Switch Theme:

2 questions about IG heavy weapons teams  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




*Current meatspace coordinates redacted*

"And again, it does not give them the option to be armed with both weapons, does it? No."

Why should it matter? They come with a lasgun as a standard squad member. They already have it. Then they're given a heavy weapon. They're given the option of a heavy weapon. If you had to equip the lasgun in a similar fashion maybe. But you don't.

"You are given a choice to have a Heavy Weapon Team armed with one heavy weapon. You are not given a choice to have a Heavy Weapon Team amed with one heavy weapon AND two lasguns."

You're misrepresenting the RAW as well as being obstinate. Both Yak and Ed have patiently explained why you're mistaken and your only reply has been to repeat the same thing. I like a good YMDC dust up as much as the next guy, but repitition doesn't convince, nor does an inability to expand or further enhance your opening position. Sorry.

Cheers

He knows that I know and you know that he actually doesn't know the rules at all. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




In regards to the auto dealership - no, you don't, but that's because it's understood that you're replacing them. I'm not sure that there is such an understanding (or that such an understanding is valid where the RAW is concerned) in 40k.

There are plenty of other situations where the reverse is true. When I have socks on my feet, and decide to put shoes on my feet, I'm certainly not replacing the socks. I don't mentally add 'in addition to' either. If I've got the socks on, and I'm told that it's time to go, I simply say "hold on, let me put some shoes on". There's no 'in addition to' clause and there's no replacement.

Let's take another 40k example - Space Marines are armed with bolters.  One per squad can take one of a variety of weapons, and one can be armed with one selection from a different set of weapons. The squad may also take grenades. It seems to me that we're presented with 4 choices here.

"The rules give you the option to have a model armed with a heavy weapon. They do not state that you the option to add a model with a heavy weapon to what would normally be the unit's base weaponry"

Would you agree with this? Would you argue that a Marine squad may either take grenades, take a single model with a heavy weapon, take a single model with a special weapon, OR take nothing but bolters, but that they can't take multiple models with nonstandard weaponry, or grenades and a heavy weapon?

Additionally, do the grenades replace the bolters? That seems a pretty direct analogue of the Guard situation.
   
Made in au
Unstoppable Bloodthirster of Khorne





Melbourne .au

Not especially relevent to the RAW argument, but:

The sprues that come with the current IG HW plastics (Cadian & Catachan) come with 2 lasguns for the crew figures.
The new FW Tallarn HW guys have some lasguns for loaders, but not for the gunners.
Older metal ranges of HW figures feature lasguns for all loaders, and lasguns for some firers, generall Lascannon and Mortars (weapons where the "gunner" is a seperate piece to their weapon) while those gunners who are integral to theie weapons don't feature a lasgun (Missile Launchers, H Bolter/Autocannon on their little trolleys).

Unfortunately, this means that pointing towards the figures, even the current crop, is useless to the argument either way. I guess a 2-line faq entry in WD would be too hard...


   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

Posted by Gotchaye on 03/18/2006 2:34 AM
In regards to the auto dealership - no, you don't, but that's because it's understood that you're replacing them. I'm not sure that there is such an understanding (or that such an understanding is valid where the RAW is concerned) in 40k.

And as yakface has pointed out on numerous occasions, 40K is an inclusive rules set. If it dioesn't say that you can, then you can't. If it doesn't say that you're armed with something, then you're not. The rules give you the choice to form a heavy weapon team and that team must be armed with a heavy weapon. No mention of it being "in addition" to any other weaponry. Why should we make assumptions that they have any weapons other than what the rules specifically state that they're armed with?

Posted by Fenris-77 on 03/17/2006 10:09 PM
Why should it matter? They come with a lasgun as a standard squad member. They already have it. Then they're given a heavy weapon. They're given the option of a heavy weapon. If you had to equip the lasgun in a similar fashion maybe. But you don't.

Because they're no longer 'normal' squad members. You taken two Guardsmen and formed a Heavy Weapons Team. How must a Heavy Weapons Team be armed? With a heavy weapon. Where does it say that a Heavy weapon Team must be armed with a heavy weapon in addition to their lasguns?

Posted by Fenris-77 on 03/17/2006 10:09 PM
You're misrepresenting the RAW as well as being obstinate. Both Yak and Ed have patiently explained why you're mistaken and your only reply has been to repeat the same thing. I like a good YMDC dust up as much as the next guy, but repitition doesn't convince, nor does an inability to expand or further enhance your opening position. Sorry.

And so far none of the three of you have shown where it states anything other than the simple fact that a Heavy Weapon Team must be armed with a heavy weapon. Support your position instead of just saying "this is how it is".

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




And as yakface has pointed out on numerous occasions, 40K is an inclusive rules set. If it dioesn't say that you can, then you can't. If it doesn't say that you're armed with something, then you're not. The rules give you the choice to form a heavy weapon team and that team must be armed with a heavy weapon. No mention of it being "in addition" to any other weaponry. Why should we make assumptions that they have any weapons other than what the rules specifically state that they're armed with?


That strikes me as being a bit absurd. It does say that they're armed with lasguns. It also says that they're armed with Lascannons. You're saying that because it doesn't explicitly say that they are 'armed with lasguns and Lascannons', they're not.

However, horrible things start happening if we apply that reasoning to other aspects of the game. As I pointed out, Space Marines that take grenades ought to keep their bolters. Is it your opinion that, by the RAW, they don't? Likewise, Guardsmen can form heavy weapons teams, but the rules don't say that they can do this on Tuesdays. Why should we make assumptions that they have can take weapons on days other than the ones the rules specifically give allowance for?

As well, you've claimed that we can't apply logical operations to the rules. The rules say that they have lasguns and that they have Lascannons. You've said that we can't get from there to the statement "they have both".

I really don't see how your position allows troops with grenades to keep their normal weapons. At that point, I'm inclined to say that your entire interpretive structure is simply flawed, as we can come up with other, consistent structures that allow this to work.
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA


Ghaz, your argument is bordering on the ridiculous. There is absolutely no way you can form that into a premise/conclusion format and have it hold up under any sort of reason.

The Guardsmen in a unit are armed with Lasguns. Their basic profile says so. YOU MUST PROVE THAT ANYTHING ELSE specifically removes or replaces that Lasgun. You haven't done so in any form.


There is no more I can contribute to this discussion until you either: A) admit you're wrong or B) present your argument in the form of (at least) two premises and a conclusion.


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in us
Master of the Hunt





Angmar

Let me see if I can help out here.

Ghaz, as you are so fond of pointing out, 40k is a permissive rules set and you must be told that you can do something before you do it. You are absolutely correct.

Every Guardsman comes standardly equipped with a Lasgun per the unit entry. No where in the Heavy weapon upgrade are you told that you can remove their standardly equipped Lasguns. If you are not told to remove them, you cannot, therefore they must keep them.

Obviously you believe that the rule is telling you that you must remove the Lasgun. Most of us don't read it that way. In order to be allowed to remove the Lasgun, the rule must specifically tell you to "replace" or "remove" it, or include wording such as "instead of". None of these words or phrases appear, therefore we lack permission to remove the Lasgun.

"It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the seed of Arabica that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion."
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: