A" and "model B," for the purposes of debate, is entirely justified in order to address the fact that it's easy to lose sight of the foundation in reality that these rules actually have. When you have two seperate models, one of which is carrying specialized wargear, you cannot "swap" wargear between those models. Nothing in the platform entry exempts crewman from this restriction with exception to the caveat "death" clause. If they had modelled the guardian crewman with one of them with a starcannon slung on his back, I'm sure you wouldn't see anyone using "Option A" in the poll above. This small stretch of the imagination is essentially what the platform rule instructs us to accept.

insaniak wrote:

This is because of, and only because of, the forced assumption that the "crewman firing the weapon is assumed to be carrying it." That single phrase is what gives my argument weight

Not a lot of it.

Opinion. My argument is founded in fact. You have failed to rebut this reference.

insaniak wrote:The crewman firing the gun is assumed to be carrying it. So if 'A' fires it this turn, he's assumed to be carrying it this turn. If 'B' fires it next turn, he's assumed to be carrying it next turn. If he dies, 'A' can still fire it, at which point he is considered to be carrying it.

Nowhere does it suggest that 'A' has to carry it for the entire game if he fires it once.

Where do you keep getting these implications of "turns" somehow interacting with this rule? Who is making things up, here? Think a minute, before you respond to that one.

insaniak wrote:

Since GW included the caveat of "the other crewman may fire if one is killed," we can only assume that until one crewman is killed, that one and only one of them may fire the weapon.

Or, we could simply assume that when they said that the other model can fire it if the model carrying it is killed, they simply meant that the other model may fire it if the one carrying it is killed.

Nothing in that statement limits the weapon to only being carried by one of them for the entire game.

Once again, did you read my post all the way through? The inclusion of the "death clause" is entirely redundant if the crewmen could toss the weapon back and forth as you posit. There's no such thing as a redundant rule, when you're debating RAW.

insaniak wrote:

By your logic, according to the RAW, Imperial Guard weapon teams apparently get two weapons for one point cost, since "both" crew are armed with "the weapon."

Well of course they do.

The fact that your version makes more sense in that situation doesn't make it RAW.

I changed the appropriate word in the quote above, to reflect my editing for clarity noted at the end of my last post. I think you know what I meant, but I want to set the record straight. The raw says what it says, and assuming things because "it doesn't say I can't" will never make you right.

insaniak wrote:

I'll say it again because it doesn't seem to be getting through: RAW means nothing taken out of context of the main rules.

And I'll say it, because it also doesn't seem to have sunk in yet: Making up rules doesn't make them RAW.

And still, unlike you, I have backed up my assertions with references to appropriate rules, and am not the one championing half-baked notions. You may want to literally reconsider your words, and absorb them deeply.

JohnHwangDD wrote:No, it didn't, because you are wrong.

It is very simple:

If GW intended the player to specify which model it was, unique to the Eldar, then they would have told the player to do so.

Oh, do you suppose that they would have also specified "designate a crewman to fire at the beginning of each firing phase" if that's what they intended? We can play this game all day son.

If GW intended the crewmen to be interchangeable then there is no need to specify.

Hmmm...then why do they specify "one?" Thanks for proving my point.

Whether the models are the same or not makes no difference.

Um...have you read the BGB?

And the "assume carrying" is scoped only toward the LOS bit.

Oh really? Perhaps you could educate us more on how the rules are "scoped."

ColonelEllios wrote:So, being that the proper interpretation of a rule is always that which breaketh no precedent and desists from allowing wacky things to happen

Well, that at least explains the disagreement... We're arguing RAW, and you're arguing ColonelEllios' Interpretation of what's 'proper'


Little surprise then that we don't agree...

No, rather I'm using the sportsman's argument to indicate that when you have two possible interpretations, the one that possibly allows wacky things is always the one, upon closer inspection, that turns out to be patently wrong. I'm trying to indicate to you where you should have seen the "red flag" on your interpretation. Obviously you missed it. When said "red flag" occurs, it should indicate to you that you should read all the rules, again, instead of relying on Dakkaites to explain it word for word to you.

Look, you can interpret rules any way you like, but like it or not the conservative option is always the proper one to go with, since any other option will depend on making up rules, just like yours.

You failed to separate my "fluff" from my "rules!"