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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Treated as Dangerous means it is difficult AND dangerous

Perhaps you should read the dangerous terrain rules. (Page 90)

I have, follow the rules for, and treated as are the same thing...

Right. Dangerous terrain does not mean that it is difficult and dangerous.
Dangerous terrain means that you follow the rules for difficult terrain and also do other stuff. Hence why I suggested you read the rules on page 90 - what you said isn't entirely correct.

Following the rules for difficult terrain means it is difficult terrain and dangerous terrain...

BRB Page 90 wrote:Dangerous terrain follows all the rules for difficult
terrain - you've got to watch your step! In addition, each
model must take a Dangerous Terrain test as soon as it
enters, leaves or moves within dangerous terrain.

No - it's Dangerous terrain. There's no such thing as "dangerous and difficult" (such a thing would be redundant).

See, that is the thing, it does not say to treat it as impassible, it actually is impassable terrain... that we are treating ad difficult with nothing taking away the impassible terrain.

Therefore it is Impassable and Difficult.

Citation required for something that is "treated as" something to also be something else. You've failed to show it every single time it's been asked. Literally every time.

You're using a Contemptor Dread to count as a normal dread in our game. I shoot at it with lasguns and wound on 3s, removing the model after one wound. You ask why, I say because I was treating it as a grot.

The citation is in the DA banner itself. The banner does not say Treats as only. Nor does it say that boltguns lose their original type.

Weapons can have two types, so that is not any restriction.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The citation is in the DA banner itself. The banner does not say Treats as only. Nor does it say that boltguns lose their original type.

Weapons can have two types, so that is not any restriction.

If I fire a weapon as Rapid Fire, am I treating the weapon as Salvo?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The citation is in the DA banner itself. The banner does not say Treats as only. Nor does it say that boltguns lose their original type.

Weapons can have two types, so that is not any restriction.

If I fire a weapon as Rapid Fire, am I treating the weapon as Salvo?

Yes, you are just not firing the Salvo type, you are firing the rapid fire type, as it has both types.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The citation is in the DA banner itself. The banner does not say Treats as only. Nor does it say that boltguns lose their original type.

Weapons can have two types, so that is not any restriction.

If I fire a weapon as Rapid Fire, am I treating the weapon as Salvo?

Yes, you are just not firing the Salvo type, you are firing the rapid fire type, as it has both types.

How are you treating the weapon as Salvo if you're not firing it as Salvo? Where is the permission to fire it as another type? You're told it has one type, not one in addition.

You are told it has one type (Rapid fire) and the banner says to treat it as Salvo. So Salvo is added to its type.

It gains the Salvo type as nothing says that the rapid fire type is removed.

Unless you have a quote that I missed that says that the weapon is no longer Rapid Fire.

The permission to fire it as Rapid Fire is in the shooting rules, as it is a Rapid Fire weapon and we are not told to remove that Type from the weapon.

Assuming you have two types...
What rule lets you pick between types?
Psycannon has unique rule allowing it, what rule does a Bolter use?

The rules for Rapid-Fire and Salvo are contradictory and therefore mutually exclusive. It is impossible for a weapon to be both simultaneously, as that will result in literal straight RaW contradictions, and it seems reasonable to assume that each weapon profile can only have a single weapon type, given that no clear duplicates exist and weapon types are contradictory in their rules.

It is not reasonable to assume that adding Salvo to Rapid-fire gives you a magical new ability to select which rule you'd like to use - and which to ignore - at any given time. You have no permission to ignore the rules for Salvo. You have implicit permission to override the rules for Rapid-fire with the rules for Salvo, given that they contradict and the Banner's effect is obviously modifying the weapon's profile.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You are told it has one type (Rapid fire) and the banner says to treat it as Salvo. So Salvo is added to its type.

It gains the Salvo type as nothing says that the rapid fire type is removed.

Unless you have a quote that I missed that says that the weapon is no longer Rapid Fire.

The permission to fire it as Rapid Fire is in the shooting rules, as it is a Rapid Fire weapon and we are not told to remove that Type from the weapon.

So instead of answering my question you just repeat your (incorrect) assumption that has no basis in actual rules.
Well done... ?

 grendel083 wrote:
Assuming you have two types...
What rule lets you pick between types?
Psycannon has unique rule allowing it, what rule does a Bolter use?

there are more than just the Psycannon.

The Splinter Cannon is Assault 4 or Heavy 6. (Well it was in the previous Eldar book as I think the new one just came out).

What allows you to choose?

The rule on page 12 that allow a unit to shoot and by virtue of the models in question having a Rapid Fire bolter, which is also Salvo, as per the banner.

Rig, you are incorrectly thinking that treats as means treats as only, which is of course not true.

Please show how "treats as" is synonymous with "must use this profile: salvo 2/4"

You have been asked to show, and have not done so.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The Splinter Cannon is Assault 4 or Heavy 6. (Well it was in the previous Eldar book as I think the new one just came out).

Dark Eldar codex, not Eldar. And the rules for the Cannon specifically give you permission to (except for vehicles).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Assuming you have two types...
What rule lets you pick between types?
Psycannon has unique rule allowing it, what rule does a Bolter use?

there are more than just the Psycannon.

The Splinter Cannon is Assault 4 or Heavy 6. (Well it was in the previous Eldar book as I think the new one just came out).

What allows you to choose?

The rule on page 12 that allow a unit to shoot and by virtue of the models in question having a Rapid Fire bolter, which is also Salvo, as per the banner.

That page allows you to shoot.
But there is no rule that allows you to choose which type a weapon can be fired with.
As mention Psycannons have a unique rule. I'm unfamiliar with Dark Eldar, I assume the Splinter cannon does also?

I actually have.
Treats as must equal counts as which must equal is. Agreed?

If the Bolter is Salvo 2/4, why are you attempting to shoot it as Rapid Fire?

The Banner does not say "in addition to" it says "treats as". Which means it replaces.

Page 51 says that a weapon with multiple types will have multiple lines in its profile. Please, show me this new profile you're asserting exists. I'm sure you can since you're asserting the ability to choose which one to use.

So either you can not shoot at all whilst within the banners radius, or you have to choose your weapon type before firing the bolter.

The former breaks the banner, so the logical conclusion is the latter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
I actually have.
Treats as must equal counts as which must equal is. Agreed?

If the Bolter is Salvo 2/4, why are you attempting to shoot it as Rapid Fire?

The Banner does not say "in addition to" it says "treats as". Which means it replaces.

Page 51 says that a weapon with multiple types will have multiple lines in its profile. Please, show me this new profile you're asserting exists. I'm sure you can since you're asserting the ability to choose which one to use.

Treats as does not mean replaces.

Treats as means is (Which a weapon can be two types), not instead of or replaces.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So either you can not shoot at all whilst within the banners radius, or you have to choose your weapon type before firing the bolter.

The former breaks the banner, so the logical conclusion is the latter.

That's a lie. I'd say its simply incorrect, but you've been corrected enough that it must be deliberate now.
Between this and your other thread you're simply trolling now.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So either you can not shoot at all whilst within the banners radius, or you have to choose your weapon type before firing the bolter.

The former breaks the banner, so the logical conclusion is the latter.

That's a lie. I'd say its simply incorrect, but you've been corrected enough that it must be deliberate now.
Between this and your other thread you're simply trolling now.

What part was a lie exactly?

Please do not attribute malice when there is none.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So either you can not shoot at all whilst within the banners radius, or you have to choose your weapon type before firing the bolter.

The former breaks the banner, so the logical conclusion is the latter.

OR when it says treat it as Salvo, you treat it as Salvo, and not a broken Rapid Fire/Salvo hybrid.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Please show how "treats as" is synonymous with "must use this profile: salvo 2/4"

Sure. Salvo and Rapid-fire are mutually exclusive weapon types. We're told to use Salvo. This is a rules conflict. Therefore, the new and more specific rule takes precedent. There's no reason to think you get a choice. Where is this choice coming from? It's not in the rules anywhere. Your supposed citation certainly didn't include it.

We are told to treat it as salvo, we are never "told to use Salvo" Please understand the difference.

They do not say we must use it as a salvo weapon, they simply add a type to the weapon.

The permission to shoot comes from the shooting rules.

I will quote "Any model that is found to be in range of at least one visible enemy model in the target unit can fire." (13)

"WHO CAN SHOOT:
Certain situations prevent a model from firing. The most common are;
. Their unit is locked in close combat with the foe.
. Their unit is running (see page l4).
This is not a comprehensive list. Other garne rules or special rules can sometimes affect a unit's ability to shoot - this is explained thoroughly when it occurs."(12)

Does the banner have anything that "affect[s] a unit's ability to shoot"? If so is it "explained thoroughly when it occurs"?

If not then you can shoot.

Rigeld - by the same token as another thread, the rule does not say "treat as ONLY" Salvo, meaning it is not saying it is *exclusively* salvo.

So to turn it around - where is the rule requiring that you "treat as ONLY" salvo? Please cite page and paragraph.

Secondly - treat as is not the same as use as. That has no rules reference you can find.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - by the same token as another thread, the rule does not say "treat as ONLY" Salvo, meaning it is not saying it is *exclusively* salvo.

So to turn it around - where is the rule requiring that you "treat as ONLY" salvo? Please cite page and paragraph.

Secondly - treat as is not the same as use as. That has no rules reference you can find.

Please cite where the rules distinguish treat as and use as. Page is fine I can find the paragraph.

Please find the rule definition of treat as and use as first. Page and graph

Otherwise we fall back on English. In English the two are different

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Please find the rule definition of treat as and use as first. Page and graph

Otherwise we fall back on English. In English the two are different

Please prove that assertion.

Burden is on you, currently. Or are you stating there is no rules definition for Treat as and Use as?

Once you have provided your proof we can move on, or once you have conceded there is no rules basis we can move on. YOu have to do something first

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Burden is on you, currently. Or are you stating there is no rules definition for Treat as and Use as?

Once you have provided your proof we can move on, or once you have conceded there is no rules basis we can move on. YOu have to do something first

I made no assertion as to the presence of a rules definition.

You made the assertion that in English the two are different, prove your assertion.

Go find a dictionary, and do some work yourself.

I dont feel the need to prove trivialities to you.

I have a dictionary and as the crux of your argument it is not a triviality, it is quite possible you are mistaken as to the equivalence of these phrases in this context.

Are you simply leaving your claim of difference as a bald, unsupported assertion based on your personal interpretation of English?

It is trivial that "use as" and "treat as" have different meanings in this context.

Are you stating you are unable to challenge this assertion, or you are unwilling to? So far you have not added to this thread any rules or new arguments, just made demands.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is trivial that "use as" and "treat as" have different meanings in this context.

Are you stating you are unable to challenge this assertion, or you are unwilling to? So far you have not added to this thread any rules or new arguments, just made demands.

There is no requirement form me to challenge this assertion, you have to support assertions that you have made. However I will provide a definition for you. My demands have simply been for you to support your burden of proof. A reasonable request.

Treat as: regard something as being of a specified nature with implications for one's actions concerning it

Use: Take hold or deploy something as a means of accomplishing or achieving something

From those definitions, which are the most applicable I could find in the OED, as use as is not defined, I fail to see how you make a relevant distinction in this context.

Treat as, the words used, is clear and unambiguous and in conflict with your claim.

Use as, in this context would also appear to be synonymous, and also irrelevant as it is not the phraseology used.

There is a requirement for you to posit an actual arugment, however, rather than simply make demands. Otherwise there is no debate. One is wearing, the other isnt.

It isnt irrelevant - the claim is that in order to "treat [something] as" Salvo means you must "use [something] as" salvo, otherwise you have not complied with the rule to "treat as" salvo.

The point is that Treat as and Use as are NOT synonymous here - treating only has implications, not requirements, as your quote shows. So if you are Salvo & Rapid fire, as "treat as" is not an explicit replacement of one type with the other, and still fire as rapid fire, you have not broken the rule/