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.

So DeathReaper, you've been dodging these questions:
1). Where is the bolters permission to have 2 Types? Weapons are limited to one without expressed permission. Page number please.
2). If it has two Types, what rule allows you to choose which Type to use? In all cases of a weapon with two types (Psycannon for example) a rule has been added to the weapon allowing the choice. Where is the rule for the Bolter? Page number please.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
If you treat bolters as rapid fire are you treating them as salvo 2/4?

Yes, you are just not firing the Salvo profile.

So still no page number allowing a Bolter to have 2 types?
Because you need one to be an exception to a rule. You know - to create a conflict that would allow it to work?
Instead you're inventing a conflict in the rules. You have no rules support for your assertion. You've already conceded.

 DeathReaper wrote:


You are treating it as Salvo 2/4, The weapon is also Rapid Fire, as this is the base type and nothing takes this rule away from the weapon.

Yes it is true that are right that nothing does take away the rapid fire type from the bolter (BRB, pg. 52, subsection: rapid fire).

However, the weapon type of the bolter [rapid fire] is treated as another weapon type [salvo 2/4] (DA, pg. 66, subsection: standard of devastation).

Essentially, the rapid fire boltgun becomes a salvo 2/4 boltgun while models holding the boltgun are within range of the standard of devastation (DA, pg. 66, subsection: standard of devastation).

Salvo 2/4 is not added to the characteristics of the boltgun since it is what the rapid fire characteristic becomes (DA, pg. 66, subsection: standard of devastation)

I dont have the rule book, but the standard is (treated as, counts as = is). Therefore a bolter is Salvo 2/4. It would no longer be Rapid Fire

 grendel083 wrote:
So DeathReaper, you've been dodging these questions:
1). Where is the bolters permission to have 2 Types? Weapons are limited to one without expressed permission. Page number please.

DA book has the listing for the Bolters type. (Not sure what exact page, but it is on the reference sheet in the back of the DA book. It clearly lists bolters as the Rapid Fire type.

Got a page and graph that takes this type away?

2). If it has two Types, what rule allows you to choose which Type to use? In all cases of a weapon with two types (Psycannon for example) a rule has been added to the weapon allowing the choice. Where is the rule for the Bolter? Page number please.

Precedent set by Psycannons allows you to use either type when there are two types.

Either
1) The bolter can not fire at all since nothing gives permission to choose which type to fire and the game breaks as the banner makes bolters useless.
or
2) we follow precedent set by Psycannons which allows you to use either type when there are two types and the rules work just fine

#1 breaks the game and #2 does not, so #1 clearly can not be the correct interpretation.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Precedent set by Psycannons allows you to use either type when there are two types.

Precedent set by the Psycannon also shows that you must have a specific exception to a rule. Psycannons have that. Cite the page that states it for Bolters.

Either
1) The bolter can not fire at all since nothing gives permission to choose which type to fire and the game breaks as the banner makes bolters useless.
or
2) we follow precedent set by Psycannons which allows you to use either type when there are two types and the rules work just fine

#1 breaks the game and #2 does not, so #1 clearly can not be the correct interpretation.

#1 assumes that there are two types - there are not. Since your entire stance hinges on that unproven assumption, your assertion cannot be correct.

Have a page number yet? Why do you keep posting without one?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Precedent set by Psycannons allows you to use either type when there are two types.

Precedent set by the Psycannon also shows that you must have a specific exception to a rule. Psycannons have that. Cite the page that states it for Bolters.

Either
1) The bolter can not fire at all since nothing gives permission to choose which type to fire and the game breaks as the banner makes bolters useless.
or
2) we follow precedent set by Psycannons which allows you to use either type when there are two types and the rules work just fine

#1 breaks the game and #2 does not, so #1 clearly can not be the correct interpretation.

#1 assumes that there are two types - there are not. Since your entire stance hinges on that unproven assumption, your assertion cannot be correct.

Have a page number yet? Why do you keep posting without one?

The DA book, either second to last, or last page clearly lists the bolters Type which is Rapid Fire.

Do you have a page number yet that takes this type away? Why do you keep posting without one?

Bottom line is read this thread, and the lnked thread and decide with your gaming group how you are going to play it until (If) they FaQ it.

Discussed at length here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/514902.page

 DeathReaper wrote:

The DA book, either second to last, or last page clearly lists the bolters Type which is Rapid Fire.

Do you have a page number yet that takes this type away? Why do you keep posting without one?

I have. The Banner takes it away by saying that the weapons are Salvo.
Because you need permission to have two types. The Banner does not give this permission. You've utterly failed at providing any exception to the single type rule, relying on the Psycannon to save your argument.
Except it doesn't. It enforces the need for an explicit exemption. You've failed multiple times when asked to provide one. To me, that means you cannot provide one.
Meaning your argument has no basis in actual rules and you're making things up. Please don't do that.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Either
1) The bolter can not fire at all since nothing gives permission to choose which type to fire and the game breaks as the banner makes bolters useless.
or
2) we follow precedent set by Psycannons which allows you to use either type when there are two types and the rules work just fine

#1 breaks the game and #2 does not, so #1 clearly can not be the correct interpretation.

#3: Following precedent set by Psycannon wielded by terminators, you don't choose the type you are using (when under the banner).

 Kerrathyr wrote:
#3: Following precedent set by Psycannon wielded by terminators, you don't choose the type you are using (when under the banner).

Terminators have no bearing at all on the discussion. (Plus terminators have a rule that states they always use the heavy profile, the banner does not).


But OP read this thread, and the lnked thread and decide with your gaming group how you are going to play it until (If) they FaQ it.

Discussed at length here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/514902.page

That is such a cop out. You honestly haven't proven anything supporting your side of the debate and now you're just running away from the debate.

The specific answer and rules that allow you to ignore rapid fire for these weapons and "take it away" is the specific rule we are talking about. It wraps itself up in a neat little package without breaking any rules.

Because Deathreaper is a fan of semantic arguments...

If I'm playing magic the gathering and say to my opponent, "This Island I've marked with a dot using a sharpie counts as a mountain." He would rightly go banana's if I used it as both an island and a mountain.

Bolters "Count as" Salvo 2/4 when in range of the banner. Much like I can't tap that "Counts as" mountain for a blue mana, I can't fire those bolters as rapid fire, unless I moved out of range of the banner first (which is super easy to do, I recommend doing that, if you want your 24" range S4 shot)

 liturgies of blood wrote:
That is such a cop out. You honestly haven't proven anything supporting your side of the debate and now you're just running away from the debate.

This is not true at all.

The thread I linked has all of these discussions and more. It was thoroughly covered in that thread.

I have given rules support with page numbers and the other side does not accept this, so I linked the thread, as this has been covered there, and I feel your side will not ask for anything I have not provided, so I posted the link and advised the OP to talk about it with his gaming group.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have given rules support with page numbers

That's a lie or I missed a page reference.

Where is the exception for Bolters that matches the Psycannon example you keep touting?

 loreweaver wrote:
Because Deathreaper is a fan of semantic arguments...

If I'm playing magic the gathering and say to my opponent, "This Island I've marked with a dot using a sharpie counts as a mountain." He would rightly go banana's if I used it as both an island and a mountain.

Bolters "Count as" Salvo 2/4 when in range of the banner. Much like I can't tap that "Counts as" mountain for a blue mana, I can't fire those bolters as rapid fire, unless I moved out of range of the banner first (which is super easy to do, I recommend doing that, if you want your 24" range S4 shot)

Using magic as an example because its a game saying grapes and oranges are the same thing because they are both fruit... which is dumb, and so it the silly comment you made about deathreaper... how about you act like an adult and keep the punches above the belt.

Deathreaper, I've read all your arguments and the page numbers you cite in the previous thread do not lend credence to your position.

Fact is, you're straight up wrong and RaW is quite clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

 loreweaver wrote:
Because Deathreaper is a fan of semantic arguments...

If I'm playing magic the gathering and say to my opponent, "This Island I've marked with a dot using a sharpie counts as a mountain." He would rightly go banana's if I used it as both an island and a mountain.

Bolters "Count as" Salvo 2/4 when in range of the banner. Much like I can't tap that "Counts as" mountain for a blue mana, I can't fire those bolters as rapid fire, unless I moved out of range of the banner first (which is super easy to do, I recommend doing that, if you want your 24" range S4 shot)

Using magic as an example because its a game saying grapes and oranges are the same thing because they are both fruit... which is dumb, and so it the silly comment you made about deathreaper... how about you act like an adult and keep the punches above the belt.

Deathreaper used the dictionary to define the word "attack" in relation to Objuration Mechanicum's haywire hit, I'm using a similar style of argument here. It's completely relevant to show the usage of the English language in another context to describe its effect on a game system. Quite simply, "Treat as" or "Counts as" means that is what it is, it ceases it's original function and becomes what it is.

I would like to point out that saying weapons can't have more than 1 type is incorrect, as Blast is a "type" on top of Heavy, Rapid Fire, Assault, and so on. As are other things such as weapons that are assault 4 and haywire. Haywire is listed as a "type".

There is no haywire type, haywire is a special rule as is blast and ignores cover.

 Kevin949 wrote:
I would like to point out that saying weapons can't have more than 1 type is incorrect, as Blast is a "type" on top of Heavy, Rapid Fire, Assault, and so on. As are other things such as weapons that are assault 4 and haywire. Haywire is listed as a "type".

Special Rules (Blast, Haywire) are not Types (Rapid Fire, Salvo, Heavy, Assault)

Oh brother... Here we go with this topic again... The OP should be shot for not wading through the other 'thread of insanity'...

We've all made it as clear as possible. Whenever the obvious answer is presented our friend here finds the weakest comment to quote and attacks it in order to avoid the issue at hand.

Deathreaper, if you have one or more page numbers and paragraphs to cite, as I did previously, then post them and show the strength of your argument. If you don't , then give up this argument.

I have warp spider.

The last, or second to last page in the DA codex tells us that a bolter is of the Rapid Fire Type.

Nothing in the Banner rules say that Rapid Fire goes away.

There is nothing explicitly removing the Rapid Fire type.

 Kevin949 wrote:
I would like to point out that saying weapons can't have more than 1 type is incorrect,

This is correct weapons can have more than one type.

But as I said before this has all been covered in the other thread, so it does us no good to repeat it.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Nothing in the Banner rules say that Rapid Fire goes away.

Incorrect. Your refusal to accept reality doesn't mean that the rules don't say that.

There is nothing explicitly removing the Rapid Fire type.

You're asking for explicit removal but are satisfied with possibly implicit permission (if you read the rules wrong)?
Double Standards ahoy!

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Nothing in the Banner rules say that Rapid Fire goes away.

Incorrect. Your refusal to accept reality doesn't mean that the rules don't say that.

There is nothing explicitly removing the Rapid Fire type.

You're asking for explicit removal but are satisfied with possibly implicit permission (if you read the rules wrong)?
Double Standards ahoy!

Nope, there is nothing that says the banner makes the bolters only salvo2/4 which would be required to take away the Rapid Fire type.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Nothing in the Banner rules say that Rapid Fire goes away.

Incorrect. Your refusal to accept reality doesn't mean that the rules don't say that.

There is nothing explicitly removing the Rapid Fire type.

You're asking for explicit removal but are satisfied with possibly implicit permission (if you read the rules wrong)?
Double Standards ahoy!

Nope, there is nothing that says the banner makes the bolters only salvo2/4 which would be required to take away the Rapid Fire type.

Incorrect.
The Banner says that they are Salvo 2/4. It makes no allowances for any other Type.
For them to keep the Rapid Fire type (and therefore break the rule that says a weapon can only have one type) you'd need a rule to allow it.
One does not exist, or rather, you've failed to present one any time it's been asked for. Ever.

edit: But you'll go back to your double standard of essentially "It doesn't say I can't!"
Have fun with that. Just know that you have no rules basis for your argument.

Wowsa, didnt think this would set off such a gak storm. We ended up deciding that the bolters got only salvo and not both firing modes. I can understand both arguments, but oh well. Let's hope that the more occurances like these come up that GW will actually FAQ it. Thanks everyone.

rigeld2 wrote:
The Banner says that they are Salvo 2/4. It makes no allowances for any other Type.

It does not have to, as the base Type is Rapid Fire.

For them to keep the Rapid Fire type (and therefore break the rule that says a weapon can only have one type) you'd need a rule to allow it.
One does not exist, or rather, you've failed to present one any time it's been asked for. Ever.

It exists where the Banner does not say that it takes the Rapid Fire type away.

No rules say this, therefore the Type remains.

show where "treats as" means "treats as only". Page and paragraph.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The Banner says that they are Salvo 2/4. It makes no allowances for any other Type.

It does not have to, as the base Type is Rapid Fire.

For them to keep the Rapid Fire type (and therefore break the rule that says a weapon can only have one type) you'd need a rule to allow it.
One does not exist, or rather, you've failed to present one any time it's been asked for. Ever.

It exists where the Banner does not say that it takes the Rapid Fire type away.

No rules say this, therefore the Type remains.

show where "treats as" means "treats as only". Page and paragraph.

This rule exists on page 50:

TYPE
A shooting weapon always has one of the following types:
Assault, Heavy, Ordnance,Pistol, Rapid Fire or Salvo.

Do you agree that this says a shooting weapon will have a single type?

The banner says that a Bolter counts as Salvo 2/4. Agreed?
Do you agree that Salvo is a Type?
Do you agree that Rapid Fire is a Type?

Do you agree that to break a rule you must have another rule allowing that to happen? (IE - to move more than 6" you have to have a rule allowing you to do so)
How many Types does a Bolter Rapid Fire/Salvo 2/4 have?
How many Types does a Psycannon have?

 DeathReaper wrote:


show where "treats as" means "treats as only". Page and paragraph.

Show me where it says "treats as either rapid fire or salvo 2/4" rather than "treats as salvo 2/4".

If that specific RAW wording exists, then your argument works. If it doesn't, then it doesn't work.

It does not need to say treats as either rapid fire or salvo 2/4" as the base Type is Rapid Fire and it does not say Rapid Fire is removed.

Rig P. 50 does not say "treats as" means "treats as only".

You are creating a restrictive statement from an open one

You have taken a statement which is open (treat as) and stated it must be closed (treat as only) with no permission to do so.

Your method breaks Enfeeble and Impassable terrain, and mine breaks no rules either whereas I have absolute proof that yours does

Chariot Pilots are NOT in base to base. If they were in Base to Base they would lock the unit in close combat, and they do not do so. Oh look, they are BOTH in b2b AND not in b2b at the same time!

Context tells me to add this new profile, not to replace it.