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.

I would love it if they could as an IG player. I never thought they could but the thing that pretty much did it for me was when I hears someone say that " a heavy bolter is not a bolter, therefore a hot-shot las gun is not a lasgun" Totally put it in perspective for me.

The Angry Commissar wrote:my point was that why would they bother to rename it (other than GW flippancy) if they wouldnt be able to use the order?

Because Hellguns still exist until they change the DH and WH codices.


DoW

Hotshot Lasgun is no more a Lasgun than a Stormbolter is a Bolter.

And the argument about the name change is a non-starter. Of course GW "changed" the name, it is a different gun!

No. I think it's silly.

The Angry Commissar wrote:fantastic point. i never even thought about that.

The funny thing is that they even use the word 'Hellgun' later in the same paragraph describing Hot-shot Lasguns. Oh GW...

DoW

Well even if it did mean something, we cannot guess their intention in the name change. It could be trying to make the WH ones stand out and avoid confusion or it could be GW's fickle nature. However the chances of it being a suggestion that they can use FRFSRF is rather small, especially when the words "or Hotshot lasgun" in the FRFSRF rules would have made it easier.

So since a hot-shot lasgun isn't a lasgun, does that mean my assault terminators are not terminators?

Totally separate issue, and totally pointless and non-contributory to this thread.

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:Totally separate issue, and totally pointless and non-contributory to this thread.

Quite the contrary. The question of "are models in Terminator armour, in fact Terminators" is a very similar issue and has been discussed at length.

The consensus being (as far as I could tell) that even if a rule only specifically mentions 'Terminators,' you can be safe to assume they mean it to apply to all models equipped with that particular wargear, despite the fact that the reference is clearly to a specific type of unit.

In this case, one could take 'lasguns' to be referring to all types of lasguns (all types of models in terminator armour) or it could be only referring to the particular weapon known uniquely as 'Lasgun' (only applies to 'Terminators', rather than all models with Terminator armour).

I hope that explains why Timmah is referencing this related issue. It would be difficult to argue that you can stand on one side of the fence for the Terminator debate, yet be on the other side for the FRFSRF debate. If you're using the same logic for both, it seems you would need to come to a consistent resolution.

DoW

Timmah wrote:So since a hot-shot lasgun isn't a lasgun, does that mean my assault terminators are not terminators?

Yes.

DogOfWar wrote:

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:Totally separate issue, and totally pointless and non-contributory to this thread.

Quite the contrary. The question of "are models in Terminator armour, in fact Terminators" is a very similar issue and has been discussed at length.

The consensus being (as far as I could tell) that even if a rule only specifically mentions 'Terminators,' you can be safe to assume they mean it to apply to all models equipped with that particular wargear, despite the fact that the reference is clearly to a specific type of unit.

In this case, one could take 'lasguns' to be referring to all types of lasguns (all types of models in terminator armour) or it could be only referring to the particular weapon known uniquely as 'Lasgun' (only applies to 'Terminators', rather than all models with Terminator armour).

I hope that explains why Timmah is referencing this related issue. It would be difficult to argue that you can stand on one side of the fence for the Terminator debate, yet be on the other side for the FRFSRF debate. If you're using the same logic for both, it seems you would need to come to a consistent resolution.

DoW

Terminators (unit) are not the same as Assault Terminators (unit) both consist of terminators (models); both have very different weapons layouts. I'm not going to take this further as this is a head ache.

DogOfWar wrote:

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:Totally separate issue, and totally pointless and non-contributory to this thread.

Quite the contrary. The question of "are models in Terminator armour, in fact Terminators" is a very similar issue and has been discussed at length.

The consensus being (as far as I could tell) that even if a rule only specifically mentions 'Terminators,' you can be safe to assume they mean it to apply to all models equipped with that particular wargear, despite the fact that the reference is clearly to a specific type of unit.

In this case, one could take 'lasguns' to be referring to all types of lasguns (all types of models in terminator armour) or it could be only referring to the particular weapon known uniquely as 'Lasgun' (only applies to 'Terminators', rather than all models with Terminator armour).

I hope that explains why Timmah is referencing this related issue. It would be difficult to argue that you can stand on one side of the fence for the Terminator debate, yet be on the other side for the FRFSRF debate. If you're using the same logic for both, it seems you would need to come to a consistent resolution.

DoW

Well let's think about this for a second. Terminators are UNITS, not wargear. Therefore, when a rule specifies "Terminators", it is specifying units that share a unique piece of wargear: the Terminator Armor. That is a separate issue. It is different to discuss what rules pertain to a unit rather than discussing rules pertaining to a piece of equipment.

A lasgun is a piece of equipment, not a unit. A particular piece of equipment in relation to this order (otherwise it would state "all weapons with lasgun in the title") Thus, the FRFSRF order was written to pertain to that piece of equipment. The word "lasgun" in the title of the hot shot is just semantics: if they had wanted to include the hot shot then they would have written the rules to include the differences in range between the two. RAW I think it pretty clearly pertains only to lasguns, not all forms of lasguns.

Long time, sinc 2nd ed, IG player. And not just no, but hell no. I can'tbelieve that many actually voted yes.
As to why they changed the name, maybe because inquisitorial Storm Troopers still have hellguns, just maybe?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Long time, sinc 2nd ed, IG player. And not just no, but hell no. I can'tbelieve that many actually voted yes.
As to why they changed the name, maybe because inquisitorial Storm Troopers still have hellguns, just maybe?

Tri wrote:

Terminators (unit) are not the same as Assault Terminators (unit) both consist of terminators (models); both have very different weapons layouts. I'm not going to take this further as this is a head ache.

This. Otherwise my assault termis could pack heavy flamers.

Tri wrote:I'm not going to take this further as this is a head ache.

I agree, it took 13 pages of yapping to get everyone on (mostly) the same page on the 'Terminator' issue so it's not worth it to repeat the process.

If anyone truly wants to have an actual discussion (rather than just comment on this 'rule in a vacuum' and not have it have any bearing on similar situations) please read that thread and then decide what you think about how intent can be interpreted differently based on wording.

Does something that makes a specific reference to terminators (and only 'terminators', neglecting to mentioning the wargear) apply to IC wearing terminator armour?
Does a rule that negates the attack bonus for "Close Combat Weapons" also negate the attack bonus for paired "Special Close Combat Weapons"?

If you answered yes to both of these questions (as most people apparently would) why should you reverse your logic for the Lasgun issue? ICs have different statlines to Terminators, Special Close Combat Weapons have different rules to Normal Close Combat Weapons. Why should a Hot-shot Lasgun not be beholden to a rule that covers its parent weapon type?

I understand why people *want* the rules to be a certain way (and indeed, that might be what GW intended) but there seems to be a large amount of arbitrary inconsistency. Why is that?

DoW


Automatically Appended Next Post:

don_mondo wrote:Long time, sinc 2nd ed, IG player. And not just no, but hell no. I can'tbelieve that many actually voted yes.
As to why they changed the name, maybe because inquisitorial Storm Troopers still have hellguns, just maybe?

I should start a new poll: "Do you actually read the other posts in a thread or do you just reply straight away to the OP and repeat things other people have said 3 times already?"

Honestly, I'm all for people saying "I agree with X!" or "I disagree with X!" but come on.

DoW

DogOfWar wrote:

I hope that explains why Timmah is referencing this related issue. It would be difficult to argue that you can stand on one side of the fence for the Terminator debate, yet be on the other side for the FRFSRF debate. If you're using the same logic for both, it seems you would need to come to a consistent resolution.

This. Basically.


(ofc this is the internet so having differing opinions is fine because you don't need to be logical. )

DogOfWar some of what you say i agree with but not all.

Does a rule that negates the attack bonus for "Close Combat Weapons" also negate the attack bonus for paired "Special Close Combat Weapons"?

The rule in question is Dark Eldar Wych weapons." No member of a unit fighting the wyches in close combat count as being equipped with an additional Close Combat weapon." As It is never mention if this means "Normal Close Combat Weapons" or "Special Close Combat weapon", most people assume it means All Close Combat weapon (Wrongly or Rightly so)

Also if we take a step back and try to use it we find that it doesn't work perfectly. Hot shot Lasguns can't shoot 24". If this was a sloppy written rule intended for them to be able to use it would read "If the unit did not move in its Movement phase they fire two shots with their lasgun at an enemy at maximum range, instead of just one".

It would also have a line at the end reading "(note this includes Hotshot Lasguns)". This because GW 99% of time will make sure it gives you permission to do something they want you to do,

Tri wrote:DogOfWar some of what you say i agree with but not all.

Does a rule that negates the attack bonus for "Close Combat Weapons" also negate the attack bonus for paired "Special Close Combat Weapons"?

The rule in question is Dark Eldar Wych weapons." No member of a unit fighting the wyches in close combat count as being equipped with an additional Close Combat weapon." As It is never mention if this means "Normal Close Combat Weapons" or "Special Close Combat weapon", most people assume it means All Close Combat weapon (Wrongly or Rightly so)

Also if we take a step back and try to use it we find that it doesn't work perfectly. Hot shot Lasguns can't shoot 24". If this was a sloppy written rule intended for them to be able to use it would read "If the unit did not move in its Movement phase they fire two shots with their lasgun at an enemy at maximum range, instead of just one".

It would also have a line at the end reading "(note this includes Hotshot Lasguns)". This because GW 99% of time will make sure it gives you permission to do something they want you to do,

I think you're right.

Personally, the range issue is really the only thing I have a hard time reconciling. I know the rules generally say exactly what you CAN do - hunting for easter eggs is somewhat poor sportsmanship imo - but in this situation I think it's really is just a poor choice of wording by GW. I believe they intended for it only to affect the standard Lasgun but it has enough ambiguity to leave the door open. Had they written the rule as you described it, or even said "may fire their standard Lasguns..." we wouldn't be having this discussion.

On a related note, the argument that says "Heavy Bolters are not Bolters, so Hot-shot Lasguns are not Lasguns" is somewhat misleading as I don't think it is a good comparison. I think saying "Hellfire Bolters are not Bolters, so Hot-shot Lasguns are not Lasguns" is more accurate. I don't think many people would argue that if a rule says you may fire your Bolters three times, you wouldn't be able to fire Hellfire rounds 3 times. (Not sure if there are specific rules against this particular example, but at least I hope I'm getting my point across)

Anyway, as people have already mentioned, I really don't think it would be terribly gamebreaking either way. Stormies are super overpriced and I doubt you'd get too much benefit from FRFSRF anyway. It seems like more of a tactic for a blob of 30 guardsmen than 10 guys, even if they are BS4.

DoW

Tri wrote:DogOfWar some of what you say i agree with but not all.

Does a rule that negates the attack bonus for "Close Combat Weapons" also negate the attack bonus for paired "Special Close Combat Weapons"?

The rule in question is Dark Eldar Wych weapons." No member of a unit fighting the wyches in close combat count as being equipped with an additional Close Combat weapon." As It is never mention if this means "Normal Close Combat Weapons" or "Special Close Combat weapon", most people assume it means All Close Combat weapon (Wrongly or Rightly so)

Also if we take a step back and try to use it we find that it doesn't work perfectly. Hot shot Lasguns can't shoot 24". If this was a sloppy written rule intended for them to be able to use it would read "If the unit did not move in its Movement phase they fire two shots with their lasgun at an enemy at maximum range, instead of just one".

It would also have a line at the end reading "(note this includes Hotshot Lasguns)". This because GW 99% of time will make sure it gives you permission to do something they want you to do,

Yeah, that bit about the Hot shots not shooting 24" basically just restates what I said in earlier posts about range.

I agree with X!

sorry DoW.

Also, with regards to the 'under 12 inches' and 'up to 24 inches' that's still valid. The rule isn't saying that you can shoot your hotshot lasgun further than you normally can. It's telling you how many shots you get. At 24" the hotshots clearly get no shots, because they have an 18" range. firing from 18 inches, however, is still 'up to 24 inches', so they would fire twice. I don't see the problem.

The rule doesn't seem to be worded to exclude hotshot lasguns at all.

Plus, RaI, it makes sense that even though stormtroopers are elite and have been trained to fight differently than guardsmen, they still can fall back on their tried-and-true guardsman roots to fire a load of shots when needed.

Orkestra wrote:I agree with X!

sorry DoW.

Also, with regards to the 'under 12 inches' and 'up to 24 inches' that's still valid. The rule isn't saying that you can shoot your hotshot lasgun further than you normally can. It's telling you how many shots you get. At 24" the hotshots clearly get no shots, because they have an 18" range. firing from 18 inches, however, is still 'up to 24 inches', so they would fire twice. I don't see the problem.

The rule doesn't seem to be worded to exclude hotshot lasguns at all.

Plus, RaI, it makes sense that even though stormtroopers are elite and have been trained to fight differently than guardsmen, they still can fall back on their tried-and-true guardsman roots to fire a load of shots when needed.

You must be one of those 'smart' Orks... those are both excellent points.

I especially didn't even think about what it would mean for normal Lasguns if it didn't say "up to 24 inches" in the description. You would only be able to fire twice at targets who were exactly 24 inches away. Not 23, not 22... and 25 is right out.

As for your little 'X' comment... let's just say I'll be keeping an eye on troublemakers like you, my lad!

DoW

darn it... just when I thought I had a convincing solution, you go and blow it out of the water Orkestra! Now I am back to straddling the fence. I guess a roll-off will be what I fall back on until GW says anything more concrete than us arguing about it.

No, it's not the same as hellfire rounds. Hellfire round bolters are not separate weapons. Hotshot lasguns are. The situation is most similar to heavy bolters and normal bolters.

As I've said before, if you want to use your hot-shot lasguns with rules for lasguns, I expect them to follow the rest of the rules for lasguns too.

Ok if you don't want to use Heavy Bolters you want to use special ammo in your example. I will compare Storm-Bolters and Bolters. Storm-Bolters have the same range, strength and AP. The only difference is its Assault 2.

However you cannot use sternguard special ammo in a Storm-Bolter because it is not a bolter. It is a type of bolter in the same way a hot shot lasgun is a type of lasgun.

Yep, that example works for me. I think we're done here, unless someone is suggesting that we allow stormbolters to shoot sternguard ammo.

Pika_power wrote:Yep, that example works for me. I think we're done here, unless someone is suggesting that we allow stormbolters to shoot sternguard ammo.

Why not?

If it's the same weapon (albeit double-barreled and conveniently mounted) why shouldn't you be able to load it with different ammunition? If a rule specifically says that you cannot, then I agree. Otherwise that's like saying you can't load buckshot in your double-barreled shotgun because it is not a shotgun.

And in regards to the Bolters loaded with Hellfire rounds. You have a completely different statline for that ammunition. It is the same as Hot-shot Lasguns having a different statline for their ammunition. GW could just as easily said that Hot-shot Lasguns are just Lasguns with Hot-shot packs loaded into them for a different AP value. In fact, that is essentially what they are.

I might be getting too far into the 'logic' of all this, but it seems very fishy.

DoW

Its clear that you can. In the order lasgun is not capitalized, if it was it would be speaking of a specific thing but sense it's not RAW you are able to use any type of "Lasgun" you want.
(Basic Grammer.)

Easter Egg: The Hot Shot Lasgun in its listing calls itself a hellgun XD

DogOfWar wrote:

Pika_power wrote:Yep, that example works for me. I think we're done here, unless someone is suggesting that we allow stormbolters to shoot sternguard ammo.

Why not?

If it's the same weapon (albeit double-barreled and conveniently mounted) why shouldn't you be able to load it with different ammunition? If a rule specifically says that you cannot, then I agree. Otherwise that's like saying you can't load buckshot in your double-barreled shotgun because it is not a shotgun.

And in regards to the Bolters loaded with Hellfire rounds. You have a completely different statline for that ammunition. It is the same as Hot-shot Lasguns having a different statline for their ammunition. GW could just as easily said that Hot-shot Lasguns are just Lasguns with Hot-shot packs loaded into them for a different AP value. In fact, that is essentially what they are.

I might be getting too far into the 'logic' of all this, but it seems very fishy.

DoW

You can't use special ammo as an example because it is always a Boltgun firing, the gun doesn't change its name. StormBolters cannot be equiped with special ammo because they are not Bolters.

I'd like to say something about the hellfire bolter/hot-shot lasgun issue.

The argumentation that hot-shot lasgungs are just juiced-up normal lasguns and therefore are similar to normal bolter loaded with hellfire rounds is totally and completely fluff-based.

On the bolter side, you have a weapon A (the bolter) and an upgrade 2 (hellfire rounds), making this an A-2 weapons.

On the lasgun side, you have a weapon X (lasgun) and a weapon X (hot-shot lasgun). There's no upgrade. They don't merge into a new, single weapon because they are already separate weapons. You don't buy "hot-shot upgrades" for your stormtroopers, like you buy hellfire round upgrades for marines, do you.


Therefore I find this way of argumentation quite flawed and am on the side of people that say that hot-shot lasguns can't work with the FRFSRF order.

- - -

And if you want some more fluff-based arguments : Hot-shot lasguns use bigger and meaner power packs than normal lasguns, but in novels (for example by Dan Abnett) it is stated that this high-power ammunition quickly causes tear and wear on the barrell. Also, if something electrical like a laser (lasgun) is fired, I guess condensators and stuff are working somewhere in the rifle. If you want higher energy output, the capacitators will have to recharge longer, which reduces the RoF of a hot-shot lasgun compared to a normal lasgun.
Therefore, hot-shot lasguns fire too slow to benefit from FRFSRF.

Additional note: This fluff statement is solely for the fluff part of the discussion and not for the RAW discussion that should be the primary concern.

No, because FRFSRF is an evil, evil rule that no-one should have!!!! I don't care how guard are normally, they DON'T NEED THIS!!!