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.

This one is easy, they fire separately, they are 2 different weapons. If they fire together (the Tau pulse gun things for example) then they are one system.

Since on the LR the side sponsons can fire at separate targets with machine spirit, that would shoot down even the last trace of an arguement that sponsons are a single weapon.


Sliggoth

I think the consensus on this thread is clear. However, I am deeply disturbed that people thought the 2 sponsons were removed as one unit in a weapon destroyed situation.

Really, why waste the ink to print 2 lines for what can be said in 1 line. Secondly, by not having 2 lines written for a line item cost we don't see 1 sponson Leman Russ tanks out there. Which would therefore require a third line to be printed to state you can't take just 1 sponson, and a following erratta / faq printed 9 months later, AND hours on a forum arguing how 1 sponson weapons make no sense.

So, to be clear, 1 purchase cost, 2 separate weapons, 2 separate damage removals.

No place in C:SM does it call it a weapon system, or tell you that you have purchased two guns that can't function without each other. The requirement is simply that if you get two guns for one price, one mounted on each side. They do not give you an option to purchase only one gun. One is not required for the other to work; one is required to purchase the other.

There is no requirement that is specific to the gun profile or the vehicle profile to require them firing on the same target, or both firing together at all. The only requirement that governs the predator in this regard is the standard generic "can't split your fire" rule. If you are trying to claim that makes them a weapon system (which is a made up term in the predators case), then the turret weapon would be part of your mythical weapon system as well, since it is required to fire at the same target as the side sponson weapons.

What examples are there of any guns that are purchased together and destroyed together besides a twin-linked gun?

Flexen wrote:I think the consensus on this thread is clear. However, I am deeply disturbed that people thought the 2 sponsons were removed as one unit in a weapon destroyed situation.

Really, why waste the ink to print 2 lines for what can be said in 1 line. Secondly, by not having 2 lines written for a line item cost we don't see 1 sponson Leman Russ tanks out there. Which would therefore require a third line to be printed to state you can't take just 1 sponson, and a following erratta / faq printed 9 months later, AND hours on a forum arguing how 1 sponson weapons make no sense.

So, to be clear, 1 purchase cost, 2 separate weapons, 2 separate damage removals.

I am deeply disturbed that you are deeply disturbed about a trivial subject. Please lighten up. This is a game of toy soldiers.

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaaihn wrote:No place in C:SM does it call it a weapon system, or tell you that you have purchased two guns that can't function without each other. The requirement is simply that if you get two guns for one price, one mounted on each side. They do not give you an option to purchase only one gun. One is not required for the other to work; one is required to purchase the other.

There is no requirement that is specific to the gun profile or the vehicle profile to require them firing on the same target, or both firing together at all. The only requirement that governs the predator in this regard is the standard generic "can't split your fire" rule. If you are trying to claim that makes them a weapon system (which is a made up term in the predators case), then the turret weapon would be part of your mythical weapon system as well, since it is required to fire at the same target as the side sponson weapons.

What examples are there of any guns that are purchased together and destroyed together besides a twin-linked gun?

If a DCCW is destroyed do you also remove the gun attached to it such as a melta or heavy flamer?

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:If a DCCW is destroyed do you also remove the gun attached to it such as a melta or heavy flamer?

You mean the weapon that has the explicit notation that the melta, flamer, or storm bolter is a built-in weapon? Of course. Thank you for pointing out the precedence within the same codex. The Predator has no such notation that the side sponsons are "built-in" together, and thus would not be destroyed together.

Kaaihn wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:If a DCCW is destroyed do you also remove the gun attached to it such as a melta or heavy flamer?

You mean the weapon that has the explicit notation that the melta, flamer, or storm bolter is a built-in weapon? Of course. Thank you for pointing out the precedence within the same codex. The Predator has no such notation that the side sponsons are "built-in" together, and thus would not be destroyed together.

QFT.

green Blow Fly needs to read the rules a little better before talking methinks.

There is nothing in the rules to support that they are either one or two weapon systems. A consensus here is nice but not conclusive.

In regards to the DCCW query I was just throwing your camp a little bone to chew on Gwar. Have at it mate.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:There is nothing in the rules to support that they are either one or two weapon systems. A consensus here is nice but not conclusive.

In regards to the DCCW query I was just throwing your camp a little bone to chew on Gwar. Have at it mate.

G

Actually, the DCCW weapon case is crystal clear.
Page 73: If the walker suffers a weapon destroyed result and the player chooses the close combat weapon, the walker loses the bonuses conferred by the Dreadnought close combat weapon (and any other weapon built into the same arm).

Can you explain to me why you think sponsons are 1 Weapon even though there are two of them, they have different Arcs of fire and in the Case of the Land Raider can even fire at different targets?

G, I think you are a great guy and all, but that sponson weapons are 1 weapon idea is nuts (no offense). I have never even heard of this before. I have played in 3 different countries and several different stores too. But your not the only one that plays it that way from this thread, its neat to see how other people play.

Honestly, there is no rule anywhere that I have seen that either claimed that they are one weapon or separate weapons. To me, it seems pretty logical that because they operate *independently* of each other, regardless that they are bought together means the can be destroyed *independently* from each other as well.

And for the fact that GW goes through lengths to tell us that certain weapons (DCCW/built in weapon and co-axle weapons) are in fact destroyed with the other 'main' weapon kinda points to the 'default' being that we must assume unless specified otherwise that other *independent* weapons must be treated separately when it comes to 'weapon destroyed' results.

It doesnt matter how many people you have played that play it that way... there could be many more that play it my way for all we know.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:It doesnt matter how many people you have played that play it that way... there could be many more that play it my way for all we know.

G

No, there isn't.

I used to think that both sponsons were removed in a Weapon Destroyed result because they are often bought as a set.

Then I read the rules and realized that there is no basis for that position whatsoever.

Green Blow Fly wrote:It doesnt matter how many people you have played that play it that way... there could be many more that play it my way for all we know.

G

We accept the rules as the only method of gaming and that is all we consider on this forum. If you like to make up your own rules, this isn't the right forum. GBF is just arguing to argue.

I think he actually gets these ideas that make sense to him, believes he's "got it" so to speak, and then refuses to change his position for fear of losing face on the internet.

sourclams wrote:I think he actually gets these ideas that make sense to him, believes he's "got it" so to speak, and then refuses to change his position for fear of losing face on the internet.

he should Browse /b/ for a while. Crushes your self esteem and makes you not care really.

I am always right you know
And when I do make an Error, I admit it (as rare as those are )

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I play sponsons as one weapons system but on a result of weapon destroyed they are both gone.

G

Yeah but you never play by the rules anyway.

QFT.

I lol'd

Green Blow Fly wrote:
You know in all the years I have been playing I have never seen anyone model a tank with only one side sponson.
G

I used to play a kid who had a predator with one HB and one LC sponson. I couldn't bring myself to tell him that he'd glued his pride an joy into an illegal (and fugly) abomination.

I say when I am wrong. In this case there is a circle jerk in progress. You already have your pivot man so I won't participate.

G

Oh yes you will. For the simple reason that you need to have the last word.

No you do.



G

I've never seen two sponson weapons treated as being destoryed by one Weapon Destoryed result.

And here's the last word:

Sniekies!

Gwar! wrote:

Mad Rabbit wrote:Yes, any two non twin-linked weapons are 100% separate, regardless of whether they were purchased together or not. It's ridiculous to say that your weapon destroyed result is going to destroy two weapons on different sides of the tank at once.

But the Flux Capacitor was hit with the enemies Inverted Tachyon Beam which reversed the Polarity of the Positronic Circuitry causing a Cascade Failure in the Main Deflector Dish Captain!

I don't know which part is even my favorite. Maybe the one where Gwar referred to me as "Captain."

Carry on, Ensign.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I say when I am wrong. In this case there is a circle jerk in progress. You already have your pivot man so I won't participate.

G

Actually its more like a anal rape and your the star.

Say that to my ass cannon when you try to stick it in I'll blow it off... not like you have much to contribute anyways.

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh snap.

GBF - if you sided with chaos, you would have a REAPER Ass cannon!

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Flexen wrote:I think the consensus on this thread is clear. However, I am deeply disturbed that people thought the 2 sponsons were removed as one unit in a weapon destroyed situation.

Really, why waste the ink to print 2 lines for what can be said in 1 line. Secondly, by not having 2 lines written for a line item cost we don't see 1 sponson Leman Russ tanks out there. Which would therefore require a third line to be printed to state you can't take just 1 sponson, and a following erratta / faq printed 9 months later, AND hours on a forum arguing how 1 sponson weapons make no sense.

So, to be clear, 1 purchase cost, 2 separate weapons, 2 separate damage removals.

I am deeply disturbed that you are deeply disturbed about a trivial subject. Please lighten up. This is a game of toy soldiers.

G

I am also disturbed by you GBF, mostly because you seem to lack any ability to critically examine your starting assumptions and recognize when you are in error despite blatantly obvious and clear text. That is disturbing because one assumes that you can vote, and the possibility of others like you being majority tyrants is horrifying.

BTW how would (for example) a lascannon shot destroy each sponson (at the same time) without damaging the rest of the tank?

Kapitan Montag wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:
You know in all the years I have been playing I have never seen anyone model a tank with only one side sponson.
G

I used to play a kid who had a predator with one HB and one LC sponson. I couldn't bring myself to tell him that he'd glued his pride an joy into an illegal (and fugly) abomination.

Hey, if he was paying for LC sponsons I would let him have it.